Jump to content

I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, samagon said:

strangling? hyperbole much?

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

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

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

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

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

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

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

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

9 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

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

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

2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

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

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

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

Edited by IronTiger
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, IronTiger said:

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

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

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

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

Edited by samagon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ADCS said:

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, samagon said:

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

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

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

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

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

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

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

11 minutes ago, ADCS said:

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

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

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, samagon said:

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

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IronTiger said:

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

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

Good Question. I do see police all the time, but maybe we need to look at this from a technology stand point. Warning signs that unmarked U-hauls & 18-Wheelers must avoid the left lanes or face a fine. Same with speed, increase the minimum speed as the lanes get closer to the "center". That might open a can of worms for speeders though, but in an updated world, we could have more transtrar cameras catching License Plate numbers and sending a ticket. Like driving through an EZ Tag without one.

I know a lot of people would be against this, as it seems Fahrenheit 451, but after struggling to pass slow trucks/cars, the freeway clears up significantly. Would also be a good way to catch people who don't get their oil changed. Even with the inside air button on, if you're stuck behind one of them it sucks.

1 hour ago, samagon said:

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

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

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

His views aren't skewed, just a different perspective. I can agree with you we do need more lanes, but in very select locations. Like the 45 bridge over 610.

It seems that most of our current exchanges are outdated and need to be streamlined. Why should people get away with cutting the line last minute to grind a slow moving lane to complete stop and go? They're wasting everyone's time and fuel. Not to mention the other lane going the opposite direction or continuing on the freeway will also slow down. Dominoes.

And why should traffic slow down for an accident on the opposite side? Makes no sense. Unfortunately the masses cannot be educated to correct this, so we need a divider high enough to block the views. So, along with a few tweaks/updates we can easily manage rush hour traffic. With a majority of our current lane volume. The spaghetti junctions are another topic.

The current proposal needs something else. There has to be another way to get the traffic around Downtown. I propose an elevated alternative on top of the 610 East Loop, From 45 to 45. It would only add +3 miles to the journey from 45 @ 610 North to 45 @ 610 South. Thoughts?

Could be easily marked "Downtown" or "Galveston/Dallas". 45 could then become a smaller spur on both sides.

Edited by Montrose1100
Added two more sentences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IronTiger said:

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

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

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

Too many desperate straw man arguments here:

1. "Slimming down the connector doesn't make removing the Pierce necessary." Whaaaa?? Did I say that the one made the other necessary? Removing the Pierce doesn't need anything else to make it necessary.

2. "They certainly aren't going to fund a deck park over 59/45." Did I say that they were? Although still, assuming the city would have to fund either the deck park or the Pierce beautification, deck parks over freeways are much more successful at minimizing their impact (see Klyde Warren Park in Dallas) than any beautification of an elevated that I have ever seen or heard of.

3. Did I ever say that the width of a freeway was not a factor in how much impact it made? No, what I said was "when you run a freeway through a neighborhood, a certain psychological impact exists that only varies slightly with the number of blocks the freeway takes up." So it's a secondary factor, but still a factor.

4. You do make a good point about the total size of Clayton Homes, I did not realize that the whole thing would have to be moved. But I think the argument is specious; I doubt your choice of freeway plans is really based on your concern for the struggling, hard-working residents of Clayton Homes. Sounds like soapbox grandstanding to me.

5. "all so you don't have to look at a freeway on your morning walk." My morning walk? I don't even live in Houston. Where do you get this stuff?

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, samagon said:

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

Why the need for ad hominem attacks? What have I said that's disgusting? I suppose I could say that your rant about wanting more, more pavement disgusts me, but I'm trying to keep this on an adult level.

Still interested in hearing when I supposedly said that TxDOT would pay for the 59 trench to be covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, samagon said:

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

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

And as you cruise down the six managed lanes of the future Pierce Elevated, will you even think once about the people of Allen Parkway Village who have waited lo these many years to have the freeway removed that belches smog into their playgrounds and living rooms, only to see their dreams almost realized before being forever crushed by rich people's insatiable need for more toll lanes? WHAT ABOUT THEIR STRUGGLE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

His views aren't skewed, just a different perspective. I can agree with you we do need more lanes, but in very select locations. Like the 45 bridge over 610.

It seems that most of our current exchanges are outdated and need to be streamlined. Why should people get away with cutting the line last minute to grind a slow moving lane to complete stop and go? They're wasting everyone's time and fuel. Not to mention the other lane going the opposite direction or continuing on the freeway will also slow down. Dominoes.

And why should traffic slow down for an accident on the opposite side? Makes no sense. Unfortunately the masses cannot be educated to correct this, so we need a divider high enough to block the views. So, along with a few tweaks/updates we can easily manage rush hour traffic. With a majority of our current lane volume. The spaghetti junctions are another topic.

The current proposal needs something else. There has to be another way to get the traffic around Downtown. I propose an elevated alternative on top of the 610 East Loop, From 45 to 45. It would only add +3 miles to the journey from 45 @ 610 North to 45 @ 610 South. Thoughts?

Could be easily marked "Downtown" or "Galveston/Dallas". 45 could then become a smaller spur on both sides.

See his response at the bottom. That isn't just a different perspective, that is skewed. There is no mathematical system that exists on our planet where hundreds can be construed as 'a couple of dozen'.

and calling what downtown is right now 'strangling' is very much hyperbole.

to your other points, I completely agree, I've thought from the beginning that expanding 610 on the east side of town (whether with elevated, or just added lanes) is a terrific addition. even going so far as to recommend through traffic take that route.

19 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Why the need for ad hominem attacks? What have I said that's disgusting? I suppose I could say that your rant about wanting more, more pavement disgusts me, but I'm trying to keep this on an adult level.

Still interested in hearing when I supposedly said that TxDOT would pay for the 59 trench to be covered.

see what you said below. not an ad hominem attack. truth.

you're minimizing the human impact of this plan, just pick up entire communities and move them and you'll not care. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you actually said, if so, please enlighten me, but as it is written, I am unsure whether to laugh or be disgusted.

Regarding the trench cover, I must have confused you with others, and for that I apologize. 

So how about we start over, what is gained for the city of Houston, as a whole, by the txdot planned realignment of 45?

16 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

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

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

 

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

See his response at the bottom. That isn't just a different perspective, that is skewed. There is no mathematical system that exists on our planet where hundreds can be construed as 'a couple of dozen'.

and calling what downtown is right now 'strangling' is very much hyperbole.

to your other points, I completely agree, I've thought from the beginning that expanding 610 on the east side of town (whether with elevated, or just added lanes) is a terrific addition. even going so far as to recommend through traffic take that route.

see what you said below. not an ad hominem attack. truth.

you're minimizing the human impact of this plan, just pick up entire communities and move them and you'll not care. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you actually said, if so, please enlighten me, but as it is written, I am unsure whether to laugh or be disgusted.

Regarding the trench cover, I must have confused you with others, and for that I apologize. 

So how about we start over, what is gained for the city of Houston, as a whole, by the txdot planned realignment of 45?

 

Samagon, I actually acknowledged to IronTiger above that I did not realize that the entire Clayton Homes community would have to move. You've got to read the posts.

But that being said, no, I don't think that the decision of how freeways are routed through central Houston should come down to the effects on one community, be it rich or poor, owned or rented or subsidized. It can be one of several factors, but pretty much every freeway inside the loop required hundreds of people to move when it was built. And I think that this relentless use of Clayton Homes in your and IT's arguments sounds suspiciously like grandstanding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Samagon, I actually acknowledged to IronTiger above that I did not realize that the entire Clayton Homes community would have to move. You've got to read the posts.

But that being said, no, I don't think that the decision of how freeways are routed through central Houston should come down to the effects on one community, be it rich or poor, owned or rented or subsidized. It can be one of several factors, but pretty much every freeway inside the loop required hundreds of people to move when it was built. And I think that this relentless use of Clayton Homes in your and IT's arguments sounds suspiciously like grandstanding.

So, I'll ask again, what is gained for the entirety of the city of Houston by realigning 45 through downtown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, samagon said:

So, I'll ask again, what is gained for the entirety of the city of Houston by realigning 45 through downtown?

Great question. To me, I think that if you remove the freeway going over Buffalo Bayou and replace it with something small and preferably at grade, this becomes the most desirable part of Houston to live in, play in, be in. Everyone in the city who ever comes downtown will benefit from this. You have the Buffalo Bayou park converging with the most photographed side of downtown. This becomes the city's front lawn, in a way that Discovery Green could only dream of being. Already most photos of Houston that you see are of this area, but the area is severely compromised by the massive freeway running through it.

It's sort of like, imagine if a freeway had been built between downtown Austin and Town Lake, and it turned and headed north along Lamar Street. You'd still have a nice lake with joggers and you'd still have a nice downtown, but neither would be nearly as great as they are together, synergistically, where people downtown can casually walk along or across the lake, and lake-goers can head into downtown for a drink or a bite.

And as for downtown's connection with Midtown, you go from having a sort of stigmatized zone that divides and reduces the two, to an area where development can be unbridled, and you can have a gradual leveling off of the business district into vibrant residential areas, the way you have on the west side of downtown Austin, the south and west sides of downtown Boston, or the north side of downtown Chicago.

All-in-all, I would go as far as to say that Houston's one best chance to someday evolve into a tourist city is to put all the freeways on one side of downtown and let the other side take off in a way that it never has before. The logical sides for this, based on geography and existing layout, would be the north side or the west side, so if the west side is possible, I think we need to do it.

Thanks for reading.

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Great question. To me, I think that if you remove the freeway going over Buffalo Bayou and replace it with something small and preferably at grade, this becomes the most desirable part of Houston to live in, play in, be in. Everyone in the city who ever comes downtown will benefit from this. You have the Buffalo Bayou park converging with the most photographed side of downtown. This becomes the city's front lawn, in a way that Discovery Green could only dream of being. Already most photos of Houston that you see are of this area, but the area is severely compromised by the massive freeway running through it.

It's sort of like, imagine if a freeway had been built between downtown Austin and Town Lake, and it turned and headed north along Lamar Street. You'd still have a nice lake with joggers and you'd still have a nice downtown, but neither would be nearly as great as they are together, synergistically, where people downtown can casually walk along or across the lake, and lake-goers can head into downtown for a drink or a bite.

And as for downtown's connection with Midtown, you go from having a sort of stigmatized zone that divides and reduces the two, to an area where development can be unbridled, and you can have a gradual leveling off of the business district into vibrant residential areas, the way you have on the west side of downtown Austin, the south and west sides of downtown Boston, or the north side of downtown Chicago.

All-in-all, I would go as far as to say that Houston's one best chance to someday evolve into a tourist city is to put all the freeways on one side of downtown and let the other side take off in a way that it never has before. The logical sides for this, based on geography and existing layout, would be the north side or the west side, so if the west side is possible, I think we need to do it.

Thanks for reading.

 

It's also tilling the soil for greater integration of the east side with Downtown. In the short term, it would be disruptive, but far less in the long term than maintaining an elevated freeway there.

I just don't understand how anyone who has seen the positive effects of depressing 59 beneath Graustark and Montrose can be opposed to granting the same benefits to East Downtown. It certainly comes with a cost, but one that will pay dividends for future generations.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Great question. To me, I think that if you remove the freeway going over Buffalo Bayou and replace it with something small and preferably at grade, this becomes the most desirable part of Houston to live in, play in, be in. Everyone in the city who ever comes downtown will benefit from this. You have the Buffalo Bayou park converging with the most photographed side of downtown. This becomes the city's front lawn, in a way that Discovery Green could only dream of being. Already most photos of Houston that you see are of this area, but the area is severely compromised by the massive freeway running through it.

It's sort of like, imagine if a freeway had been built between downtown Austin and Town Lake, and it turned and headed north along Lamar Street. You'd still have a nice lake with joggers and you'd still have a nice downtown, but neither would be nearly as great as they are together, synergistically, where people downtown can casually walk along or across the lake, and lake-goers can head into downtown for a drink or a bite.

And as for downtown's connection with Midtown, you go from having a sort of stigmatized zone that divides and reduces the two, to an area where development can be unbridled, and you can have a gradual leveling off of the business district into vibrant residential areas, the way you have on the west side of downtown Austin, the south and west sides of downtown Boston, or the north side of downtown Chicago.

All-in-all, I would go as far as to say that Houston's one best chance to someday evolve into a tourist city is to put all the freeways on one side of downtown and let the other side take off in a way that it never has before. The logical sides for this, based on geography and existing layout, would be the north side or the west side, so if the west side is possible, I think we need to do it.

Thanks for reading.

thanks

I 100% agree. Remove the freeway, maybe have some at grade crossings, you could really transform the bayou into the front lawn of downtown as you envision. The possibility for this area to transform Houston itself would be great, even if it would be at the expense of the east end of downtown, it might just be worth it.

The reality though is far from what you envision. The freeway will not be going away. The crossings of the bayou will not be all at grade. I will happily concede that there will be fewer cars, however, as they will be traveling at a higher rate of speed, they will produce more road noise, so that should be considered a wash.

Let's look at the facts of the situation though, rather than what you think would be nice to have.

There are currently 18 lanes of traffic on 9 bridges over the western portion of the bayou (nearest sabine street).

There will be 18 lanes of traffic on 9 bridges over the western portion of the bayou (nearest sabine street).

There are currently 11 lanes of traffic on 2 bridges over the eastern portion of the bayou (the part of the freeway over memorial, capitol and rusk).

There will be 9 lanes of traffic on 4 bridges over the eastern portion of the bayou (the part of the freeway over memorial, capitol and rusk). I call it 4 bridges because where one entrance ramp ends, another begins.

I counted the changes to at grade to add a connection from/to Houston from/to Allen Parkway, and the rusk to Houston connection too (none of it currently exists and is being added as part of the project, so that's why I counted it). other street level crossings remain unchanged (memorial, capitol, rusk).

Please don't take my word for it though.

This is the most recent PDF of the txdot plan. http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20150922_NHHIP_Seg3_Updates.pdf

This is the current google map of the area. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7624804,-95.3713885,257m/data=!3m1!1e3

I don't see any possible way that the new will in any way create what you envision. It will still be a freeway, there will still be plenty of bridges, and plenty of lanes of traffic. It won't be less imposing.

So what else did you have?

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, samagon said:

thanks

I 100% agree. Remove the freeway, maybe have some at grade crossings, you could really transform the bayou into the front lawn of downtown as you envision. The possibility for this area to transform Houston itself would be great, even if it would be at the expense of the east end of downtown, it might just be worth it.

The reality though is far from what you envision. The freeway will not be going away. The crossings of the bayou will not be all at grade. I will happily concede that there will be fewer cars, however, as they will be traveling at a higher rate of speed, they will produce more road noise, so that should be considered a wash.

Let's look at the facts of the situation though, rather than what you think would be nice to have.

There are currently 18 lanes of traffic on 9 bridges over the western portion of the bayou (nearest sabine street).

There will be 18 lanes of traffic on 9 bridges over the western portion of the bayou (nearest sabine street).

There are currently 11 lanes of traffic on 2 bridges over the eastern portion of the bayou (the part of the freeway over memorial, capitol and rusk).

There will be 9 lanes of traffic on 4 bridges over the eastern portion of the bayou (the part of the freeway over memorial, capitol and rusk). I call it 4 bridges because where one entrance ramp ends, another begins.

I counted the changes to at grade to add a connection from/to Houston from/to Allen Parkway, and the rusk to Houston connection too (none of it currently exists and is being added as part of the project, so that's why I counted it). other street level crossings remain unchanged (memorial, capitol, rusk).

Please don't take my word for it though.

This is the most recent PDF of the txdot plan. http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20150922_NHHIP_Seg3_Updates.pdf

This is the current google map of the area. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7624804,-95.3713885,257m/data=!3m1!1e3

I don't see any possible way that the new will in any way create what you envision. It will still be a freeway, there will still be plenty of bridges, and plenty of lanes of traffic. It won't be less imposing.

So what else did you have?

Looks like the amount of roadway going over the bayou has increased since the original TxDOT plan. Not sure why that happened, although I suspect that a bunch of people screamed at the thought of their favorite ramp going away. I think if it is still subject to change, it needs to be argued back.

Even so, traffic volume and noise won't be nearly as high since it is no longer I-45 and all the trucks are having to go the other way around downtown. Such traffic as remains will be more comparable to what you have on Allen Parkway or Memorial. And it will be slowing down on its way to at-grade intersections up ahead.

As long as it's not I-45, just local traffic going to Midtown and west downtown, it's flexible and can be tamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Looks like the amount of roadway going over the bayou has increased since the original TxDOT plan. Not sure why that happened, although I suspect that a bunch of people screamed at the thought of their favorite ramp going away. I think if it is still subject to change, it needs to be argued back.

Even so, traffic volume and noise won't be nearly as high since it is no longer I-45 and all the trucks are having to go the other way around downtown. Such traffic as remains will be more comparable to what you have on Allen Parkway or Memorial. And it will be slowing down on its way to at-grade intersections up ahead.

As long as it's not I-45, just local traffic going to Midtown and west downtown, it's flexible and can be tamed.

So here is everything that in my estimation is a negative about the system:

  • taking 19 blocks of east downtown (over 10% of the localized area).
    • which includes a very nice apartment complex
    • the best Vietnamese restaurant in town
    • many small businesses
    • a very young, yet vibrant nightlife area
    • homeless aid centers
  • displacing an entire low income community (clayton homes).
  • removing one major arterial road for the east end that currently crosses 59 (signifies a reduction in connectivity of over 10%, and only 1 of 4 major arterial roads that crosses 59)
  • St. Emanuel is turned into a feeder road which will encourage high speed driving.
  • There is so much connectivity removed between the 527 spur and 288. 4 streets of the 10 will be removed:
    • Caroline
    • Crawford
    • Cleburne
    • Eagle 

These are all absolutely going to happen, and all bad. Taking land, displacing people, reducing connectivity. It's never good.

For the record, I think on the north side along I-10 it doesn't matter as much, and it isn't all that bad, I mean the area is already at odds with railroads, bayous, and all other contrivances to disconnect the area (and it was already so disconnected anyway with all the above), what is adding a few more freeway lanes and such? They are adding more land to the south of I-10, which will be good for that specific area. I think this area hinges more on how the hardy yards is developed than how the freeway system is adjusted.

Don't get me wrong, I see the good in it. They're straightening the freeways. Adding a lane or two here and there, implementing plans that are based on many years worth of experience observing traffic patterns and how to make it safer. Good stuff.

Once you get beyond that you're into a realm of we just don't know, and we hope it has this affect.

We hope it bridges midtown and downtown in a way that is more than just a way for people who are already insanely rich to get even richer. We hope it makes the area along the bayou more inviting. We hope it doesn't remove the gains from east downtown and take 20+ years after completion for east downtown to recover. We hope it doesn't remove the small gains that have been seen between midtown and the museum district.

You may disagree, but I see a lot more absolute negative, and I see a lot more potential negative. All this while we have a freeway that is very under utilized right now (go to google maps and turn on traffic at any time during the day, 610 on the east and north of the city is empty). Most of the traffic created on the pierce elevated is from through travel, people not going to downtown, but going through it. Encourage them to take 610, as someone mentioned, it only adds 3 miles (12 miles vs 15 miles) but it saves you up to 5 minutes in rush hour.

It's my estimation that txdot is wasting our money and needlessly ripping up fragile neighborhoods if they do this when there is a cheaper alternative in educating drivers. Make 45 through town a 'business 45' and make 610 on the east side of town 'i-45'. How much does signage cost, update the ramps? How hard would it be? All for an alternative that will better utilize existing freeways and not have the negative psychological impact on a majority of residents.

And here's where we get all Spacely Sprockets: We're doing all of this for a mode of travel that is going to dramatically change in the next 20 years. Driverless cars aren't a pipe dream like flying cars of the 60s, they're real, they're taking over now. Tesla has their 'autopilot'. By 2022 every major manufacturer will have autonomous emergency braking as standard on pretty much every vehicle (http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/17/11253656/nhtsa-iihs-automatic-emergency-braking-agreement-2022). There is rigorous testing being done in every environment against fully autonomous vehicles. Yeah, we're probably about 3-5 years from seeing fully autonomous vehicles for purchase (but then, we're probably 3-5 years, maybe more, from this project turning dirt), but within 20 years they will be as common as the cell phone is now. And the cell phone is a good example of the type of paradigm shift, and the time it will take to make that shift. Think back to the late 80s, you knew a few people who would pay a few hundred dollars a month for 30 minutes of talk time. by the 00s, everyone had a cell phone. They were widespread enough to have made a shift to where payphones were a thing of legend in Houston. Driverless cars are coming, they will change our lives in ways we can't imagine. It's a potential that pierce elevated, 59 and i10 could become useless and demolished around downtown as a result of driverless vehicles and how habits shift with that. Driverless vehicles is a fascinating subject and may not be absolutely related, but as this change to the inner workings of all freeways for the next 50 years, shouldn't we talk about the coming uses and technology that will be used on those freeways, and how they will impact travel as well as the immediate impact?

Edited by samagon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if you got rid of the pierce elevated downtown and replaced it with...nothing.  You could dual sign East loop as I45, and anyone who wants to take a shortcut through downtown will either be on 59/288 or on surface streets.  I'd say demolish the Pierce starting in east downtown on the east side, and have all of the mainlanes demolished south of the Allen parkway exit.

You can still do something to straighten out 59 in East downtown, move I-10 north of downtown, etc - but Samagon your right the best thing to do is have thru traffic bypass downtown.

The potential issue I could see is this could put even more pressure on West loop to handle traffic from those going up the SW freeway and then going up 45.  This would probably require dual stacked west loop to accomplish, and many people would be upset by that

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, samagon said:

So here is everything that in my estimation is a negative about the system:

  • taking 19 blocks of east downtown (over 10% of the localized area).
    • which includes a very nice apartment complex
    • the best Vietnamese restaurant in town
    • many small businesses
    • a very young, yet vibrant nightlife area
    • homeless aid centers
  • displacing an entire low income community (clayton homes).
  • removing one major arterial road for the east end that currently crosses 59 (signifies a reduction in connectivity of over 10%, and only 1 of 4 major arterial roads that crosses 59)
  • St. Emanuel is turned into a feeder road which will encourage high speed driving.
  • There is so much connectivity removed between the 527 spur and 288. 4 streets of the 10 will be removed:
    • Caroline
    • Crawford
    • Cleburne
    • Eagle 

These are all absolutely going to happen, and all bad. Taking land, displacing people, reducing connectivity. It's never good.

For the record, I think on the north side along I-10 it doesn't matter as much, and it isn't all that bad, I mean the area is already at odds with railroads, bayous, and all other contrivances to disconnect the area (and it was already so disconnected anyway with all the above), what is adding a few more freeway lanes and such? They are adding more land to the south of I-10, which will be good for that specific area. I think this area hinges more on how the hardy yards is developed than how the freeway system is adjusted.

Don't get me wrong, I see the good in it. They're straightening the freeways. Adding a lane or two here and there, implementing plans that are based on many years worth of experience observing traffic patterns and how to make it safer. Good stuff.

Once you get beyond that you're into a realm of we just don't know, and we hope it has this affect.

We hope it bridges midtown and downtown in a way that is more than just a way for people who are already insanely rich to get even richer. We hope it makes the area along the bayou more inviting. We hope it doesn't remove the gains from east downtown and take 20+ years after completion for east downtown to recover. We hope it doesn't remove the small gains that have been seen between midtown and the museum district.

You may disagree, but I see a lot more absolute negative, and I see a lot more potential negative. All this while we have a freeway that is very under utilized right now (go to google maps and turn on traffic at any time during the day, 610 on the east and north of the city is empty). Most of the traffic created on the pierce elevated is from through travel, people not going to downtown, but going through it. Encourage them to take 610, as someone mentioned, it only adds 3 miles (12 miles vs 15 miles) but it saves you up to 5 minutes in rush hour.

It's my estimation that txdot is wasting our money and needlessly ripping up fragile neighborhoods if they do this when there is a cheaper alternative in educating drivers. Make 45 through town a 'business 45' and make 610 on the east side of town 'i-45'. How much does signage cost, update the ramps? How hard would it be? All for an alternative that will better utilize existing freeways and not have the negative psychological impact on a majority of residents.

And here's where we get all Spacely Sprockets: We're doing all of this for a mode of travel that is going to dramatically change in the next 20 years. Driverless cars aren't a pipe dream like flying cars of the 60s, they're real, they're taking over now. You can buy cars right now that drive for you in traffic and in a steady state on the freeway. There is rigorous testing being done in other environments. Yeah, we're probably about 3-5 years from seeing fully autonomous vehicles for purchase (but then, we're probably 3-5 years, maybe more, from this project turning dirt), but within 20 years they will be as common as the cell phone. The cell phone is a good example of the type of paradigm shift, and the time it will take to make that shift. Think back to the late 80s, you knew a few people who would pay a few hundred dollars a month for 30 minutes of talk time. by the 00s, everyone had a cell phone. They were widespread enough to have made a shift to where payphones were a thing of legend in Houston. Driverless cars are coming, they will change our lives in ways we can't imagine. It's a potential that pierce elevated, 59 and i10 could become useless and demolished around downtown as a result of driverless vehicles and how habits shift with that. Driverless vehicles is a fascinating subject and may not be directly related, but as this change to the inner workings of all freeways for the next 50 years, shouldn't we talk about the coming uses and technology that will be used on those freeways as well as the immediate impact?

There are a few things to dispute about this characterization:

1. The Lofts at the Ballpark will be 20-25 years old by the time construction starts, and 25-30 years old by the time the demolition ball comes around. It's not going to be considered a "very nice" apartment complex at that point, more one that's targeted toward budget-minded professionals. However, given the current state of oversupply that we have, there will be several buildings in that market segment at that time. It's not a critical loss.

2. Businesses can move, even if it involves temporary difficulty. Nightlife invariably does move - and the current urban integration problems of EaDo (namely, the 59 elevated) ensure that its time as a hotspot will stay temporary. I say this as someone who prefers to go to EaDo when I'm going out.

3. The demolition of Clayton Homes, as planned, suggests that HHA does not want to maintain the facility anymore. 

4. The reduced connectivity is temporary, and will be relieved once the park cap is constructed. I regularly walk through that area, and traffic on Polk isn't particularly heavy. Regardless, I am sure that TxDOT engineers have looked at traffic studies to see if removal is feasible, and found that it is so.

5. St. Emanuel does not have to be a high-speed feeder road. It all depends on the street design. If it gets built out like Bagby currently is, then design will induce slower speeds.

6. Is that connectivity around 59/288 really utilized nowadays? I see streets that do not serve an arterial purpose, nor do they have any walkable integration. Those possibilities are mitigated by the existing elevated freeway.

I do agree about rerouting 45 around the East Loop - but I think it should be done in conjunction with this project, not in place of it.

Finally, we're going to have to agree to disagree about driverless cars. I see them more as a social problem than a technical problem, one that will take 50-70 years to work out effectively. We will still need manual infrastructure in the interim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a separate note, does anyone have a sense of why 45 on the west side of downtown was insisted upon? I checked Houston Freeways, but it didn't delve too deeply into this beyond a mention of "slum clearance". Seems to me that cutting off the east end of Freedmen's Town to be redeveloped into Houston Center might have been a major purpose of that section's construction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ADCS said:

There are a few things to dispute about this characterization:

1. The Lofts at the Ballpark will be 20-25 years old by the time construction starts, and 25-30 years old by the time the demolition ball comes around. It's not going to be considered a "very nice" apartment complex at that point, more one that's targeted toward budget-minded professionals. However, given the current state of oversupply that we have, there will be several buildings in that market segment at that time. It's not a critical loss.

2. Businesses can move, even if it involves temporary difficulty. Nightlife invariably does move - and the current urban integration problems of EaDo (namely, the 59 elevated) ensure that its time as a hotspot will stay temporary. I say this as someone who prefers to go to EaDo when I'm going out.

3. The demolition of Clayton Homes, as planned, suggests that HHA does not want to maintain the facility anymore. 

4. The reduced connectivity is temporary, and will be relieved once the park cap is constructed. I regularly walk through that area, and traffic on Polk isn't particularly heavy. Regardless, I am sure that TxDOT engineers have looked at traffic studies to see if removal is feasible, and found that it is so.

5. St. Emanuel does not have to be a high-speed feeder road. It all depends on the street design. If it gets built out like Bagby currently is, then design will induce slower speeds.

6. Is that connectivity around 59/288 really utilized nowadays? I see streets that do not serve an arterial purpose, nor do they have any walkable integration. Those possibilities are mitigated by the existing elevated freeway.

I do agree about rerouting 45 around the East Loop - but I think it should be done in conjunction with this project, not in place of it.

Finally, we're going to have to agree to disagree about driverless cars. I see them more as a social problem than a technical problem, one that will take 50-70 years to work out effectively. We will still need manual infrastructure in the interim.

fair enough points.

  1. while the lofts are older (are they really that old??) that's a good thing for the area, all the apartments up, or going up in midtown, and downtown area are all very high end, if this isn't high end due to age it provides for living for people who aren't executives, or wanting to live like executives. I haven't looked, but I assume the new apartments (the circuit?) are more affordable as well.
  2. fair enough, I just hope Huynh's survives. I don't kid when I say best in Houston. It's certainly the best Vietnamese I've had in Houston. I'll say that.
  3. whether they want to maintain the facility any longer or not, does that matter? Where will be people move? Will there be a comparable place nearby that they can be relocated to? Condemn it with no where for the people to go, that's no good.
  4. I commute from telephone/45 to the chase building every day (It's a rough commute). Traffic in the morning and afternoon is surprisingly heavy. I mean, it's not at the levels of west alabama, but relative to the rest of the area, it's a lot of cars. More consideration is needed before they are just tossed. Especially considering the changes to the area farther out with the railroad QZ. How the light rail that has been open for less than a year has changed traffic patterns. How traffic patterns will adjust as the area grows in population. Regarding the cap, it's far from a guarantee, and considering the state of the cities finances, someone is probably going to have to donate, or it will have to come from the local TIRZ. the funding is far from secured, and who knows how long it will take. I assume the worst, which is a gaping maw of noise surrounded by chain-link fence for the foreseeable future.
  5. Fair enough, they could do this for sure, but will they, or will it be Chartres, just a block over. speed limit on Chartres is 30, but that doesn't bother drivers who routinely go at least 40.
  6. There are other areas of town that have higher connectivity, and sure Eagle and Cleburne probably aren't great examples of a road that will be missed. Crawford and Caroline though, I'd say are used (relative to other roads in the area) at a high enough rate to be more considerate to how the flow will travel in the area after they are removed.

The human factor is going to be a huge factor in the driverless car and how long it takes for it to be accepted. The technology will be ready before people are. I fully agree. However, there is a lot of hope on the horizon that people will gain confidence in the idea, and be comfortable with them sooner rather than later.

There are people alive today who will not remember a world where there weren't autonomous cars already on the road and in the news regularly. There are people being born now who will never know what it is like to see a car without some level of autonomy. there are kids who will be born in the next few years who will never remember a time before at least one or two people in their neighborhood owned a driverless car. They will never know a world where long haul trucks aren't autonomous on the freeway with a person behind the wheel monitoring and being there because the teamsters union is still really strong.

absolutely, there are people alive today who are going to be completely against the thought of a self driving car. In 20 years time, those people are going to be looking at retirement and people who are 5 today are going to be going to a dealership to buy their first car on their own, you don't think they'll want a self driving car? People who are 30 now hate driving anyway, as soon as they can, they'll buy one. 

No, if 75-80% of all vehicles on the road aren't self driving in 20 years, I'll be absolutely shocked. 

Two fun youtube videos to check out:

 

 

 

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been working and unable to respond recently.

I don't even live in Houston. Where do you get this stuff?

I don't know, man, but your avatar is of a Houston tower in a Houston forum talking about a freeway in Houston, and your username is "H-Town Man". Where, indeed.

All-in-all, I would go as far as to say that Houston's one best chance to someday evolve into a tourist city is to put all the freeways on one side of downtown and let the other side take off in a way that it never has before.

Are you kidding me?? I'm not sure if I can find a downtown set-up <i>exactly</i> like Houston's, but New Orleans, San Jose, and San Antonio's downtowns are clustered closer to where the freeways meet up. If anything, existing development patterns suggest that "walkable"/"touristy" downtown clusters around the freeways encircling the most inner area, not apart from it. This is one of those things of why it's a bit difficult to take your posts seriously.

[...] WHAT ABOUT THEIR STRUGGLE?

Yeah, I know you're using hyperbole, but if we go with the popular theory that removing the Pierce will cause land values in the area to skyrocket, then it probably won't be APV for much longer. 

I just don't understand how anyone who has seen the positive effects of depressing 59 beneath Graustark and Montrose can be opposed to granting the same benefits to East Downtown.

Well, no, it's not exactly the same thing. 

For starters, the depressed freeway will be twice as wide as that part of 59 (at least). If 59 was widened to Katy Freeway-style widths and required demolition on one or both sides of the freeway, I guarantee you that it would not be nearly as beneficial to the area or as well-liked.

On 3/29/2016 at 3:29 PM, H-Town Man said:

Looks like the amount of roadway going over the bayou has increased since the original TxDOT plan. Not sure why that happened, although I suspect that a bunch of people screamed at the thought of their favorite ramp going away. I think if it is still subject to change, it needs to be argued back.

Even so, traffic volume and noise won't be nearly as high since it is no longer I-45 and all the trucks are having to go the other way around downtown. Such traffic as remains will be more comparable to what you have on Allen Parkway or Memorial.

But in many ways, the "new" Pierce will have less traffic if they turn it into HOT lanes, which will cut down traffic considerably. If the Katy Freeway is any indication, it doesn't even need to be three lanes, as the third lane could be converted to inner shoulders. 

8 hours ago, ADCS said:

On a separate note, does anyone have a sense of why 45 on the west side of downtown was insisted upon? I checked Houston Freeways, but it didn't delve too deeply into this beyond a mention of "slum clearance". Seems to me that cutting off the east end of Freedmen's Town to be redeveloped into Houston Center might have been a major purpose of that section's construction.

 

Actually, the Pierce Elevated seems to have been built to avoid downtown (this crying about Pierce Elevated "cutting through" the area is highly overstated), and was built as an elevated to allow traffic to continue unabated underneath (highway planning at the time considered elevated to be the least disruptive style of highway.

The Lofts at the Ballpark will be 20-25 years old by the time construction starts, and 25-30 years old by the time the demolition ball comes around. It's not going to be considered a "very nice" apartment complex at that point, more one that's targeted toward budget-minded professionals. However, given the current state of oversupply that we have, there will be several buildings in that market segment at that time. It's not a critical loss.

You bring up a good point, admittedly...as apartments get older, the neighborhoods usually change too. What if Midtown is no longer (or less) trendy and EaDo is the place to be, as build-up makes it politically impossible? What if developers wanted 59 to be redirected around the north and west parts of town, and a giant canyon separated Midtown and Downtown so the elevated portion of 59 could be removed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, IronTiger said:

I've been working and unable to respond recently.

 

 

I don't know, man, but your avatar is of a Houston tower in a Houston forum talking about a freeway in Houston, and your username is "H-Town Man". Where, indeed.

 

Are you kidding me?? I'm not sure if I can find a downtown set-up <i>exactly</i> like Houston's, but New Orleans, San Jose, and San Antonio's downtowns are clustered closer to where the freeways meet up. If anything, existing development patterns suggest that "walkable"/"touristy" downtown clusters around the freeways encircling the most inner area, not apart from it. This is one of those things of why it's a bit difficult to take your posts seriously.

 

 

Yeah, I know you're using hyperbole, but if we go with the popular theory that removing the Pierce will cause land values in the area to skyrocket, then it probably won't be APV for much longer. 

 

 

Well, no, it's not exactly the same thing. 

For starters, the depressed freeway will be twice as wide as that part of 59 (at least). If 59 was widened to Katy Freeway-style widths and required demolition on one or both sides of the freeway, I guarantee you that it would not be nearly as beneficial to the area or as well-liked.

But in many ways, the "new" Pierce will have less traffic if they turn it into HOT lanes, which will cut down traffic considerably. If the Katy Freeway is any indication, it doesn't even need to be three lanes, as the third lane could be converted to inner shoulders. 

Actually, the Pierce Elevated seems to have been built to avoid downtown (this crying about Pierce Elevated "cutting through" the area is highly overstated), and was built as an elevated to allow traffic to continue unabated underneath (highway planning at the time considered elevated to be the least disruptive style of highway.

 

You bring up a good point, admittedly...as apartments get older, the neighborhoods usually change too. What if Midtown is no longer (or less) trendy and EaDo is the place to be, as build-up makes it politically impossible? What if developers wanted 59 to be redirected around the north and west parts of town, and a giant canyon separated Midtown and Downtown so the elevated portion of 59 could be removed?

You assumed that I only wanted to remove the Pierce so I could enjoy my morning walk. Hence my comment, "Where do you get this stuff?" You did not get that from my having the name H-Town Man. You just made it up.

As I've explained above, downtowns are more successful when not surrounded on all sides by freeway. None of your counter examples dispute this. 

APV is government land and does not pay taxes, so it will not have to leave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...