I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[IronTiger]

6 hours ago, JLWM8609 said:

 

The old Astroworld lot is a giant dirt parking lot used for the rodeo and storage of temporary buildings and equipment. Not sure how it looks like "Uptown South" to you.

 

The car dealerships are still there, too (Chevy, Toyota, Nissan).

 

43 minutes ago, BigFootsSocks said:

He was being facetious, though that's not that fair considering no one expected a giant economic recession. Besides, the park was going to close anyway; Six Flags closed a lot parks in bankruptcy.

 

Either way it doesn't matter because it's not a good comparison of what could happen here, unless someone has invented time travel and isn't sharing it with the rest of us, in which case, IT how long until we get our 102 story tower?

 

Yes, of course I was being facetious and I thought (wrongfully apparently) that I didn't need to have a smiley face because of how patently ridiculous the whole concept was. Guess not.

 

Economic recession or not, Astroworld's land flat-out just wasn't worth as much as was believed. It wasn't developed prior to 2008 (probably because the asking price was too high) and wasn't developed in the last past few years (or even had a plan for development). Believing that the Pierce Elevated's land is similarly that valuable or could making a meaningful offset to the cost of construction of the whole project is going to be kidding themselves (and as for arguments for "but Astroworld's different", similar highway removal plans like in downtown Milwaukee or San Francisco resulted in parking lots for years and years ahead).

Edited April 15, 2016 by IronTiger

[Montrose1100]

11 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

 

 

Yes, of course I was being facetious and I thought (wrongfully apparently) that I didn't need to have a smiley face because of how patently ridiculous the whole concept was. Guess not.

 

Economic recession or not, Astroworld's land flat-out just wasn't worth as much as was believed. It wasn't developed prior to 2008 (probably because the asking price was too high) and wasn't developed in the last past few years (or even had a plan for development). Believing that the Pierce Elevated's land is similarly that valuable or could making a meaningful offset to the cost of construction of the whole project is going to be kidding themselves (and as for arguments for "but Astroworld's different", similar highway removal plans like in downtown Milwaukee or San Francisco resulted in parking lots for years and years ahead).

No one in their right mind would think the selling of the land would even put a dent in the overall budget. 

[IronTiger]

1 minute ago, Montrose1100 said:

No one in their right mind would think the selling of the land would even put a dent in the overall budget. 

Exactly, but I read some of these replies in this thread, and I'm not sure if everyone agrees on that.

[Montrose1100]

3 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

Exactly, but I read some of these replies in this thread, and I'm not sure if everyone agrees on that.

Well, we can all agree on the below.

• You have been extra sassy lately.
• I said in their right mind. Traffic is a passionate issue.
• Eventually the blocks will be worth more.
• who knows what would be built on them as Downtown/Midtown/Montroseish/Museum District start to close on each other.
• It's on a grid with close access to the only excuse of public transportation we have.

[IronTiger]

2 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

Well, we can all agree on the below.

• You have been extra sassy lately. - I may be a bit off-putting in this thread, but I've always had that type of opinion. But I have been working a somewhat tough job lately, has my "blowing off steam" been that obvious?
• I said in their right mind. Traffic is a passionate issue. - I'd say that many of the "removal of the Pierce Elevated" arguments are not "right mind" arguments. What are you trying to say?
• Eventually the blocks will be worth more. - Guessing, no one knows the future.
• who knows what would be built on them as Downtown/Midtown/Montroseish/Museum District start to close on each other. - Guessing, no one knows the future
• It's on a grid with close access to the only excuse of public transportation we have. - So buses aren't public transportation now? Come on, man. You can't accuse someone of backtalk and exaggerated comparisons and then proceed to do the same thing.

 

[BigFootsSocks]

All I was saying was that the "but look what happened to Astroworld!" assertion is as bad as the "but Astroworld is different!" claim. Meaning, they don't have any merit for this discussion.

[Montrose1100]

1 hour ago, IronTiger said:

 

Buses are terrible. I don't know how accurate google maps are (usually 97% when driving), but going to work, or to restaurants/clubs/bars/anything from my apartment are often so ridiculous it would be faster to bike. Not the Choo-Choo! Besides that, it's blocks and blocks of wide (mostly), one-way streets. To ignore that is silly. It's a grid, and the eventuality* is an urban city. 

 

And of course it's guessing Iron, Hence the "who knows". 

 

I was agreeing with you, even talking about myself, that transit can get people worked up. When they do the bias blooms. 

 

*totally guessing with my crystal ball - Pending any asteroid apocalypse, economic meltdown, war with Russia, etc.

 

edit: I know it's my wet dream to see it removed, but there's nothing wrong with visualizing that avenue.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Montrose1100

[cspwal]

In my experience, buses are good for going short distances (1-2 miles) on a local, or long distances if its an express like the P&R buses. The problem with the bus system as it stands is it relies on frequent local buses - great for short trips, but horrible for the scale of Houston.  That's what the Purple City proposal was trying to address, by making it possible to have through HOV/HOT lanes that go both ways, which would allow more rapid bus service.

[Montrose1100]

2 minutes ago, cspwal said:

In my experience, buses are good for going short distances (1-2 miles) on a local, or long distances if its an express like the P&R buses. The problem with the bus system as it stands is it relies on frequent local buses - great for short trips, but horrible for the scale of Houston.  That's what the Purple City proposal was trying to address, by making it possible to have through HOV/HOT lanes that go both ways, which would allow more rapid bus service.

Getting from "greater" Uptown where I live to Brookhollow where I work can be timed at +1.5 hours with a transfer or two, and a mile of walking. We need right of way or rail desperately.

[cspwal]

 

2 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

Getting from "greater" Uptown where I live to Brookhollow where I work can be timed at +1.5 hours with a transfer or two, and a mile of walking. We need right of way or rail desperately.

 

That's ridiculous.  It might be faster for you to walk that!

 

Maybe HAIF can get together and buy one of those tunnel boring things to make a subway

[IronTiger]

The recent floods have made me wonder if entirely sunken highways around downtown are that much of a good idea, and especially the idea of the deck park over a 59/45, making it impossible to air-rescue anyone unfortunate enough to get stuck down there. Dallas' "tunnel" under Klyde Warren Park doesn't have that same problem due to the Trinity River having a wide "right of way" so to speak, to flood over, but Houston doesn't have that luxury. 

 

The current set-up allows 45 to access 59 and remain elevated (as the Pierce Elevated drops below to Dallas), whereas the TxDOT plan basically paralyzes the inner loop highway system by having all highways going in and out of downtown remaining completely inaccessible during a flooding event.

 

Just something to think about.

[JLWM8609]

1 hour ago, IronTiger said:

The current set-up allows 45 to access 59 and remain elevated (as the Pierce Elevated drops below to Dallas), whereas the TxDOT plan basically paralyzes the inner loop highway system by having all highways going in and out of downtown remaining completely inaccessible during a flooding event.

 

Just something to think about.

 

The inner loop was just about completely inaccessible during Allison and that's with the current set-up. I remember we had flooding of 288/59 south of downtown, and that rarely happens. Depressed highways like 288 between Wheeler and 610 can function as a spillway during extreme flooding events. While flooding along Brays, particularly in Meyerland was bad, I think flooding would've been worse if not for 288 functioning as a spillway, but I'm no hydrologist. 

[ADCS]

10 hours ago, IronTiger said:

The recent floods have made me wonder if entirely sunken highways around downtown are that much of a good idea, and especially the idea of the deck park over a 59/45, making it impossible to air-rescue anyone unfortunate enough to get stuck down there. Dallas' "tunnel" under Klyde Warren Park doesn't have that same problem due to the Trinity River having a wide "right of way" so to speak, to flood over, but Houston doesn't have that luxury. 

 

The current set-up allows 45 to access 59 and remain elevated (as the Pierce Elevated drops below to Dallas), whereas the TxDOT plan basically paralyzes the inner loop highway system by having all highways going in and out of downtown remaining completely inaccessible during a flooding event.

 

Just something to think about.

 

Flooded freeways are a feature, not a bug. Like it or not, they're a critical part of the retention strategy in our flood control plan. Saving lives and homes is far more important than ensuring your commute is the exact same in extreme weather.

 

The trick is convincing people to get off the freeways just before they flood, but Houstonians tend to be pathologically stubborn about that sort of thing. I even tried to take Memorial across the park to work on Monday morning, until realizing that it wasn't going to work.

 

I think the suggestion of automatic flood gates, similar to snow gates in Colorado, is a good one.

Edited April 21, 2016 by ADCS

[BigFootsSocks]

Yeah and if we get another flooding on this scale there's no reason to believe that people moving through the city won't know to take other routes. There's the free loop 610 for a reason.

[IronTiger]

A deck park would still be problematic though from an air-rescue perspective, though.

[ADCS]

In which case you install gates at exits before the depressed section, and activate the gates when either rainfall hits a certain intensity, or standing water in the depressed section reaches a certain height. These are engineering problems that can be easily solved.

[cspwal]

That works until the public officials don't install them because "people go around barricades".

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/public-works-didnt-install-barriers-for-flooded-underpasses-because-it-assumed-drivers-would-ignore-them-8340075

Quote

In explaining why they decided not to go forward with the mechanical arms, Public Works spokeswoman Julie Gilbert compared them to the arms at railroad crossings — which exist on most major thoroughfares that see regular train traffic. 

"The point is that, the arms, we know, just like the railroad crossing arms, people go through them," Gilbert told the Houston Press on Wednesday. "People go around barricades. People run red lights. [The arms] are not designed to be barricades. 

 

[sdotwill84]

2 minutes ago, cspwal said:

That works until the public officials don't install them because "people go around barricades".

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/public-works-didnt-install-barriers-for-flooded-underpasses-because-it-assumed-drivers-would-ignore-them-8340075

 

 

Unfortunately, a young lady passed early monday morning as she went around the barricades on her way home. Sad story.

[cspwal]

Just now, sdotwill84 said:

 

Unfortunately, a young lady passed early monday morning as she went around the barricades on her way home. Sad story.

 

That is quite sad

[IronTiger]

 

39 minutes ago, ADCS said:

In which case you install gates at exits before the depressed section, and activate the gates when either rainfall hits a certain intensity, or standing water in the depressed section reaches a certain height. These are engineering problems that can be easily solved.

That would work in an ideal world. But remember, most of the air rescue crews during flooding (and accompanying deaths, usually) are from people who don't heed warnings and do other stupid things.

[ADCS]

4 hours ago, sdotwill84 said:

 

Unfortunately, a young lady passed early monday morning as she went around the barricades on her way home. Sad story.

 

We can only do so much. Sadly, there's no getting around human ingenuity past a certain point. Still, I think larger steel barriers would be much more difficult to defeat than the plastic temporary ones that Public Works uses.

 

The sorts of barriers that I'm thinking of are commonly used in the Mountain West and Plains states to shut down Interstates for blizzards. There is no reason these can't be installed here for heavy floods.

[cspwal]

2 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

We can only do so much. Sadly, there's no getting around human ingenuity past a certain point. Still, I think larger steel barriers would be much more difficult to defeat than the plastic temporary ones that Public Works uses.

 

The sorts of barriers that I'm thinking of are commonly used in the Mountain West and Plains states to shut down Interstates for blizzards. There is no reason these can't be installed here for heavy floods.

 

So barriers more similar to the ones that are closed on the HOV/HOT lanes when they are closed in that direction

[BigFootsSocks]

Are you seriously using the incredibly small and minute chance of an air rescue operation for a very specific scenario on a one mile stretch of highway in the entire Houston Metropolitan area as a legitimate and serious strike against the removal and replacement of a multi billion dollar freeway system? 

 

This is the best take I've seen on this thread.

 

[mollusk]

I really don't get Julie Gilbert's logic.  It's taking "this is why we can't have nice things - some people don't appreciate them."  Sure, some people run red lights and some people drive around railroad crossing arms.  But most don't. 

 

 

[IronTiger]

On 4/22/2016 at 11:05 PM, BigFootsSocks said:

Are you seriously using the incredibly small and minute chance of an air rescue operation for a very specific scenario on a one mile stretch of highway in the entire Houston Metropolitan area as a legitimate and serious strike against the removal and replacement of a multi billion dollar freeway system? 

 

This is the best take I've seen on this thread.

 

First off, I said that it was a problem with the deck park system, not necessarily the sunken freeway, and that it was "something to think about". You can accuse some topics as "hot takes" as you and other Pierce Elevated removal advocates exchange high-fives over it, but if you're already of the "Remove the Pierce Elevated at any cost" mindset, what legitimate criticism have you ever accepted as a valid reason?

 

In all fairness, if you browse this thread I admit that I've never heard of a legitimate reason for removing it, so neither of us can take the high ground...or below-grade ground, for that matter. 

[ADCS]

IT, ever thought about coming up with a legitimate argument for removing the Pierce? It might help with your arguments being perceived as hot takes.

[BigFootsSocks]

1 hour ago, IronTiger said:

First off, I said that it was a problem with the deck park system, not necessarily the sunken freeway, and that it was "something to think about". You can accuse some topics as "hot takes" as you and other Pierce Elevated removal advocates exchange high-fives over it, but if you're already of the "Remove the Pierce Elevated at any cost" mindset, what legitimate criticism have you ever accepted as a valid reason?

 

In all fairness, if you browse this thread I admit that I've never heard of a legitimate reason for removing it, so neither of us can take the high ground...or below-grade ground, for that matter. 

You're assuming that a very specific emergency rescue operation that happens on average around 3,000 times a year all over the metropolitan area is somehow a valid reason for not putting in a deck park, and thus not removing the Pierce. I haven't rejected any legitimate criticism, I'm only pointing out the ludicrous and reaching criticisms that you and Gattis have posited in the past couple of weeks. If there is a serious enough accident that would require a life flight operation, then it's easy enough for emergency medical crew to transport the patient to a location on either side of the deck's entrance. Sure, it might be easier for a helicopter to land on the Pierce, but how many times has an air rescue operation taken place on either side of downtown?! And why are we assuming that a hospital would send a life flight crew when an ambulance to and from St.Joseph's or the medical center is easier and cheaper?

 

I really don't need you to explain how the entire argumentative process works. It's patronizing, it's a waste of our time, and it assumes that my entire goal is to change your mind. I don't give a shit what yours and anyone else's opinion is (regardless of their side in this); my goal is to point out the weak flaws and holes in your's and other's arguments that rely on such frivolous and irrelevant points of contention for a topic that should not be taken this lightly. A potentially $6 billion project should not be debated by its "air rescue" access points or its ability to "keep the culture of Midtown alive by lack of office towers." The "hot take" I refer to in your recent argument is thinking that anyone on either side of the issue considers that specific point to hold any merit. 

Do not think I am simply insulting you or saying your arguments are weak; I'm saying you and Gattis have come up with more valid criticisms than this, and that I expect better arguments from you and your "side" as it were. I don't bring up other criticisms simply because I do consider them legitimate and worthy for discussion, and those people who are on the "other side" are foolish and ignorant for ignoring them. 

[IronTiger]

I come to the HAIF because I want to, not because I have a particular bone to pick about freeways or trains or whatever HAIFers want to talk about. I only accused you of what you said both because of a noted insistence in tearing down the Pierce Elevated for a certain group of people and the fact that you've used the "hot take" accusation before on at least one occasion (not to mention the fact that a lot of times people use it as a way of dismissing an argument).

 

Whatever you may think of me, my postings, and my arguments, I've been on the Internet long enough that I've learned that I can't take arguments too seriously because it's just not worth it. That's why that last paragraph is in there, to admit that I'm not being as arrogant as you think I am, and to remember that it's just the Internet. However, reading through your three paragraph response gives me the impression that you might have missed that part.

Edited April 23, 2016 by IronTiger
typo

[BigFootsSocks]

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of though; of pointing out how irrelevant the OP I replied to was? I guess. 

 

The irony in this passive aggressive post is that you misread me essentially saying I don't think you're arrogant. 

 

For the record, a hot take is a grandiose, bombastic, or over-simplification of an argument. For example, about 90% of our former friend HOUTXUSA's posts.

[IronTiger]

2 hours ago, BigFootsSocks said:

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of though; of pointing out how irrelevant the OP I replied to was? I guess. 

 

The irony in this passive aggressive post is that you misread me essentially saying I don't think you're arrogant. 

 

For the record, a hot take is a grandiose, bombastic, or over-simplification of an argument. For example, about 90% of our former friend HOUTXUSA's posts.

 

It wasn't a passive aggressive post. I'm sorry if you read it that way. 

Secondly, I'm sorry I read your post the wrong way, though the wording of "don't think I'm simply insulting you" reads like insulting me is already part of the package.

Thirdly, I am well aware of what a hot take is.

 

Sometime I'd like to take another look at the plan because disregarding the Pierce Elevated, there's a lot of room for improvement. For example, in the I-10/I-45 spaghetti (as it exists now), why are there left hand exits in two different places instead of trying for a variation of what's every other highway has, with one right hand exit for both east and west (or north and south) exits, then splitting those off, then rejoining them as they re-join their highways. If there was one part of the downtown highway system that needed improvement, that would be my choice. Did they actually keep this or fix this in the TxDOT plan? When I have time, I'd like to study that...

 

 

Edited April 24, 2016 by IronTiger