Jump to content

I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)


Recommended Posts

congestion charges, and extra taxes wouldn't be a good idea without alternatives in place or being built.

 

just read this, not sure if it's April fools or not...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-state-budget-deal-brings-congestion-pricing-plastic-bag-ban-and-mansion-tax/ar-BBVrCcT?OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

Quote

a groundbreaking plan to charge motorists to drive into Manhattan’s busiest stretches.

 

I think a congestion charge, very minimal with every dollar going to metro would be a start that could give metro the leverage to get some serious dollars to add more mass transit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'd rather they tear down the Pierce Elevated, sell the land to developers, then use that cash to help cap the freeways on the other side of Downtown, but that's just me.

Absolutely love this quote from the article “If you really want to live in the suburbs, that’s OK. That’s a choice,” Graham said. “But when you make that choice you have to understand that you can’t d

Posted Images

16 hours ago, CaptainJilliams said:

 

Also, I could see the "congestion charge" facing some serious pushback from locals.

 

This is probably an understatement. It would be HUGELY unpopular.

 

We're just now seeing NYC decide to implement one, and that's not even for all of Manhattan (only below 60th). It's also somewhat regressive. It de-values the homes of the lower-middle- and middle-middle-class in the suburbs and increases the value of the homes of the upper-middle-class and wealthy closer to town.

 

However, to get people out of single-occupancy vehicles, the alternative has to be either faster, cheaper, or better (more comfortable/convenient). Preferably two out of three. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Driving in lower manhattan is always congested (when I arrived a few years ago and emerged from the subway at 2 am, the street was full of stopped cars); there is no comparison to Houston where it's only really that congested at rush hour, and even then there are cross town freeways that will move cars along as opposed to relying soley on surface streets.  Like it or not, NYC is in a different league in many different ways - the last time NYC was smaller than Houston's current population was in 1890 (according to the 1890 census), and Brooklyn was still a separate city of 800,000.  They have multiple different alternatives to driving in the lower manhattan, including multiple, duplicative subway lines, multiple commuter rail lines that go to more than one terminal station in the city, a huge bus network, as well as biking or taking a ferry.  

 

Houston, for the majority of the population, has to either drive or take the bus.  Unless you can take a park and ride bus to near your destination, the bus will take longer.  We have to focus on building up both more population and the density to feed a better public transportation network before we have to implement congestion pricing.

 

One idea I could get behind is dynamic tolling freeways inside the loop, but leaving surface streets free.  Tolls could start at $0.00 when there's no traffic, and slowly rise as the average speed drops below 60 mph.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cspwal said:

Driving in lower manhattan is always congested (when I arrived a few years ago and emerged from the subway at 2 am, the street was full of stopped cars); there is no comparison to Houston where it's only really that congested at rush hour, and even then there are cross town freeways that will move cars along as opposed to relying soley on surface streets.  Like it or not, NYC is in a different league in many different ways - the last time NYC was smaller than Houston's current population was in 1890 (according to the 1890 census), and Brooklyn was still a separate city of 800,000.  They have multiple different alternatives to driving in the lower manhattan, including multiple, duplicative subway lines, multiple commuter rail lines that go to more than one terminal station in the city, a huge bus network, as well as biking or taking a ferry.  

 

Houston, for the majority of the population, has to either drive or take the bus.  Unless you can take a park and ride bus to near your destination, the bus will take longer.  We have to focus on building up both more population and the density to feed a better public transportation network before we have to implement congestion pricing.

 

One idea I could get behind is dynamic tolling freeways inside the loop, but leaving surface streets free.  Tolls could start at $0.00 when there's no traffic, and slowly rise as the average speed drops below 60 mph.

 

Houston's near 24/7 traffic is not on surface streets, but freeways. 

 

I like the idea of a freeway charge, I like the idea of a congestion charge for anyone that doesn't drive a vehicle registered inside the city limits.

 

only if 100% of the money was put directly into funding mass transit.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have to be pay by mail/toll tag because of the through traffic on I-10, but a dynamic charge on the inner loop freeways would probably work - and I agree, as long as it is earmarked entirely for Metro, with a requirement it's put into developing either more rail or more regional express service (aka park and ride busses, commuter rail)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 5:07 PM, Triton said:

45skypark.PNG

 

What is going on here??  It looks like they plopped a stage down on the freeway, damming it up and only allowing a trickle of freeway to remain (the bike path)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cspwal said:

 

What is going on here??

I don't know, but it appears that someone's photo editing program has a steeper learning curve than they anticipated.
 Or, perhaps it's a collaboration between M. C. Escher and Salvador Dali. I can't make head nor tail of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the East End cap will get built and it will be because of Houston First convention organization. The Houston convention organization was a major driver in Discovery Green being built because of the impact on the GRB Conv Center. The East End cap over the trench will be right behind the GRB and would allow for opening up the back as a new entrance to the convention center. A GRB entrance can be built opening up to the park on the cap like the one opening up to Discovery Green. When it comes to project in Houston that positively improves the convention centers they always get done. Because of the impact the park space on the cap will have on the GRB, I believe it will get built.

Edited by cougarpad
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

logistically, the back of the building is used for getting all the stuff that makes up conventions in and out. booths, equipment, etc. that means loading docks, so an 18 wheeler can back up and the floor of the trailer is at the height of the floor.

 

sure they can reconfigure it, but they will have to consider logistics heavily.

 

there are certainly a lot of places that the money can come from for the cap parks, but until an entity, or group comes forward and says they're going to take on the burden, we can only speculate. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cougarpad said:

I believe the East End cap will get built and it will be because of Houston First convention organization. The Houston convention organization was a major driver in Discovery Green being built because of the impact on the GRB Conv Center. The East End cap over the trench will be right behind the GRB and would allow for opening up the back as a new entrance to the convention center. A GRB entrance can be built opening up to the park on the cap like the one opening up to Discovery Green. When it comes to project in Houston that positively improves the convention centers they always get done. Because of the impact the park space on the cap will have on the GRB, I believe it will get built.

The caps over 69 (nice) are right by Rice University's upcoming Innovation District.  A representative from Rice was a co-presenter to the Museum Park NA along with a rep on the construction.  Rice is communicating with other stakeholders on the design of the caps in connection with its Innovation District.  Because of Rice's involvement, I am thus optimistic the 69 caps will also get built.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, houstontexasjack said:

The caps over 69 (nice) are right by Rice University's upcoming Innovation District.  A representative from Rice was a co-presenter to the Museum Park NA along with a rep on the construction.  Rice is communicating with other stakeholders on the design of the caps in connection with its Innovation District.  Because of Rice's involvement, I am thus optimistic the 69 caps will also get built.

 

Agreed on the East End Cap and the 69 Caps near the Innovation District. The element that seems less certain is the Pierce Elevated Skypark, I don't know if they will re-purpose the highway for a park or if they will simply knock it down and connect Midtown and Downtown.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kennyc05 said:

What about the ones north of downtown on 45?

Those are the ones in Segment 2 of the proposal. I am far less optimistic about those at this time, as the cap parks proposed there lack natural institutional allies to help lead a sustained effort to back construction such as the Convention Center or Rice.  Segment 2 also is the portion with far more single-family residences in the cross-hairs for ROW expansion. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

About a year ago I remember seeing them getting core samples on the south bank of the White Oak Bayou and thought it might be for the IH 45 realignment, this time they were on the north bank and I stopped and asked a member of the company taking the core samples what it was for, he said for the IH 45 realignment and he guessed they might start the project 2020 winter. It will be a nightmare for traffic but will be great in the long run.

qO3KKyY.jpg

Edited by hindesky
Wrong time frame, winter of 2020.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CaptainJilliams said:

I figured that it was only a matter of time. Let the countdown to a congestion nightmare begin.

Hopefully they build it on the side without shutting down anything and just tie it into the excisting lanes at the end of construction. #nightmarehoustontraffic

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 10:49 AM, cspwal said:

It would have to be pay by mail/toll tag because of the through traffic on I-10, but a dynamic charge on the inner loop freeways would probably work - and I agree, as long as it is earmarked entirely for Metro, with a requirement it's put into developing either more rail or more regional express service (aka park and ride busses, commuter rail)

Why would a state-funded freeway be tolled to go to a local entity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/reviseddesign.aspx 

It says from May 2019

 

I'm not sure what's changed, but I'm trying to look at the whole downtown loop with fresh eyes

First off, Houston Ave connects to 4th ward and midtown as an actual street, turning into Heiner St

 

Why does 45 currently dip below Dallas? It goes over the bayou and Allen parkway, and then goes elevated for the Pierece elevated, but dips down under Dallas.  They keep that in the new alignment, but it only goes back to at grade of course since there's no more Pierce elevated.

HtpyWuN.png

 

Where is the "Be Someone" bridge?  Is it the labeled "Railroad bridge"?

 

The new 45 Max lanes as well as the 45 NB and SB are super close to White Oak Bayou - pretty much any rain and they will be over the water.

xXaHbxu.png

 

Currently, the Red line is elevated starting right after I-10 (where the blue arrow is).  The new plan for 45+10 is to be elevated, right where the red line elevated tracks are now.  What is the plan for that?  Burnett transit center is elevated, the tracks are elevated to avoid that RR - will they build the elevated sections of the freeway around it?  It doesn't even get acknowledged on the drawing.

j6qp0Xu.png

 

Would it be possible to add at least a Bike bridge to Polk? Right now it's where the bike lanes go out, and that makes for a nice southern access point for EaDo

 

The only access to downtown taking I45 NB from the Gulf freeway is the newly opened ramps to Pease and St Joesph off the main lanes.  Anyone who has been on 45 with even a smidge of traffic in the last year can tell that those ramps aren't sufficient for the current traffic from 45 - what will they be like when that's the last exit until after 10?  I think the downtown destinations exit from 45 was horribly redesigned when they made the 59 direct connectors.

 

Why not put a cap park between Elgin and McGowen, or at least design for the capability?  

7iOVFha.png

 

Why not start the potential green space/cap at Almeda for 59?  They could even cap the whole thing, with a building deck for most of it that they could sell property on. (Here I'm thinking like I-95 in NYC between the George Washington Bridge and the Harlem river)

x3Ve9gO.png

 

Finally, why go to the trouble of connecting only one side of Blodget to Main street?

Leqp2ly.png

 

Edited by cspwal
fixed a typo
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cspwal said:

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/reviseddesign.aspx 

It says from May 2019

 

I'm not sure what's changed, but I'm trying to look at the whole downtown loop with fresh eyes

First off, Houston Ave connects to 4th ward and midtown as an actual street, turning into Heiner St

 

Why does 45 currently dip below Dallas? It goes over the bayou and Allen parkway, and then goes elevated for the Pierece elevated, but dips down under Dallas.  They keep that in the new alignment, but it only goes back to at grade of course since there's no more Pierce elevated.

HtpyWuN.png

 

Where is the "Be Someone" bridge?  Is it the labeled "Railroad bridge"?

 

The new 45 Max lanes as well as the 45 NB and SB are super close to White Oak Bayou - pretty much any rain and they will be over the water.

xXaHbxu.png

 

Currently, the Red line is elevated starting right after I-10 (where the blue arrow is).  The new plan for 45+10 is to be elevated, right where the red line elevated tracks are now.  What is the plan for that?  Burnett transit center is elevated, the tracks are elevated to avoid that RR - will they build the elevated sections of the freeway around it?  It doesn't even get acknowledged on the drawing.

j6qp0Xu.png

 

Would it be possible to add at least a Bike bridge to Polk? Right now it's where the bike lanes go out, and that makes for a nice southern access point for EaDo

 

The only access to downtown taking I45 NB from the Gulf freeway is the newly opened ramps to Pease and St Joesph off the main lanes.  Anyone who has been on 45 with even a smidge of traffic in the last year can tell that those ramps aren't sufficient for the current traffic from 45 - what will they be like when that's the last exit until after 10?  I think the downtown destinations exit from 45 was horribly redesigned when they made the 59 direct connectors.

 

Why not put a cap park between Elgin and McGowen, or at least design for the capability?  

7iOVFha.png

 

Why not start the potential green space/cap at Almeda for 59?  They could even cap the whole thing, with a building deck for most of it that they could sell property on. (Here I'm thinking like I-95 in NYC between the George Washington Bridge and the Harlem river)

x3Ve9gO.png

 

Finally, why go to the trouble of connecting only once side of Blodget to Main street?

Leqp2ly.png

 

 

Great comments. I myself will probably look over this weekend to see what I can find.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am perplexed that this is still showing the railroad going through the north edge of downtown under UHD and the northern railroad in the 6th ward (outlined in purple below).  I was under the impression they were going to be tearing down the "Be Someone" bridge and realigning it to make the northern branch of the railroad go down to the southern branch (drawn in orange below), which would also make the northern canal to White Oak bayou possible.  Has that been canceled?  If not, has nobody told TxDOT?

 

Be8xY1s.png

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, rechlin said:

I am perplexed that this is still showing the railroad going through the north edge of downtown under UHD and the northern railroad in the 6th ward (outlined in purple below).  I was under the impression they were going to be tearing down the "Be Someone" bridge and realigning it to make the northern branch of the railroad go down to the southern branch (drawn in orange below), which would also make the northern canal to White Oak bayou possible.  Has that been canceled?  If not, has nobody told TxDOT?

 

Be8xY1s.png

Yea I saw that too. Really perplexing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, cspwal said:

The only access to downtown taking I45 NB from the Gulf freeway is the newly opened ramps to Pease and St Joesph off the main lanes.  Anyone who has been on 45 with even a smidge of traffic in the last year can tell that those ramps aren't sufficient for the current traffic from 45 - what will they be like when that's the last exit until after 10?

 

I think until the ramp to 59SB is open we can't judge too harshly yet, I'd guess a majority of traffic exiting there is headed for 59SB. 

 

I do suspect though that you are right though, once pierce is demolished, anyone trying to get from the Gulf freeway that usually uses the Allen Parkway, or Memorial exit is going to have to exit there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of swerving as well, as people who don't want to exit there realize it at the last moment.  Add in the entering traffic from Scott street, and I understand why they built the giant downtown exit ramp in the first place

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cspwal said:

There's a lot of swerving as well, as people who don't want to exit there realize it at the last moment.  Add in the entering traffic from Scott street, and I understand why they built the giant downtown exit ramp in the first place

 

they also funnel 3 lanes to 2. which isn't a good idea.

 

they should make 2 lanes exit and 2 lanes stay. it won't fix it, but it would probably help.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BeerNut said:

 

That article linked to a very interesting page at the bottom for the Downtown District. On it, that page has this PDF which I checked this forum and looks like it's never been posted here before. I wonder if the Downtown District vision PDF is newer than the City of Houston Planning Commission's presentations we saw last year. Looks like the date is Jan 31 2018 maybe based on the PDF name but I don't know...

 

http://www.downtowndistrict.org/static/media/uploads/attachments/180131_nhhip_vision_&_opportunities_final_design_report_swa_72_dpi.pdf

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some images in the presentation I don't remember seeing. Here is one concept for the EaDo Cap:

Eado Cap.png

 

Even if we only saw a cap half this size, it would be a game changer for Downtown.

 

Also, I like this image of Downtown and the proposed bridge going over the Bayou. Trying to imagine The Allen rising next to the FDR Branch Building:

 

Bayou Bridge.png

Edited by CaptainJilliams
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaptainJilliams said:

There are some images in the presentation I don't remember seeing. Here is one concept for the EaDo Cap:

Eado Cap.png

 

Even if we only saw a cap half this size, it would be a game changer for Downtown.

 

 

We have definitely seen the cap park presented by the City of Houston's Planning Commission. My main question though is... who has the latest design... is it the Planning Commission which was presented to local neighborhoods last year or is it this presentation by Downtown District/Central Houston or are these competing designs for the downtown area? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

I'm pretty sure that is an image of existing bridges.

 

There’s a bright, shining bridge in the background to the left behind the scissor, pedestrian bridge in the foreground.

 

The bridge in the background would come with the rebuild of I-45. You can see it better in this image from the presentation:

Bayou Bridge2.png

Edited by CaptainJilliams
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CaptainJilliams said:

 

There’s a bright, shining bridge in the background to the left behind the scissor, pedestrian bridge in the foreground.

 

The bridge in the background would come with the rebuild of I-45.

 

I think the coolest thing so far is that no matter who is behind that portion of the I-45 rebuild, all of them include some type of iconic bridge right here going over Buffalo Bayou. Wish we could make some type of landmark bridge that makes this spot a #1 destination for tourists to take a great photo of our city (though the Sabine bridge already gets a lot of photography activity already).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Triton said:

 

That article linked to a very interesting page at the bottom for the Downtown District. On it, that page has this PDF which I checked this forum and looks like it's never been posted here before. I wonder if the Downtown District vision PDF is newer than the City of Houston Planning Commission's presentations we saw last year. Looks like the date is Jan 31 2018 maybe based on the PDF name but I don't know...

 

http://www.downtowndistrict.org/static/media/uploads/attachments/180131_nhhip_vision_&_opportunities_final_design_report_swa_72_dpi.pdf

 

is anyone else as concerned as I am that the people doing this don't know Houston that well?

 

page 26 shows an existing picture of downtown looking south from 45 towards downtown, they have an arrow pointed at little white oak bayou, which is labeled white oak bayou. they have an arrow pointed at white oak bayou, which is labeled UHD, they have an arrow pointed at 3rd ward and call it Eado, they have an arrow pointed at the federal building and call it county facilities. so odd.

 

the other pages are all pretty accurate, so it looks like they used apple maps for that particular page. anyway, just weird.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the Walker street to Allen Parkway west connection left in the design?

 

Do we really need this road? It cuts off the Sam Houston Park from the Bayou unnecessarily. If the new, nice suspension bridge goes in which will help to reduce the obstructions between the parks, why put in a street that will most likely have cars driving 35-45 mph on it?

 

It's not like this street really helps with access or addresses any real traffic need as Sabine St. can be accessed via an intersection with Allen Pkwy now.

 

You can get on Allen Pkwy from Lamar which is … a block away!

 

I say eliminate it, reduce the need to keep it up, increase access from Bayou trails-Buffalo Bayou Park-City Hall, and reduce the potential for cars coming into contact with pedestrians / runners. 

 

image.thumb.png.64b98f9954ae0b87e4fadb6b26f9c962.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Why use the clover-leaf design from Allen Parkway eastbound to the Spur northbound?

 

Would it be a better use of space to just make that a flyover? Heck it might even add some symmetry. It also allows for an almost city block sized parcel of land to open up for development if sold by TxDOT

 

image.thumb.png.e70edc16c208a51b1c5cbc3dd6df24e5.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a flyover more than disconnecting Walker - it provides a scenic start to Allen parkway if it starts with Walker, and there will be more people using walker than Lamar anyway to go west.

 

I think the idea behind keeping the cloverleaf is that it is cheaper, and that the traffic is going to be low volume enough that there wouldn't be a great need for a flyover ramp.  Land downtown is expensive, but so are those flyover ramps.

 

Keeping it as a clover leaf, they can have green space on the inside of the clover, keeping the area more of a park feel

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

another reason not to close walker is because the rich people that go from walker to allen pkwy, to kirby to their home in river oaks are not going to be happy hearing they have to be inconvenienced by sitting through 2 more traffic signals. there are already more traffic signals on allen pkwy as it is, won't anyone think of thier needs?

 

a less sarcastic answer, yes, kill the walker access to allen pkwy. also, just kill the direct access from allen pkwy to 45. how hard is it for someone to go down to dallas, turn left on bagby, then turn left on walker?

 

if we're asking why things were done.. there are far more people at all times of day wanting to get from memorial onto 45 (currently) than from allen pkwy to 45. As an example, in the afternoon you have to wait 3-4 cycles of the lights at Houston/Memorial to get onto 45 south. 

 

3GD3IMX.jpg

 

why is there no entrance from memorial onto 45 in the proposal? that is a far greater need than allen pkwy. currently, they're going to have to turn right on bagby, then go through 3 lights, and turn right again on walker, which is currently a very heavy traffic entry to the freeway.

 

the rest of this project around downtown may suck, but for people that currently get on 45 south from memorial, this is going to be a horrifying shit show.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, samagon said:

another reason not to close walker is because the rich people that go from walker to allen pkwy, to kirby to their home in river oaks are not going to be happy hearing they have to be inconvenienced by sitting through 2 more traffic signals. there are already more traffic signals on allen pkwy as it is, won't anyone think of thier needs?

 

a less sarcastic answer, yes, kill the walker access to allen pkwy. also, just kill the direct access from allen pkwy to 45. how hard is it for someone to go down to dallas, turn left on bagby, then turn left on walker?

 

if we're asking why things were done.. there are far more people at all times of day wanting to get from memorial onto 45 (currently) than from allen pkwy to 45. As an example, in the afternoon you have to wait 3-4 cycles of the lights at Houston/Memorial to get onto 45 south. 

 

3GD3IMX.jpg

 

why is there no entrance from memorial onto 45 in the proposal? that is a far greater need than allen pkwy. currently, they're going to have to turn right on bagby, then go through 3 lights, and turn right again on walker, which is currently a very heavy traffic entry to the freeway.

 

the rest of this project around downtown may suck, but for people that currently get on 45 south from memorial, this is going to be a horrifying shit show.

 

In the new configuration, you'd be able to exit for Houston Ave, Turn right on Houston, then turn left at the Allen Parkway intersection, and then take the cloverleaf on-ramp to the Spur.

 

I guess in that way, the cloverleaf entrance does have a benefit in that it can serve both memorial AND allen parkway.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, there are a good amount of revisions incoming. I attended an I-45 meeting on Saturday and they showed slides which are not presently on the IH45north and more website. Since it was focused on the Northside area, they only presented the revisions for our area which included changes for N Main, big changes for the San Jacinto connection, and a number of changes near Jensen. I'll post some of the pics when I have a chance. During this last round, they made it pretty clear that they were working with a lot more local entities now to try to hammer out the more minor and local details. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, samagon said:

if we're asking why things were done.. there are far more people at all times of day wanting to get from memorial onto 45 (currently) than from allen pkwy to 45. As an example, in the afternoon you have to wait 3-4 cycles of the lights at Houston/Memorial to get onto 45 south. 

 

 

why is there no entrance from memorial onto 45 in the proposal? that is a far greater need than allen pkwy. currently, they're going to have to turn right on bagby, then go through 3 lights, and turn right again on walker, which is currently a very heavy traffic entry to the freeway.

 

9

 

How do you know this? 

 

FWIW, the access from Allen Parkway was not included in the first iteration and was added in response to public comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 5:48 PM, Houston19514 said:

 

How do you know this? 

 

FWIW, the access from Allen Parkway was not included in the first iteration and was added in response to public comments.

 

2 reasons I know this:

 

1. I work in a tower downtown, my window faces west. in the afternoon sometimes I'm bored and just look at the traffic out the window.

 

2. I bank with wood forest and the closest one to where I live/work is in walmart on Yale. so on my way home from there I sit in the traffic at that intersection. if it were legal to turn left from waugh onto allen pkwy I would absolutely take that path rather than memorial, so much faster.

Edited by samagon
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Triton changed the title to I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

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...