I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Ross]

On 5/16/2017 at 3:55 PM, cspwal said:

I wonder if you could make a train network that takes advantage of that.  In the traditional commuter model of suburbs -> downtown, you get a bunch of trains into the downtown station, and then they sit until afternoon rush.  With all the work centers spread out, you could conceivably have the trains go from suburb -> work center -> work center -> suburb

That's not how trains work. There's no way to store all of the trains in the central location - there's no room. If you have a 17 platform station, you can store 17 trains, that's it. So, those trains head back out to the other end of the line, pick up more passengers, then come back to town. Any storage of trains happens on sidings in the suburbs. It's more likely that rush hour is handled by increasing the frequency of trains, plus adding a few trains for the peaks.

[samagon]

On 5/21/2017 at 8:45 AM, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

trains don't work in low density areas, especially in a place like Houston where people live 8 directions from downtown and work in 6 areas spread away from downtown.

It's been said here before, and it's getting said again.

 

if you take everyone in the world an put them all in the same spot, if the population density is the same as NYC, they will all fit within the borders of Texas.
If you take everyone in the world an put them in the same spot with the same density as Houston, , it takes all the land west of the Appalachians to fit everyone.

 

Was LA as dense as NYC (since that's the yardstick) when they started their light rail system in 1990?

 

How about San Diego? Were they as dense as NYC in 1980 when they started building their system?

 

Maybe Portland? They started their system in 2000. Was Portland circa 2000 as dense as NYC today?

 

Heck, were any of these places as dense as Manhattan was in the 1870s when the first elevated rail lines were put in?

Edited May 22, 2017 by samagon

[Houston19514]

On 5/21/2017 at 8:45 AM, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

trains don't work in low density areas, especially in a place like Houston where people live 8 directions from downtown and work in 6 areas spread away from downtown.

It's been said here before, and it's getting said again.

 

if you take everyone in the world an put them all in the same spot, if the population density is the same as NYC, they will all fit within the borders of Texas.
If you take everyone in the world an put them in the same spot with the same density as Houston, , it takes all the land west of the Appalachians to fit everyone.

 

Before it gets said again, maybe someone should do some fact-checking. At Houston's density, it would not  take all the land west of the Appalachians to fit the world's population.  West of the Mississippi would be a lot closer, but it doesn't even fill all of that space (and that's excluding Alaska and Hawaii).

[ADCS]

On 5/21/2017 at 8:45 AM, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

trains don't work in low density areas, especially in a place like Houston where people live 8 directions from downtown and work in 6 areas spread away from downtown.

It's been said here before, and it's getting said again.

 

if you take everyone in the world an put them all in the same spot, if the population density is the same as NYC, they will all fit within the borders of Texas.
If you take everyone in the world an put them in the same spot with the same density as Houston, , it takes all the land west of the Appalachians to fit everyone.

 

Rail actually works quite well in multicentric municipalities. Tokyo and London are two that come to mind. The key is to have plenty of lines that connect nodes outside the historic city center. Our freeway system is essentially designed with this in mind, so the corridors are there.

 

The difficult part is having the infrastructure in place to connect you to the rail stations. You would have to drastically rework the Metro system to prioritize bus service that carries people to the rail stations, and that is quite the political fight to be had.

[dixiedean]

Purple City Plan https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9Ygq5Ilh865b09XMWQyLWc0M2s/view

[Ross]

On 5/22/2017 at 11:27 AM, ADCS said:

 

Rail actually works quite well in multicentric municipalities. Tokyo and London are two that come to mind. The key is to have plenty of lines that connect nodes outside the historic city center. Our freeway system is essentially designed with this in mind, so the corridors are there.

 

The difficult part is having the infrastructure in place to connect you to the rail stations. You would have to drastically rework the Metro system to prioritize bus service that carries people to the rail stations, and that is quite the political fight to be had.

Rail in London works great if you want to go from somewhere in the suburbs to central London. If you need to go across suburbs, then it's nearly impossible. Until Crossrail opens, there's no easy way to get across London on rail either. London banned construction of surface rail and stations in 1846.

[samagon]

While it has really high ridership numbers, London's subway isn't what I would call a terrific example of efficient mass transit. It is by far the oldest subway system, to provide some perspective they have subway lines that were constructed when Lincoln was still president of the USA. It's like the first smartphone. Windows Mobile, Symbian, Blackberry, they all hold a distinction of being smartphones before Apple introduced the iPhone, but we can all agree that you'd not want to use any of those smartphones as examples of what an efficient, or well built smartphone is. So how about more modern systems that learned from the mistakes made in the past by places like London?

 

Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, etc.

 

Honestly, I think any city is unique, and while you can use previous systems as thought models for the basis of a system in Houston, if you just took an overlay of their system and splatted it in Houston, any system from anywhere would be a horrible system if implemented here.

[ADCS]

Houston's arranged like a giant spider's web, with nodes that developed at the intersection of transportation corridors (primarily the freeway system). To produce an effective rapid transit structure, what's primarily important is connecting those nodes (with commuter rail/bus). Once you're at those nodes, lower-intensity forms of transit like buses, light rail, full subways, or cars at park-and-rides (where densest) can take you through that "last mile".

 

It's better to think of Houston as a region of interconnected cities (Downtown, Uptown/Greenway, Medical Center, Westchase, Energy Corridor, Willowbrook, The Woodlands, Sugar Land, Kingwood/Humble etc), rather than a single city itself. Each one of these "cities" have their own transportation flows that nevertheless interact with one another. The trick is trusting these "cities" to handle their local flows while coordinating the regional flow, something that Metro has struggled with in the past.

[MaxConcrete]

I just posted my updated analysis of the project using the May 2017 schematics.

 

http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis

 

I still have 12 concerns, varying from minor issues to larger concerns which could impact operations. While TxDOT made numerous improvements in the latest schematics, some of my concerns are unchanged since the last version, so  prospects for fixing the issues may not be good.

Edited May 26, 2017 by MaxConcrete

[samagon]

I'm not sure how the Fannin exit is so crucial.

 

I'd submit that an equal portion of people exiting Fannin currently are wanting to get to midtown, or the east side of Montrose as there are to go south.

 

Keeping the exit on Fannin means that people wanting to get to Midtown/Montrose will have to do what they currently do, drive south, turn left onto Wentworth and left again onto San Jacinto.

 

Making the exit on Almeda allows Midtown access via Crawford and Austin directly, or you can use Cleburn to get to San Jacinto. All better options than Fannin exit.

 

If you're wanting to go south, Almeda is a better option than Fannin anyway.

 

As far as people from 45 that want to end up in Midtown and there being no way to get to the Almeda exit, there is an exit from the 45 spur that puts drivers directly on Bagby (or Jefferson) to get to their Midtown destinations, and a far better option than taking the freeway all the way around the city and exiting Fannin which is one way south so drivers have to go a few blocks south to try and get on a street that goes north.

 

There's far fewer people that are affected negatively by no Fannin exit than there are people who can't get from Houston Avenue and Memorial Drive onto 45 south. Currently there's always traffic turning from Memorial onto the entrance ramp for 45 south, and if there's an additional ramp that's needed, it's here. Add a ramp to get people directly from Memorial onto the spur.

 

The alternative I guess is that there are going to be a lot of people trying to get from memorial over to Allen Parkway to that single lane entrance off of Allen Parkway.

[MaxConcrete]

On 5/26/2017 at 9:13 AM, samagon said:

I'm not sure how the Fannin exit is so crucial.

 

I admit that I'm somewhat biased because I lived on Roseland Street (near (Richmond @ Montrose) once upon a time, and I'm thinking in terms of people who live west and south of Midtown. The San Jacinto on-ramp and Fannin off-ramp are the access points for a large area to the south and west, and population is increasing due to the large apartment buildings being built. But yes, your point that there are plenty of alternate options for people in east and north Midtown is valid.

In terms of people making the weave from the 45-northbound-to-69-southbound ramp to the Almeda exit, I'm speaking in terms of northbound traffic on Interstate 45. The 45 downtown Spur is not a reasonable option for those folks.

[Danny1022]

Idk.. I'm sick of this and I know I was convinced that trains and subways don't work.. 

If you make it like Paris, Mexico city London or Tokyo or places like that. And since Houston has so many businesses districts then trains should be like freeways.

Some from suburbs to downtown and some Of them could work as loops around the city.

The disadvantage is. Too many people use cars.. And it would take a while for people to start using the train, that's a possible reason why nobody wants to build a subway or metro or light rail or however you call it system.. besides it would take so much money to build so many lanes to make it an extensive train system as big as the London underground or the Paris metro. Also.  The metro buses aren't so popular because they don't go far in the suburbs. And they're expensive (1.25 for local trips and 4 for park and ride zone 4) and cos you may take the bus to go to work yes, but the nearest stores and shops and everything is really far for most people (my nearest Wal-Mart is 2 miles away, the nearest small shop is 1 mile away, id be willing to walk that far but most people wouldn't so what's the solution? Yes. A car, but that can't be changed because it's not Mexico, it's not new York it's not Europe. Meaning everything is far) so since they've a car they must think what's the point of taking a subway or a bus if I've a car.

That is what makes it impossible to build a subway system

 

So what's a great solution to build trains 

Build one on the busiest route. Or the 2 busiest routes, then after they get congested then build another lane on another route (as long as they get connected with othersubway lanes at at least one station so people can change trains easily instead of walking a lot)

 

I'll stop talking 

By the way I still oppose the project and I still support the pierce elevated and nothing will make me change my mind. Ever. 

 

Thank you for not reading.

Bye

[DNAguy]

My take:

 

1.) SB 45 connector does not need 3 lanes past the midtown / Bagby exit. It would seem highly unlikely that there is enough traffic demand for east / west downtown south downtown / upper midtown lanes coming from I10 or 45.

2.) The McKinney to Lamar St road along bayou not needed. Downtown street grid is sufficient. Plus it will add more area to the park and allow for almost unmolested access from the hike/bike bayou trail to City Hall, Sam Houston Park, and the Public Library.

3.) The eastbound Allen Prkway to NB connector cloverleaf on-ramp needs to go. The demand for this direct ramp do no support the real-estate it takes up. Considering that it would take ~ 5 more minutes to require folks to take two lefts (Dallas @ Bagby and Bagby @ Walker), I can't see how tying up real-estate that could be sold to a developer for a skyscraper makes sense.  I would say that a compromise might be that a direct connector from Westbound W. Dallas St to the NB connector lanes. This would add another outlet for western downtown traffic and the folks on Allen Parkway would then just turn right at Clay / W Dallas. It would take some land acquisition from the parking lot, but also

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by DNAguy

[tigereye]

On 5/30/2017 at 1:32 PM, Danny1022 said:

Idk.. I'm sick of this and I know I was convinced that trains and subways don't work.. 

If you make it like Paris, Mexico city London or Tokyo or places like that. And since Houston has so many businesses districts then trains should be like freeways.

Some from suburbs to downtown and some Of them could work as loops around the city.

The disadvantage is. Too many people use cars.. And it would take a while for people to start using the train, that's a possible reason why nobody wants to build a subway or metro or light rail or however you call it system.. besides it would take so much money to build so many lanes to make it an extensive train system as big as the London underground or the Paris metro. Also.  The metro buses aren't so popular because they don't go far in the suburbs. And they're expensive (1.25 for local trips and 4 for park and ride zone 4) and cos you may take the bus to go to work yes, but the nearest stores and shops and everything is really far for most people (my nearest Wal-Mart is 2 miles away, the nearest small shop is 1 mile away, id be willing to walk that far but most people wouldn't so what's the solution? Yes. A car, but that can't be changed because it's not Mexico, it's not new York it's not Europe. Meaning everything is far) so since they've a car they must think what's the point of taking a subway or a bus if I've a car.

That is what makes it impossible to build a subway system

 

So what's a great solution to build trains 

Build one on the busiest route. Or the 2 busiest routes, then after they get congested then build another lane on another route (as long as they get connected with othersubway lanes at at least one station so people can change trains easily instead of walking a lot)

 

I'll stop talking 

By the way I still oppose the project and I still support the pierce elevated and nothing will make me change my mind. Ever. 

 

Thank you for not reading.

Bye

 

You know what I'm sick of? This "We need the freeway lanes" argument.

 

How many DECADES has this city spewed the same tired rhetoric, over and over and over? How many homes were lost along Katy Freeway all because "We need the lanes?" Just how many lanes does this city need to build to service our commuters? At what point do citizens and city leadership realize that we need to seriously rethink our commuting solutions?

 

We don't need the lanes. What we need is an effective mass transportation system that can serve and positively effect travel times. It doesn't have to be a subway. It can be an elevated line. Or Commuter Rail lines to replace Park & Ride busses that get stuck in the same traffic commuters are trying to avoid. The point is, give commuters options and they will take them, removing cars off the very freeways you claim you need more lanes. 

 

As for Pierce Elevated: I applaud the folks pushing the SkyPark and I hope it becomes a reality.

[Danny1022]

1 hour ago, tigereye said:

 

You know what I'm sick of? This "We need the freeway lanes" argument.

 

How many DECADES has this city spewed the same tired rhetoric, over and over and over? How many homes were lost along Katy Freeway all because "We need the lanes?" Just how many lanes does this city need to build to service our commuters? At what point do citizens and city leadership realize that we need to seriously rethink our commuting solutions?

 

We don't need the lanes. What we need is an effective mass transportation system that can serve and positively effect travel times. It doesn't have to be a subway. It can be an elevated line. Or Commuter Rail lines to replace Park & Ride busses that get stuck in the same traffic commuters are trying to avoid. The point is, give commuters options and they will take them, removing cars off the very freeways you claim you need more lanes. 

 

As for Pierce Elevated: I applaud the folks pushing the SkyPark and I hope it becomes a reality.

Ehh.. I wasn't talking about freeway lanes. Sorry i didn't specify

I was talking about train lanes like subway lanes, like they have in other cities blue lane, red lane, that kind of stuff.. I'm sorry for not specifying well. cos I didn't explain well. Like build one or 2 subway/metro/underground/over ground (whatever you call it) lane, let's say the blue and red lane with one station that connects both lanes so people can transfer trains, then when they get more crowded and if they work then build another one that intersects both lanes lets say purple lane and keep doing it like that.

 

By the way I don't support the i-45 rerouting at all, i just... I'm sorry for liking highway engineering... And being really bad at public transportation... I'm sorry.

I don't know how the hell I can explain better. But im sickof explaining everything and then everyone misunderstands and comments only in the bad stuff and I'm sick of creating alternatives for the project and no one bothers to look at them and stuff...

Sorry.

 

I'm sorry....

[samagon]

8 hours ago, tigereye said:

As for Pierce Elevated: I applaud the folks pushing the SkyPark and I hope it becomes a reality.

 

I agree with everything else you said.

 

Someone said they had mentioned it to txdot and txdot said that they need to recuperate some of the costs by selling the land. Do they need to sell all of it though?

 

I would like to see this happen, but as I'm sure you know, the freeway cover parks for the east side of downtown, and other locations are NOT paid for as part of the freeway realignment, that money has to come from elsewhere.

 

So with that in mind, one caveat I would have would be all of the freeway cover parks be paid for first, then we pay for this.

[ADCS]

54 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

I agree with everything else you said.

 

Someone said they had mentioned it to txdot and txdot said that they need to recuperate some of the costs by selling the land. Do they need to sell all of it though?

 

I would like to see this happen, but as I'm sure you know, the freeway cover parks for the east side of downtown, and other locations are NOT paid for as part of the freeway realignment, that money has to come from elsewhere.

 

So with that in mind, one caveat I would have would be all of the freeway cover parks be paid for first, then we pay for this.

 

Agreed. I'd be fine with a portion of the SkyPark plan if the caps were fully funded. They are not, so I'm opposed.

[tigereye]

9 hours ago, Danny1022 said:

Ehh.. I wasn't talking about freeway lanes. Sorry i didn't specify

I was talking about train lanes like subway lanes, like they have in other cities blue lane, red lane, that kind of stuff.. I'm sorry for not specifying well. cos I didn't explain well. Like build one or 2 subway/metro/underground/over ground (whatever you call it) lane, let's say the blue and red lane with one station that connects both lanes so people can transfer trains, then when they get more crowded and if they work then build another one that intersects both lanes lets say purple lane and keep doing it like that.

 

By the way I don't support the i-45 rerouting at all, i just... I'm sorry for liking highway engineering... And being really bad at public transportation... I'm sorry.

I don't know how the hell I can explain better. But im sickof explaining everything and then everyone misunderstands and comments only in the bad stuff and I'm sick of creating alternatives for the project and no one bothers to look at them and stuff...

Sorry.

 

I'm sorry....

 

You should also apologize for favoriting highway engineering over connecting urban neighborhoods in our city and the potential benefits that could bring. 

[tigereye]

3 hours ago, samagon said:

 

I agree with everything else you said.

 

Someone said they had mentioned it to txdot and txdot said that they need to recuperate some of the costs by selling the land. Do they need to sell all of it though?

 

I would like to see this happen, but as I'm sure you know, the freeway cover parks for the east side of downtown, and other locations are NOT paid for as part of the freeway realignment, that money has to come from elsewhere.

 

So with that in mind, one caveat I would have would be all of the freeway cover parks be paid for first, then we pay for this.

 

I agree. The deck parks should be funded first and cant be sacrificed for this, especially if the options for Pierce are SkyPark or demolition.

 

With either Pierce option, a barrier between neighborhoods is still being removed. And with the deck parks, we have an amazing opportunity to reconnect a few urban neighborhoods with our central city core, despite a chunk of the East End being lost in the process (the only drawback IMO). Not many cities are afforded this opportunity and we should look to capitalize on this moment to improve our city to the fullest extent. 

 

The dream scenario would would be to fund the deck parks and a Pierce Elevated Skyline Park. 

Edited June 9, 2017 by tigereye

[Danny1022]

5 hours ago, tigereye said:

 

You should also apologize for favoriting highway engineering over connecting urban neighborhoods in our city and the potential benefits that could bring. 

..... I wish bad words were appropriate.....

At least you should have been nice... about me trying to apologise. So i take my apology back...

 

When I look under an elevated highway I just see the highway above and I'm thankful that it's above ground so i can go to th other side, but you guus... when you look at one all to seem to see is Idk. Some type of Berlin wall and a landmine between the wall.... oridk...

 

But... if I should stop favouring highway engineering... i shouod give up my damn stupid future cos unwanted to focus on highways and trains and that crap that everyone hates.... at least i I haven't started any college or university cos it'd be a waste of money if I had already started it...

 

Also.. why are you saying the pierce elevated is a barrier if the sky park isn't a barrier, the damn structure is still there... I don't understand humans anymore..(look below) since what seems to be a barrier is the cars not the highway menaing, even if the highway is below ground it's still a barrier cos it's not about the structure, it's about the damn cars... this makes me be against the project more and more..

5 hours ago, tigereye said:

 

I agree. The deck parks should be funded first and cant be sacrificed for this, especially if the options for Pierce are SkyPark or demolition.

 

With either Pierce option, a barrier between neighborhoods is still being removed. And with the deck parks, we have an amazing opportunity to reconnect a few urban neighborhoods with our central city core, despite a chunk of the East End being lost in the process (the only drawback IMO). Not many cities are afforded this opportunity and we should look to capitalize on this moment to improve our city to the fullest extent. 

And i take my apology back and I'm not apologizing anymore...

[tigereye]

On 6/9/2017 at 4:30 PM, Danny1022 said:

..... I wish bad words were appropriate.....

At least you should have been nice... about me trying to apologise. So i take my apology back...

 

When I look under an elevated highway I just see the highway above and I'm thankful that it's above ground so i can go to th other side, but you guus... when you look at one all to seem to see is Idk. Some type of Berlin wall and a landmine between the wall.... oridk...

 

But... if I should stop favouring highway engineering... i shouod give up my damn stupid future cos unwanted to focus on highways and trains and that crap that everyone hates.... at least i I haven't started any college or university cos it'd be a waste of money if I had already started it...

 

Also.. why are you saying the pierce elevated is a barrier if the sky park isn't a barrier, the damn structure is still there... I don't understand humans anymore..(look below) since what seems to be a barrier is the cars not the highway menaing, even if the highway is below ground it's still a barrier cos it's not about the structure, it's about the damn cars... this makes me be against the project more and more..

And i take my apology back and I'm not apologizing anymore...

 

It's not just about the structure. It's also about the use of the structure. 

 

*If* the SkyPark becomes reality, the concrete overpass becomes less of a psychological barrier simply by removing vehicular traffic in favor of a park, a destination. Millions of cars replaced by potentially millions of park visitors, establishing a new landscape that the rest of the urban core to flourish around.

[kennyc05]

I think they should build a convention center hotel over the freeway on the convention center side.

[Danny1022]

9 hours ago, tigereye said:

 

It's not just about the structure. It's also about the use of the structure. 

 

*If* the SkyPark becomes reality, the concrete overpass becomes less of a psychological barrier simply by removing vehicular traffic in favor of a park, a destination. Millions of cars replaced by potentially millions of park visitors, establishing a new landscape that the rest of the urban core to flourish around.

Meaning burying the highway isn't beneficial because the use of the tunnel is for cars to go through it. If the tunnel were a park then it would be fine.?

 

All of these 1.5 years I thought that it was about the damn structure, meaning okay it's there stop complaining you probably moved there after it was built, deal with the damn thing every neighbourhood has issues.

 

If cars are the issue, why are elevated highways the only highways on which people put all of their hate.

Why not put your hate in at grade highways and tunnels too, if the cars are the problem. Why only elevated highways.?

For example tunnels. They're damn hell cos I just get so nervous when I'm on one. Theyre ugly inside and the sound is bad and i just hate spaces thst are closed in like that, but just for thst i wont ask to destroy a tunnel.

Elevated highways... I don't see anything wrong with them except that... they don't make them look nice below. If they would at least paint them and make them look nice instead of leaving them like that after construction is finished...

 

Psychological barrier is just one excuse to complain about it it's not really there.. reminds me of those people who want the airports to be removed because a plane goes over your house.

 

The noise isn't an issue at least for me even though my ears are sensitive to noise. So that  shouldn't bother people who have normal ears. How else can you justify that elevated highways are a barrier and how can you justify that card are what makes them a barrier.

Explain cos i won't change my mind unless there's a reasonable explanation. And no parks isn't one cos we have plenty of public parks, we just need small neighbourhood parks in some neighbourhoods that don't have them.

Just saying.

 

Edit: And you should have said thousands cos there are led than 300k vehicles per year on that highway, and there's no way that millions of people will visit that park, even NASA doesn't get a million visitors per year. How will a lame park get millions of visitprs per year I guess thousands may be more accurate. Maybe ten thousands but yeah. I mean.. just saying.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Danny1022

[tigereye]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 7:57 PM, Danny1022 said:

.

Explain cos i won't change my mind unless there's a reasonable explanation.

 

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 1:32 PM, Danny1022 said:

 

By the way I still oppose the project and I still support the pierce elevated and nothing will make me change my mind. Ever. 

 

 

Why waste my time in explaining when you've previously stated nothing will make you change your mind.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

[Danny1022]

7 hours ago, tigereye said:

 

Why waste my time in explaining when you've previously stated nothing will make you change your mind.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Thank you.. I only apologise for talking harsh. That's all.

[Danny1022]

So.. here's something that i think some people including me would totally like.. except txdot and many public-transport-phobic people.. meaning It probably won't happen in the next 1000 years

Subway system for Houston(similar to new York subway. Paris metro, Mexico city metro, London underground or Berlin sbahn). Not all areas are covered but.. I made it. and i don't know if it's good for others but it is on my opinion.

Besides there are some that i might have forgotten but yeah.. just saying..

Edited June 18, 2017 by Danny1022

[Ross]

2 hours ago, Danny1022 said:

So.. here's something that i think some people including me would totally like.. except txdot and many public-transport-phobic people.. meaning It probably won't happen in the next 1000 years

Subway system for Houston(similar to new York subway. Paris metro, Mexico city metro, London underground or Berlin sbahn). Not all areas are covered but.. I made it. and i don't know if it's good for others but it is on my opinion.

Besides there are some that i might have forgotten but yeah.. just saying..

Subways are a bad idea here. Not because of flooding risk, as there are mitigations for that. The biggest impediment is the existence of thousands of old oil wells scattered all over town, and no one knows exactly were they are. There's probably some arcane laws governing the subsurface that make things even worse. We could build cut and cover tunnels under streets, but no one would be happy about the mess and traffic disruptions. London quit building tunnels like that over 100 years ago for that reason.

[BeerNut]

 

13 hours ago, Danny1022 said:

So.. here's something that i think some people including me would totally like.. except txdot and many public-transport-phobic people.. meaning It probably won't happen in the next 1000 years

Subway system for Houston(similar to new York subway. Paris metro, Mexico city metro, London underground or Berlin sbahn). Not all areas are covered but.. I made it. and i don't know if it's good for others but it is on my opinion.

Besides there are some that i might have forgotten but yeah.. just saying..

Heavy commuter rail located in highway ROW?  

[Ross]

34 minutes ago, BeerNut said:

 

Heavy commuter rail located in highway ROW?  

That makes more sense than subways. You still have to figure out how to get the commuters to the stations, and where they will park. And, the commute times will not be significantly shorter. Even in London, it's only 15 or so minutes faster to take the train over driving, but there's limited parking that makes the train more attractive. And METRO prob ably still thinks that there has to be a complete light rail system to handle the heavy rail commuters before the heavy rail can be built. I'm not sure Houston has reached the stage where the public will accept rail as a viable alternative.

[mfastx]

A heavy rail transit system here would certainly be successful in my view.  Much more successful ridership wise than the current light rail system.  A few short light rail lines don't make much of an impact, but a faster heavy rail transit system that reaches out into the suburbs, much like Washington DC's system, would generate a lot of ridership.  Regarding subway vs above ground, I'd imagine that only a few small portions would be in a subway (such as downtown, uptown, TMC) but most of it would be above ground.  

 

It'll never happen of course, but it's fun to dream.  

Edited June 18, 2017 by mfastx

[Danny1022]

5 hours ago, Ross said:

That makes more sense than subways. You still have to figure out how to get the commuters to the stations, and where they will park. And, the commute times will not be significantly shorter. Even in London, it's only 15 or so minutes faster to take the train over driving, but there's limited parking that makes the train more attractive. And METRO prob ably still thinks that there has to be a complete light rail system to handle the heavy rail commuters before the heavy rail can be built. I'm not sure Houston has reached the stage where the public will accept rail as a viable alternative.

I thought that subways were heavy rail and isnt the London underground a subway system.?

I've only been to one place with subways (I dont know what subways are anymore) I'll just say similar to London or New York. That was in Mexico and t seemed like t was fast but it was convenient cos there were bus routes to take you anywhere, unlike some areas of here.

Note. I would not think that freeways should be dismantled i just think that they should focus on more trains instead of highways but not abandon highways 

Other thing that could be possible would be make bus routes from far places to the stations. Unfortunately the fundingwould have to be a lot more but.. idk... it'd be pretty cool.

[Ross]

The London Underground is heavy rail. There are two type of tunnels there, cut and cover, which is the Metropolitan, District, and Circle lines. All the rest of the lines are bored tunnels, which disrupted the surface much less than the cut and cover.

 

This article has some pictures https://www.theguardian.com/travel/gallery/2013/jan/09/150-years-london-underground-pictures

 

Some more here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259177/London-Underground-Amazing-images-houses-demolished-Tube-1863.html

 

A few more here http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/metropolitan-line-1860s/

Edited June 19, 2017 by Ross

[ADCS]

21 hours ago, Ross said:

That makes more sense than subways. You still have to figure out how to get the commuters to the stations, and where they will park. And, the commute times will not be significantly shorter. Even in London, it's only 15 or so minutes faster to take the train over driving, but there's limited parking that makes the train more attractive. And METRO prob ably still thinks that there has to be a complete light rail system to handle the heavy rail commuters before the heavy rail can be built. I'm not sure Houston has reached the stage where the public will accept rail as a viable alternative.

 

One thing METRO could do is partner with a taxi or ridesharing service and subsidize fares to/from rail stations, to be (partially) recaptured through the fare box. Even if it is mildly exploited by people not going to the station to use the train, it gets people in the mindset of taking shared modes to transit-oriented nodes.

[samagon]

19 hours ago, Ross said:

The London Underground is heavy rail. There are two type of tunnels there, cut and cover, which is the Metropolitan, District, and Circle lines. All the rest of the lines are bored tunnels, which disrupted the surface much less than the cut and cover.

 

This article has some pictures https://www.theguardian.com/travel/gallery/2013/jan/09/150-years-london-underground-pictures

 

Some more here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259177/London-Underground-Amazing-images-houses-demolished-Tube-1863.html

 

A few more here http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/metropolitan-line-1860s/

 

There's a really cool documentary on netflix, or amazon (unsure which) about the new crosstown line.

[Ross]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

 

There's a really cool documentary on netflix, or amazon (unsure which) about the new crosstown line.

I've seen that. It's very interesting. Cross town travel has been an issue in London for a long time. Construction of surface stations in Central London was banned in 1846 or so, which is why the mainline rail stations are in a circle around the center. It's really difficult to get freight across London.

[Houston19514]

On 6/18/2017 at 0:04 AM, Ross said:

Subways are a bad idea here. Not because of flooding risk, as there are mitigations for that. The biggest impediment is the existence of thousands of old oil wells scattered all over town, and no one knows exactly were they are. There's probably some arcane laws governing the subsurface that make things even worse. We could build cut and cover tunnels under streets, but no one would be happy about the mess and traffic disruptions. London quit building tunnels like that over 100 years ago for that reason.

 

Were there every really that many oil wells drilled inside the Loop? (Realistically, to the extent there is any chance of ever building subways in Houston they will almost certainly be predominantly inside the Loop.)  Regardless, I would imagine any abandoned oil wells could be dealt with fairly easily in the context of a subway construction project.

[cspwal]

I think the bigger issue is just a fundamental problem of funding for a subway more than anything else

[HoustonMidtown]

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/houston-business-owners-wary-of-i-45-expansion-in-eado-9588496

 

 

[Ianbian]

Hi everyone -- I thought the group might be interested in the mini novela of comments I sent to TxDOT (see attachment). My focus is on maintaining and improving local, inner-city connectivity options between the East End, Downtown, and neighborhoods west of Downtown. I don't feel like we can afford to lose any more of our existing east-west roadway options, because we already have so few of them. I would hate for our local east-west roadway connectivity to start looking like Austin's north-south connectivity!

 

Remember, comments are due by July 27, 2017. Feel free to use any of the figures/arguments I've put together if you agree with them -- no need to reinvent the wheel!

IH-45 Comments - FINAL (Sharing).pdf

[samagon]

On 7/22/2017 at 6:41 AM, Ianbian said:

Hi everyone -- I thought the group might be interested in the mini novela of comments I sent to TxDOT (see attachment). My focus is on maintaining and improving local, inner-city connectivity options between the East End, Downtown, and neighborhoods west of Downtown. I don't feel like we can afford to lose any more of our existing east-west roadway options, because we already have so few of them. I would hate for our local east-west roadway connectivity to start looking like Austin's north-south connectivity!

 

Remember, comments are due by July 27, 2017. Feel free to use any of the figures/arguments I've put together if you agree with them -- no need to reinvent the wheel!

IH-45 Comments - FINAL (Sharing).pdf

 

Well thought out and well written. I think you leave a lot on the table when discussing the impact the removal of the pierce elevated will have though.

 

You reference it as a mode of connectivity only for residents along the i45 corridor, you don't consider the use by residents along 59. More residents than the city and txdot is aware of use the pierce instead of 610 to get to the same destinations you reference (west downtown, BBP, Memorial, etc). Removal of the pierce will have the effect of shifting more traffic onto 610 through the galleria area to go to those destinations, since all of those drivers use the pierce as an alternate to 610 through the galleria anyway. Basically, anyone who uses the pierce elevated as an alternative to 610 through the galleria is going to be negatively impacted. considering the amount of traffic at the 59/527, 59/45, and 45/i10 splits, and the amount of traffic choosing each specific exit.

 

An interesting question, somewhat related to your comments regarding using google maps to show best routes, I wonder if txdot has purchased any travel metadata from google? I'm sure google could easily put together a report for txdot of all regional data specific to origin and destination of people using the pierce elevated. In a day and age when this kind of data is available, you really hope they have done something like this. Considering txdot is a government agency, my money is on no, they haven't.

[samagon]

More article about the negative effects:

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/one-year-after-moving-to-eado-search-homeless-services-may-be-forced-out-by-i-45-expansion-9662634

[tigereye]

On 8/4/2014 at 2:56 PM, tigereye said:

Good point. Also portions of I-10 are also below grade too. So why not reroute 45 over a redesigned, completely below-grade I-10, then over a completely below-grade 59/69 as a double-decker highway? 10 & 59 would below grade, existing streets pass through at grade, 45 above grade. This could work without looking too imposing as in this scenario, only 1 overpass above grade would be visible, as currently exists on the East End.

Meanwhile from the 45-10 reroute, you could have 1 exit still trace the existing 45 route offering an exit to Bagby and Pierce for direct access to Midtown (same from south approach, maybe creating a grand boulevard). Coupled with the removal of all of the ramps above Buffalo Bayou, the single 45 Midtown exit ramp could create the opportunity for a signature bridge of some sort over the bayou, as previously envisioned.

 

Nice to see others still envision a signature bridge over Buffalo Bayou. 

 

 

[bobruss]

Its more the old pipelines that run all through the city. There are hundreds.

[samagon]

@MaxConcrete

you had mentioned in a different thread that the i45 project was on hold because of some feedback from a neighborhood? I didn't want to ask more in that thread, but can you fill in some info here?

 

what is the issue? who is pushing? what are the long term implications to the entire project?

[Houston19514]

26 minutes ago, samagon said:

@MaxConcrete

you had mentioned in a different thread that the i45 project was on hold because of some feedback from a neighborhood? I didn't want to ask more in that thread, but can you fill in some info here?

 

what is the issue? who is pushing? what are the long term implications to the entire project?

 

I don't think he said the project is on hold.  I think all he said was that there was "a last-ditch effort by northside interests to derail the entire project." 

[Triton]

55 minutes ago, samagon said:

@MaxConcrete

you had mentioned in a different thread that the i45 project was on hold because of some feedback from a neighborhood? I didn't want to ask more in that thread, but can you fill in some info here?

 

what is the issue? who is pushing? what are the long term implications to the entire project?

Sounded like there was some push back from Independence Heights based on the amount of businesses and apartments affected... that's from a Houston Chron article from today. Not sure if that's what MaxConcrete was talking about though.

[Twitter1]

This is at 45 & 59.  Not sure where the thread is. 

[JLWM8609]

8 hours ago, Twitter1 said:

This is at 45 & 59.  Not sure where the thread is. 

 

 

[HoustonIsHome]

I've said it before and will continue saying it there is no reason for highways to go through the core.

 

I would remove all of them in the loop and stick to boulevards and mass transit in the loop. Even I10 should go. Trucks from Jacksonville heading to LA should not be clogging areas around downtown. 10 can be looped around  610.

 

Trucks should definitely bypass downtown. 

[IronTiger]

2 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

I've said it before and will continue saying it there is no reason for highways to go through the core.

 

I would remove all of them in the loop and stick to boulevards and mass transit in the loop. Even I10 should go. Trucks from Jacksonville heading to LA should not be clogging areas around downtown. 10 can be looped around  610.

 

Trucks should definitely bypass downtown. 

In a historical sense, the highways DID bypass the core. The reason why I-45 is always bad because of the sharp curves in the road, and those were there to AVOID THE CBD. Interstate 10 went clear on the other side of the railroad while US-59 also avoided the core. With the exception of Boston's defunct Central Artery (which pre-dated the Interstate system), the Interstates were largely designed to go AROUND the downtown area. Anyone telling you otherwise either has no idea about history or is trying to push an agenda (usually both). Don't believe me? Fire up Google Earth (I think there's still a desktop version if you don't already have it), go back to 1944 when the freeways didn't exist (but leave the roads layer on) and tell me what you see.