I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[DonCheto]

I thought about that, but what I don't want to see happen is create more traffic than what already exists. By submerging the elevated we wouldn't change any routes or eliminate any either. It would just be a tunnel, and connect DT to midtown.

[cloud713]

I thought about that, but what I don't want to see happen is create more traffic than what already exists. By submerging the elevated we wouldn't change any routes or eliminate any either. It would just be a tunnel, and connect DT to midtown.

 

are you proposing they bury just the Pierce Elevated, or the entire stretch of 45 around downtown? if its only the pierce elevated, it wont make much of a difference. 

if they got rid of i45 around downtown all together and rerouted the 45 traffic along 59 and 10, (expanding the 59 and 10 ROW a little of course) and then buried the stretch of 59 thats not already submerged, past the Toyota Center, it could skip the GRB and use the current elevated road for that portion since the GRB creates a barrier of its own, be submerged again past GRB, before coming back up around Commerce street. then the whole 45 corridor could be developed once thats removed, blending downtown with the surrounding areas, and some parks built over 59 on the north and south sides of GRB to help connect downtown and the East End.

Edited August 13, 2013 by cloud713

[Slick Vik]

are you proposing they bury just the Pierce Elevated, or the entire stretch of 45 around downtown? if its only the pierce elevated, it wont make much of a difference. 

if they got rid of i45 around downtown all together and rerouted the 45 traffic along 59 and 10, (expanding the 59 and 10 ROW a little of course) and then buried the stretch of 59 thats not already submerged, from the Toyota Center, past the GRB (actually the part behind the GRB doesnt matter much since that creates a barrier in itself) before coming back above ground on the north side of downtown. then the whole 45 corridor could be developed, blending downtown with the surrounding areas, and some parks built over 59 on the north and south sides of GRB to help connect downtown and the East End.

 

I'm ok with that idea

[TowerSpotter]

are you proposing they bury just the Pierce Elevated, or the entire stretch of 45 around downtown? if its only the pierce elevated, it wont make much of a difference. 

if they got rid of i45 around downtown all together and rerouted the 45 traffic along 59 and 10, (expanding the 59 and 10 ROW a little of course) and then buried the stretch of 59 thats not already submerged, past the Toyota Center, it could skip the GRB and use the current elevated road for that portion since the GRB creates a barrier of its own, be submerged again past GRB, before coming back up around Commerce street. then the whole 45 corridor could be developed once thats removed, blending downtown with the surrounding areas, and some parks built over 59 on the north and south sides of GRB to help connect downtown and the East End.

 

I love the idea of a park being built over 59 next to GRB but first they would have to drop 59.It would remind me of the Klyde Warren Park in Dallas.

[cloud713]

is Elysian Street the road that the Hardy Tollroad Downtown connector is going to come down? if so i was looking at the map and they could branch the 45 portion of 59 up Elysian where 59 branches off toward the east, so its a less severe turn merging into the i10 ROW. if thats the case they could run a direct connector from Hardy Tollroad to 45S/59/288 down Elysian. just thinking out loud here.. idk how you guys feel about that idea. i think the current 59/10 interchange makes too severe of a turn for to have a consistent/proper flow of traffic in the area, but it could work i guess. there would just be a slow down.

[cloud713]

I love the idea of a park being built over 59 next to GRB but first they would have to drop 59.It would remind me of the Klyde Warren Park in Dallas.

 

directly behind GRB, mirrored to Disco Green? or parks like i was saying to the north and the south of GRB, since it doesnt make sense to spend money trying to connect the part of the East End behind GRB to downtown since the GRB creates a multiple block wide barrier in that particular area. i think the money/focus would better be spent on the areas to the north and the south, and they could save some money by not submerging the GRB portion of 59.

[TowerSpotter]

directly behind GRB, mirrored to Disco Green? or parks like i was saying to the north and the south of GRB, since it doesnt make sense to spend money trying to connect the part of the East End behind GRB to downtown since the GRB creates a multiple block wide barrier in that particular area. i think the money/focus would better be spent on the areas to the north and the south, and they could save some money by not submerging the GRB portion of 59.

 

Ha yea I guess I was wrong about a park being built over next to the GRB convention center since it already has Discovery Green Park, but spending money to connect east end to downtown does make since the infrastructure on the east end is improving. 

[cloud713]

Ha yea I guess I was wrong about a park being built over next to the GRB convention center since it already has Discovery Green Park, but spending money to connect east end to downtown does make since the infrastructure on the east end is improving. 

 

absolutely. i didnt mean spending money to connect downtown and the East End wasnt worth it. i just meant the 5 or 6 block portion parallel with GRB is pointless to waste money on since the GRB poses as a large barrier itself (so no point submerging/decking over 59 there) that will never be able to be connected through (unless we tunneled under GRB, which is another idea in itself that ive had). ill doodle up something later. 

any thoughts on linking 45 with the Hardy Tollroad downtown connector down Elysian or somewhere else between Elysian and 59, opposite of wherever the HTR comes into i10? theres so much open space in that area for 45 to cut off from 59 to 10 so it doesnt have to make such a severe turn at the 59/10 interchange.

[cloud713]

it wont let me edit my post but it looks like there may actually be a connection extending to 59 from the Hardy Tollroad.

[cloud713]

are you proposing they bury just the Pierce Elevated, or the entire stretch of 45 around downtown? if its only the pierce elevated, it wont make much of a difference. 

if they got rid of i45 around downtown all together and rerouted the 45 traffic along 59 and 10, (expanding the 59 and 10 ROW a little of course) and then buried the stretch of 59 thats not already submerged, past the Toyota Center, it could skip the GRB and use the current elevated road for that portion since the GRB creates a barrier of its own, be submerged again past GRB, before coming back up around Commerce street. then the whole 45 corridor could be developed once thats removed, blending downtown with the surrounding areas, and some parks built over 59 on the north and south sides of GRB to help connect downtown and the East End.

 

i just realized from looking at google maps that the submerged portion of 59 goes all the way up to the road the toyota center is off of. 

the GRB 2025 renovation/expansion plans have the GRB being expanded 2 blocks to the south, even with the toyota center, and a new parking garage on the other side, extending the GRB one block to the north.

due to the expansion plans, 59 is already submerged all it needs to be on the southern portion of downtown, and could be decked over as is. it wouldnt need to drop under again until Rusk (i believe there will still be a street connection between/under the North garage and the GRB, allowing for a pedestrian short cut from the new park).

there would need to be a few surface streets cutting through the park so it doesnt disrupt all east/west traffic. I was thinking keeping open St. Joseph Pkwy, Leeland, Texas, and Congress.

if the new expansion of GRB to the south still has a thru street under it on Polk (i think it will), then there could be a lighted "greenway" under 59 along Polk for improved pedestrian access/a short cut from the East End, to downtown, without having to walk all the way around the GRB.

taking out 45 around downtown would mean you could eliminate the flyover/overpass ramps on the west side of the 45/59 interchange. opening up another couple blocks to available park space.

there would still be the two 45 flyover ramps connecting to 59 that would be elevated over potential park space. theres really no way around that without some deep tunnels.

i also extended the park out width across 2 parking lots between Minute Maid and Dynamo stadium. i figured the 4 block plot to the east of the wider section of park could easily be converted into a parking garage for MMP and DS. or the 4 block parking lot could be turned into 2 blocks of parking garage and the 2 blocks on the west of the plot could be developed into mixed use/TODs since the land is right off the new light rail line.

Edited August 14, 2013 by cloud713

[Slick Vik]

Another point I haven't seen mentioned here is that if pierce was taken down the values of the property that is under the bridge would be high, as the barrier between midtown and downtown would no longer be there. This could have a residual effect.

[ig2ba]

Another point I haven't seen mentioned here is that if pierce was taken down the values of the property that is under the bridge would be high, as the barrier between midtown and downtown would no longer be there. This could have a residual effect.

 

One shouldn't assume that all we have to do is a standard cut and cover tunnel and then we'll be able to build 30+ story buildings over the submerged freeway. In all likelihood, unless we don't mind if the project gets extraordinarily expensive, you probably couldn't put anything but a park there - no buildings.

 

So it doesn't really matter if the property values would soar, since no one could extract that much value from it (I'm speaking monetarily - I would love another park in downtown).

[ig2ba]

cloud713 said:

 

are you proposing they bury just the Pierce Elevated, or the entire stretch of 45 around downtown? if its only the pierce elevated, it wont make much of a difference. 

if they got rid of i45 around downtown all together and rerouted the 45 traffic along 59 and 10, (expanding the 59 and 10 ROW a little of course) and then buried the stretch of 59 thats not already submerged, past the Toyota Center, it could skip the GRB and use the current elevated road for that portion since the GRB creates a barrier of its own, be submerged again past GRB, before coming back up around Commerce street. then the whole 45 corridor could be developed once thats removed, blending downtown with the surrounding areas, and some parks built over 59 on the north and south sides of GRB to help connect downtown and the East End.

 

 

Slick Vik said:

 

I'm ok with that idea

 

 

So what's the plan for the resulting traffic? Before the intersection of I-10 and I-45 (north, west of downtown), there are a combined nine lanes of traffic. Through downtown, those two freeways carry only 6 lanes of traffic. It's already very lane-imbalanced, and anyone who travels EB on I-10 into downtown knows that it can come to a standstill at almost any time of day, including the weekends.

 

And you are proposing to make it much worse? Instead of 9 down to 6 lanes, you think that 9 down to 3 lanes is really a workable solution?

 

I think most drivers would sooner drive past downtown smelling like the Ship Channel and every available surface spray-painted with gangland graffiti than to contend with the unbelievable cluster of hourS-long traffic jams that this configuration would cause.

[samagon]

They just need to bury all freeways inside the beltway. They could call it "the biggest dig"

[DonCheto]

Or they could just bury the pierce elevated. It would be more economically feasible than trying to bury 59 and reconfiguring our entire freeway system within the CBD.

[livincinco]

Or they could just bury the pierce elevated. It would be more economically feasible than trying to bury 59 and reconfiguring our entire freeway system within the CBD.

 

As I've mentioned before, I think that it's a nice idea, I'm just not sure that I would put it high enough to justify the required funding.  For example, I'd prefer to see funding provide to complete the Buffalo Bayou Master Plan and to complete the proposed network of hike/bike trails along the bayous instead.  I think that both of those projects would have a much bigger positive impact on the quality of life around the city than burying the Pierce elevated.

[ig2ba]

As I've mentioned before, I think that it's a nice idea, I'm just not sure that I would put it high enough to justify the required funding.  For example, I'd prefer to see funding provide to complete the Buffalo Bayou Master Plan and to complete the proposed network of hike/bike trails along the bayous instead.  I think that both of those projects would have a much bigger positive impact on the quality of life around the city than burying the Pierce elevated.

 

I too think that the Pierce could (should) be put underground, but when I see the state's transportation funding shortfall, I think that we wouldn't get around to this until well after 2030. (And that's if it is a reasonable proposal (turning it into a dead-end boulevard in downtown, as was mentioned earlier does not count as a serious proposal)). Most of us will be dead or retired in a different city by then.

[Guest Jackwood]

I think they should bury this thread.

[Slick Vik]

So what's the plan for the resulting traffic? Before the intersection of I-10 and I-45 (north, west of downtown), there are a combined nine lanes of traffic. Through downtown, those two freeways carry only 6 lanes of traffic. It's already very lane-imbalanced, and anyone who travels EB on I-10 into downtown knows that it can come to a standstill at almost any time of day, including the weekends.

And you are proposing to make it much worse? Instead of 9 down to 6 lanes, you think that 9 down to 3 lanes is really a workable solution?

I think most drivers would sooner drive past downtown smelling like the Ship Channel and every available surface spray-painted with gangland graffiti than to contend with the unbelievable cluster of hourS-long traffic jams that this configuration would cause.

As subdude and I mentioned before the pierce elevated was closed for months and traffic diverted fine.

[cloud713]

So what's the plan for the resulting traffic? Before the intersection of I-10 and I-45 (north, west of downtown), there are a combined nine lanes of traffic. Through downtown, those two freeways carry only 6 lanes of traffic. It's already very lane-imbalanced, and anyone who travels EB on I-10 into downtown knows that it can come to a standstill at almost any time of day, including the weekends.

And you are proposing to make it much worse? Instead of 9 down to 6 lanes, you think that 9 down to 3 lanes is really a workable solution?

I think most drivers would sooner drive past downtown smelling like the Ship Channel and every available surface spray-painted with gangland graffiti than to contend with the unbelievable cluster of hourS-long traffic jams that this configuration would cause.

Who said anything about narrowing them down to 3 lanes? Beside the boulevard idea. They would obviously have to expand the ROW along 59 and 10 to accommodate for the i45 thru lanes.

There have been proposals to shift the row of i10 further north through the wider/straighter path of the Hardy Yards site. That could take care of the 10 portion. As I stated earlier 59 is already submerged at the southern end of downtown so no work is needed besides additional lanes. They may have to remove Chartres street to expand 59/45 row, or tunnel under/along Chartres too.

I do agree it would create traffic while being constructed but the thru traffic can be diverted around 610, and IMO the temporary traffic headaches would be worth it.

[ig2ba]

Who said anything about narrowing them down to 3 lanes? Beside the boulevard idea. They would obviously have to expand the ROW along 59 and 10 to accommodate for the i45 thru lanes.

There have been proposals to shift the row of i10 further north through the wider/straighter path of the Hardy Yards site. That could take care of the 10 portion. As I stated earlier 59 is already submerged at the southern end of downtown so no work is needed besides additional lanes. They may have to remove Chartres street to expand 59/45 row, or tunnel under/along Chartres too.

I do agree it would create traffic while being constructed but the thru traffic can be diverted around 610, and IMO the temporary traffic headaches would be worth it.

 

Yes, the dead-end to a boulevard at downtown is a terrible idea. Terrible.

 

However, I'm also skeptical about putting all of the extra traffic on I-10 and 59. Just to keep what we already have, in terms of lane count, we would need to make 59 past downtown 7 lanes each way, plus probably a lane for exits/entrances in each direction. Minimum, you'd need 230 feet of ROW to meet current design standards. Short of completely eliminating Chartes AND taking 30 feet of private property from at least Polk to Ruiz, including the newish apartment buildings between Texas and Capitol, you couldn't submerge this many lanes. This would force all Astros or Dynamo traffic onto what is currently a 2-lane street. And some regular commuters as well.

 

Sure, you could in theory put Chartes on top of the submerged 59, but this would increase the cost for any highway. The costs would increase that much more for an uninterrupted span of 7 lanes plus shoulders.

 

Plus, keep in mind that one large freeway is much more likely to be affected by congeston than several smaller ones.

[Slick Vik]

Yes, the dead-end to a boulevard at downtown is a terrible idea. Terrible.

However, I'm also skeptical about putting all of the extra traffic on I-10 and 59. Just to keep what we already have, in terms of lane count, we would need to make 59 past downtown 7 lanes each way, plus probably a lane for exits/entrances in each direction. Minimum, you'd need 230 feet of ROW to meet current design standards. Short of completely eliminating Chartes AND taking 30 feet of private property from at least Polk to Ruiz, including the newish apartment buildings between Texas and Capitol, you couldn't submerge this many lanes. This would force all Astros or Dynamo traffic onto what is currently a 2-lane street. And some regular commuters as well.

Sure, you could in theory put Chartes on top of the submerged 59, but this would increase the cost for any highway. The costs would increase that much more for an uninterrupted span of 7 lanes plus shoulders.

Plus, keep in mind that one large freeway is much more likely to be affected by congeston than several smaller ones.

As subdude said before when the pierce elevated was being reconstructed the traffic was not any worse. People showed the ability to adapt to the situation.

[IronTiger]

The Pierce Elevated isn't located too far off the ground, right? What if we built small one level retail and restaurant buildings underneath the freeway? The idea sounds a little far fetched, but we're only dreaming right? Alternatively, we could double deck the highway.

[Howard Huge]

The Pierce Elevated isn't located too far off the ground, right? What if we built small one level retail and restaurant buildings underneath the freeway? The idea sounds a little far fetched, but we're only dreaming right? Alternatively, we could double deck the highway.

This could actually be done.

[RedScare]

Much of the real estate beneath the elevated freeways is being used as parking lots. This frees up unencumbered land for buildings. The Pierce Elevated also provides nice shade on a hot day. I enjoyed resting under it while cycling today. Considering the number of posters who advocate for elevated rail lines, I don't see the problem with an elevated freeway. If one is not a problem, neither is the other.

[livincinco]

The Pierce Elevated isn't located too far off the ground, right? What if we built small one level retail and restaurant buildings underneath the freeway?

You mean like Bubba's burger shack? Maybe they'd be interested in opening another location.

[cloud713]

[TowerSpotter]

What is this ^^^^^

[Subdude]

Slides from a presentation that was posted in Going Up, showing alternatives for the Pierce Elevated:  tunneled, parkway, one-way loop, removal etc.

 

 

 

[TowerSpotter]

Slides from a presentation that was posted in Going Up, showing alternatives for the Pierce Elevated:  tunneled, parkway, one-way loop, removal etc.

 

You mean to say the city is actually considering this!? This would be a dream come true...