I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[UtterlyUrban]

16 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Why would you say the project does not increase capacity on 45?

I believe that his point is this:

 

while it will increase capacity now (if it were built and open now), since it will many years before it is built and open, the increase in traffic between now and when it opens will likely mean that the average commute time today vs the future period when this opens may be the same or worse.

 

this is a typical story of many highway projects..... they are "obsolete before they open."  Whether you agree with that logic or not, is open for debate.

 

i am curious though.....

 

what would it cost to dig a true tunnel the few miles it would need to be dug?  No land would need to be purchased (a big element of the total cost of the current project, I'll bet).  And there would be minimal surface impacts during construction.  Any ideas on cost?  

[MaxConcrete]

21 minutes ago, UtterlyUrban said:

I

what would it cost to dig a true tunnel the few miles it would need to be dug?  No land would need to be purchased (a big element of the total cost of the current project, I'll bet).  And there would be minimal surface impacts during construction.  Any ideas on cost?  

 

Tunnel options were studied as alternatives early in the process, around 5 to 6 years ago. You can find details of the tunnel alignments in the meeting documents on the official project web site. The tunnels would not have replaced existing freeways, but provided additional capacity, presumably toll/HOV.. These documents provide a good overview

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs/Universe_of_Alts_Seg_3.pdf

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs/IH45_Universe_of_Alts_Summary.pdf

 

The cost figure they reported was $700 million per mile for a four-lane bored tunnel with two lanes on each of two levels (i.e. a double-deck tunnel). Costs have surely risen since then, so $800 million per mile would probably be a rough estimate.

[samagon]

On 1/20/2017 at 3:59 PM, Houston19514 said:

 

Why would you say the project does not increase capacity on 45?

Overall, the entire system will have added capacity.

 

Specifically, the realignment of 45 through downtown will not. What changes that are made to make the system run smoother (no left exits/entries) could be done within the existing ROW. There are no additional lanes. Furthermore, have you ever taken the turn from the existing gulf freeway NB to 59 NB? That radius, that curve, is about what the new one will be. 90% of drivers slow down to 35mph on that curve. I don't look for it because I don't drive a rig, but I believe there are signs that state the maximum for high load vehicles is 35mph. The new radius appears to only slightly be more open. cars will slow down. the same is true as 45 turns from being aligned with 59 to being aligned with 10. cars will slow down immensely for this curve. is there any elevation change while these are curving? Due to the tight nature of things, I can't see there not being elevation change during the turns, this will further complicate the corner for drivers making them want to slow down even more.

 

Next time you're going north through downtown on 45, take the route on the freeway as it is currently. Imagine taking those same corners, only slightly more open, but with 2 lanes of hundreds of cars and trucks and 18 wheelers trying to not to drift into each other. 

 

So yeah, specifically, the realignment of 45 from the pierce elevated to follow 59 and 10 does absolutely nothing for the greater whole.

 

This is all so some developers can snatch some land, and a very small minority of residents can feel better that for the distance of about 1 mile, there isn't a freeway anymore.

 

The overall project is ok, the realignment of 45 is very bad.

Edited January 22, 2017 by samagon

[Houston19514]

9 minutes ago, samagon said:

Overall, the entire system will have added capacity.

 

Specifically, the realignment of 45 through downtown will not. What changes that are made to make the system run smoother (no left exits/entries) could be done within the existing ROW. There are no additional lanes. Furthermore, have you ever taken the turn from the existing gulf freeway NB to 59 NB? That radius, that curve, is about what the new one will be. 90% of drivers slow down to 35mph on that curve. I don't look for it because I don't drive a rig, but I believe there are signs that state the maximum for high load vehicles is 35mph. The new radius appears to only slightly be more open. cars will slow down. the same is true as 45 turns from being aligned with 59 to being aligned with 10. cars will slow down immensely for this curve. is there any elevation change while these are curving? Due to the tight nature of things, I can't see there not being elevation change during the turns, this will further complicate the corner for drivers making them want to slow down even more.

 

Next time you're going north through downtown on 45, take the route on the freeway as it is currently. Imagine taking those same corners, only slightly more open, but with 2 lanes of hundreds of cars and trucks and 18 wheelers trying to not to drift into each other. 

 

So yeah, specifically, the realignment of 45 from the pierce elevated to follow 59 and 10 does absolutely nothing for the greater whole.

 

This is all so some developers can snatch some land, and a very small minority of residents can feel better that for the distance of about 1 mile, there isn't a freeway anymore.

 

The overall project is ok, the realignment of 45 is very bad.

 

Prett sure it actually does add lanes to I-45 through downtown.

[samagon]

21 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Prett sure it actually does add lanes to I-45 through downtown.

 

 

 

Currently,  NB where 45 goes over 59 it drops to 2 lanes. then it gradually expands to 3-4 lanes, depending on where you are in the rest of the system.

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45/59 interchange, it expands to 5 lanes, then drops to 4 lanes, eventually where 45 continues on it's original ROW from i10 it drops to 2 lanes.

 

currently, SB where 45 and 10 do their thing, there's 3 lanes of 45, then 4 lanes when it picks up i10 traffic, then it dumps to 3 again. and finally, where 45 crosses 59 there's 2 current lanes. further, there's 2 lanes that can exit 45 to join 59/288 south. 

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45 through joining to 2 lanes of i10 funneling down to 3 total lanes throughout. there's only 1 lane that exits for 59 and another for 288. my experience is that way more people want to get off for 59 from 45, rather than 288.

 

anyway, yeah. using the existing alignment it looks like they could buy that small passport photo place, and easily add an additional lane of traffic in each direction throughout the entire length with marginal row needed. get rid of the dallas dip by making that go over rather than under, get rid of left exits/entries, that would do so much better for the overall project.

 

Anyway, the project has at least one really interesting easter egg in it. 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

go to where 45 and i10 merge. follow the regular 45 SB traffic. It's a yellow highlighted line. where does it go? it disappears under i10 express, then just miraculously springs into being again. It's clearly not right. Same for 45 NB. it goes from being a tiny 2 lane to a wide 4 lane. What? 

 

on that pdf, go to where holly and spring street merge, it's near WOB, just look at the interchange.

Edited January 22, 2017 by samagon

[Danny1022]

24 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Prett sure it actually does add lanes to I-45 through downtown.

It does add capacity only because it would be a longer distance, and the addition of lanes depends on where they're adding the lanes, 

But the fact that there are 3 extreme curves immediately forces the speed limit to drop dramatically.

Also they don't eliminate every left exit that exists, in some parts there are even many exits in one place instead of one exit to carry all traffic and then would split. When its necessary 

2 lanes are added on the 59, on the 45 southbound it stays 3 lanes wide(same as today), but on the 45 northbound it's 5 lanes. And indeed the 45 is widened to 3 lanes at the 59 interchange, but those 3 lanes include traffic coming from the 59 eastex freeway.

What would slow down traffic the most are mostly mostly the curves at the interchanges, plus the fact that most traffic in downtown is through traffic. And also keep in mind the levels of traffic now compared to how they'll Be in the future, when they Finnish the project there may even be the same speed and Sane number of traffic jams

So the 45 could be widened, the 59 too but just one lane added, and the Allen pkwy interchange coild just be reconstructed and have all right exits and the 45 won't have To go from 5 lane to 3 lanes and instead from 5 lanes to 4 lanes, as well as the 10 interchange which could be just be redesigned and widen the 10 where it merges to 2 lane because that is a bad bottleneck. As well as adding space for cars to merge easily
Maybe widen the 59  to 5 or maximum 6 lanes but not sure, and widen from 1 to 2 lanes the 59 eastex to 45 gulf and from the 59 South to the 10 Katy
Also have comments about the 45 North of the 10 but that's another story.
Maybe on future plans have an express lane highway parallel next to the railroad in the EaDo part, but as long term plans.
That'll solve the bottlenecks on the 45 59 and 10 on a more reasonable amount of money.. benefiting all through traffic the same as their project would. hope this is satisfying for most although I know I'll get at least one complaint.

[Houston19514]

NM

Edited January 22, 2017 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

5 hours ago, samagon said:

 

 

 

Currently,  NB where 45 goes over 59 it drops to 2 lanes. then it gradually expands to 3-4 lanes, depending on where you are in the rest of the system.

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45/59 interchange, it expands to 5 lanes, then drops to 4 lanes, eventually where 45 continues on it's original ROW from i10 it drops to 2 lanes.

 

currently, SB where 45 and 10 do their thing, there's 3 lanes of 45, then 4 lanes when it picks up i10 traffic, then it dumps to 3 again. and finally, where 45 crosses 59 there's 2 current lanes. further, there's 2 lanes that can exit 45 to join 59/288 south. 

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45 through joining to 2 lanes of i10 funneling down to 3 total lanes throughout. there's only 1 lane that exits for 59 and another for 288. my experience is that way more people want to get off for 59 from 45, rather than 288.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, samagon said:

 

 

 

Currently,  NB where 45 goes over 59 it drops to 2 lanes. then it gradually expands to 3-4 lanes, depending on where you are in the rest of the system.

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45/59 interchange, it expands to 5 lanes, then drops to 4 lanes, eventually where 45 continues on it's original ROW from i10 it drops to 2 lanes.

 

currently, SB where 45 and 10 do their thing, there's 3 lanes of 45, then 4 lanes when it picks up i10 traffic, then it dumps to 3 again. and finally, where 45 crosses 59 there's 2 current lanes. further, there's 2 lanes that can exit 45 to join 59/288 south. 

 

future state has 3 lanes of 45 through joining to 2 lanes of i10 funneling down to 3 total lanes throughout. there's only 1 lane that exits for 59 and another for 288. my experience is that way more people want to get off for 59 from 45, rather than 288.

 

 

With respect, you need to look at the future plans again.  45 NB does not drop to 2 lanes where it continues on its original ROW from I10.  It is 4 lanes in that section (and that's without counting the downtown connector and I-45 max lanes).

 

You've acknowledged the addition of northbound lanes on the south end of downtown at the 45/59 pinch point.  It's rather odd that you know of this lane addition and yet insist that no lanes are added to I45. It is exactly at the pinchpoints that we need added lanes;  that's where the congestion is created.

 

The key lane addition on 45 SB is also at the pinch point.  As you acknowledged, currently there are only 2 through lanes for I-45 SB where it meet I-69. However, as you failed to acknowledge, the new plan has 4 through lanes for I-45 SB traffic where it meets I-69.

 

The fact is, the plan does add lanes to I-45, at least at the crucial points, and it does add capacity to I-45.

 

 

 

[samagon]

No respect necessary, I saw it wrong. you're right. There are still very serious corners that will slow traffic just as bad as the current pinches though. and the money cost just to realign and remove the pierce is so high.

[JLWM8609]

13 hours ago, samagon said:

Anyway, the project has at least one really interesting easter egg in it. 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

go to where 45 and i10 merge. follow the regular 45 SB traffic. It's a yellow highlighted line. where does it go? it disappears under i10 express, then just miraculously springs into being again. It's clearly not right. Same for 45 NB. it goes from being a tiny 2 lane to a wide 4 lane. What? 

 

on that pdf, go to where holly and spring street merge, it's near WOB, just look at the interchange.

 

 

The I-10 express lanes are elevated over the I-45 SB mainlanes. That's why the I-45 SB mainlanes disappear in the schematics.

[ADCS]

9 hours ago, samagon said:

No respect necessary, I saw it wrong. you're right. There are still very serious corners that will slow traffic just as bad as the current pinches though. and the money cost just to realign and remove the pierce is so high.

 

Slowing traffic isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it keeps moving. This is a highway in the center of the city - serving through traffic at high speed isn't necessarily the ideal use of the corridors. Again, if you're going from north of Houston to Galveston or vice-versa, best practices would have you taking the East Loop, anyway. 

 

The problem with the current pinches isn't a reduction in speed - it's last minute and indecisive merging from unexpected lane ends (particularly the 45NB to 288/59SB) causing conflicts within and backpressure on the traffic flow. Part of the reason for the current design plans, by my estimation, is that reconfiguring the Pierce Elevated to meet these design goals would be too expensive due to the needed land acquisition.

[samagon]

17 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

 

 

With respect, you need to look at the future plans again.  45 NB does not drop to 2 lanes where it continues on its original ROW from I10.  It is 4 lanes in that section (and that's without counting the downtown connector and I-45 max lanes).

 

You've acknowledged the addition of northbound lanes on the south end of downtown at the 45/59 pinch point.  It's rather odd that you know of this lane addition and yet insist that no lanes are added to I45. It is exactly at the pinchpoints that we need added lanes;  that's where the congestion is created.

 

The key lane addition on 45 SB is also at the pinch point.  As you acknowledged, currently there are only 2 through lanes for I-45 SB where it meet I-69. However, as you failed to acknowledge, the new plan has 4 through lanes for I-45 SB traffic where it meets I-69.

 

The fact is, the plan does add lanes to I-45, at least at the crucial points, and it does add capacity to I-45.

 

even with the current pinch points traffic is still bad/slow after the pinches. that is with the same number of lanes that will be there in the future. there are 3 lanes all along the pierce elevated, traffic speeds do not increase in this unpinched area. that's in a straight line. so you're removing a pinch point, but retaining the same number of lanes through curves now instead of a straight line?

 

how is the new way going to be better again?

[samagon]

13 minutes ago, ADCS said:

 

Slowing traffic isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it keeps moving. This is a highway in the center of the city - serving through traffic at high speed isn't necessarily the ideal use of the corridors. Again, if you're going from north of Houston to Galveston or vice-versa, best practices would have you taking the East Loop, anyway. 

 

The problem with the current pinches isn't a reduction in speed - it's last minute and indecisive merging from unexpected lane ends (particularly the 45NB to 288/59SB) causing conflicts within and backpressure on the traffic flow. Part of the reason for the current design plans, by my estimation, is that reconfiguring the Pierce Elevated to meet these design goals would be too expensive due to the needed land acquisition.

 

two things then. direct through traffic onto 610, this isn't done or encouraged or 610 would be a lot more busy and we'd be spending money expanding that freeway right now.

 

if the problem is bad planning of exits and merges they can fix that in the existing ROW without needing to take 19 blocks from the east side of downtown and calling it a quality of life improvement.

 

in fact, there is a plan already on the books to move the 59 NB/SB exit to a different location entirely. Gotta wonder how that is going to adjust traffic flow through town.

 

Again, my point is that everything they are planning on doing by taking 19 blocks from the east end (and kicking a lot of people out of established neighborhoods) they can do in the existing corridors with minimal ROW expansion. The only benefit of removing the 1 mile stretch of ROW that is the pierce elevated is to make high end developers a lot of money. sure there are going to also be people that smile when the pierce is gone, but that number will be about the same as the people who are out on their ass because their home was condemned.

 

edit, maybe a component of this should be that the housing that is removed from the east end of town be put in the current pierce elevated location... everyone wins! pierce removed, low income residents of clayton homes aren't put out on their ass, they are moved to a better part of town where their kids have a better chance of success.

Edited January 23, 2017 by samagon

[ADCS]

3 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

two things then. direct through traffic onto 610, this isn't done or encouraged or 610 would be a lot more busy and we'd be spending money expanding that freeway right now.

 

if the problem is bad planning of exits and merges they can fix that in the existing ROW without needing to take 19 blocks from the east side of downtown and calling it a quality of life improvement.

 

in fact, there is a plan already on the books to move the 59 NB/SB exit to a different location entirely. Gotta wonder how that is going to adjust traffic flow through town.

 

Again, my point is that everything they are planning on doing by taking 19 blocks from the east end (and kicking a lot of people out of established neighborhoods) they can do in the existing corridors with minimal ROW expansion. The only benefit of removing the 1 mile stretch of ROW that is the pierce elevated is to make high end developers a lot of money. sure there are going to also be people that smile when the pierce is gone, but that number will be about the same as the people who are out on their ass because their home was condemned.

 

1. Agree that TxDOT should do a better job of directing traffic onto bypass routes. Then again, they hardly put control cities on major interstate junctions around here. Never understood why.

 

2. Do you have engineering schematics demonstrating that everything they're planning on adding can be handled with minimal ROW expansion in existing corridors?

[Houston19514]

50 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

even with the current pinch points traffic is still bad/slow after the pinches. that is with the same number of lanes that will be there in the future. there are 3 lanes all along the pierce elevated, traffic speeds do not increase in this unpinched area. that's in a straight line. so you're removing a pinch point, but retaining the same number of lanes through curves now instead of a straight line?

 

how is the new way going to be better again?

 

I'm not certain exactly what you talking about. It seems you are talking about I45 NB.  But after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB currently has 3 lanes.  In the future plan, after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB has 5 lanes (and runs in a straight line for a longer stretch than does the Pierce Elevated).

 

If you are talking about I45 SB after the I10 interchange, an accurate analysis is a little more complicated.  You are probably looking at the proposed I-45 lanes on the north end of downtown where it is proposed to run next to I-10.  That area indeed shows 3 lanes, just as the current I45 SB has on the west and south sides of downtown.  Here's the complication:  Those proposed I45 SB lanes on the north side of downtown do not have to carry all the traffic that the current I45 SB lanes carry, because they don't carry the I10 WB to I45 SB traffic (and maybe not all of the I10EB to I45 SB traffic).  That doesn't join in until you get past the northeast corner, at which point there are I45 SB lanes.

 

THAT, in part, is how the new way is going to be better. (Capacity can/will also be added by curves being less tight (as you have acknowledged) and possibly by banking the surface in the curves, and one hopes by avoiding sharp dips/curves such as currently exist on I45)

[samagon]

1 hour ago, ADCS said:

 

1. Agree that TxDOT should do a better job of directing traffic onto bypass routes. Then again, they hardly put control cities on major interstate junctions around here. Never understood why.

 

2. Do you have engineering schematics demonstrating that everything they're planning on adding can be handled with minimal ROW expansion in existing corridors?

 

No, but you can look at the google map and make a good approximation of what land would be needed to add lanes to the existing pierce elevated.

[cspwal]

They could go the opposite way and have a 2 level freeway where the upper level has no exits to downtown, I-10, or 59.  You could double the freeway lanes (because you have two levels) along the same right of way.  It would block some of 2016 main's windows for sure but it would increase capacity.

[Danny1022]

9 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

No, but you can look at the google map and make a good approximation of what land would be needed to add lanes to the existing pierce elevated.

Then one could simply take off one lane from pierce street and that'd make it easier, besides the downtown streets are too wide and so busy compared to other avenues including the 45 like in the photo which I hope it got uploaded, and drawings aren't so great.

[ADCS]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

I'm not certain exactly what you talking about. It seems you are talking about I45 NB.  But after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB currently has 3 lanes.  In the future plan, after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB has 5 lanes (and runs in a straight line for a longer stretch than does the Pierce Elevated).

 

If you are talking about I45 SB after the I10 interchange, an accurate analysis is a little more complicated.  You are probably looking at the proposed I-45 lanes on the north end of downtown where it is proposed to run next to I-10.  That area indeed shows 3 lanes, just as the current I45 SB has on the west and south sides of downtown.  Here's the complication:  Those proposed I45 SB lanes on the north side of downtown do not have to carry all the traffic that the current I45 SB lanes carry, because they don't carry the I10 WB to I45 SB traffic (and maybe not all of the I10EB to I45 SB traffic).  That doesn't join in until you get past the northeast corner, at which point there are I45 SB lanes.

 

THAT, in part, is how the new way is going to be better. (Capacity can/will also be added by curves being less tight (as you have acknowledged) and possibly by banking the surface in the curves, and one hopes by avoiding sharp dips/curves such as currently exist on I45)

 

Not only that, but the new 45 lanes only carry through traffic - local traffic will take the Downtown Connector. This further reduces movements and conflicts along that stretch.

[samagon]

On 1/23/2017 at 9:57 AM, Houston19514 said:

 

I'm not certain exactly what you talking about. It seems you are talking about I45 NB.  But after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB currently has 3 lanes.  In the future plan, after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB has 5 lanes (and runs in a straight line for a longer stretch than does the Pierce Elevated).

 

If you are talking about I45 SB after the I10 interchange, an accurate analysis is a little more complicated.  You are probably looking at the proposed I-45 lanes on the north end of downtown where it is proposed to run next to I-10.  That area indeed shows 3 lanes, just as the current I45 SB has on the west and south sides of downtown.  Here's the complication:  Those proposed I45 SB lanes on the north side of downtown do not have to carry all the traffic that the current I45 SB lanes carry, because they don't carry the I10 WB to I45 SB traffic (and maybe not all of the I10EB to I45 SB traffic).  That doesn't join in until you get past the northeast corner, at which point there are I45 SB lanes.

 

THAT, in part, is how the new way is going to be better. (Capacity can/will also be added by curves being less tight (as you have acknowledged) and possibly by banking the surface in the curves, and one hopes by avoiding sharp dips/curves such as currently exist on I45)

 

yeah, 45NB.

 

so it's okay, in your mind, to take 3 lanes, add 2 lanes, yeah, it's 5 lanes for a bit, but then it drops to 4 lanes? that's not a pinch point? Or, it's not a pinch point to the level of pinching that you find unacceptable? all this while there's lots of turning involved.

 

I'm just not seeing the advantage that makes the cost worthwhile. I guess that's the main point. In my mind, the cost (monetary and to lives impacted) is too great.

 

find a way that the people displaced from clayton homes will be put in shiny new housing in midtown where the pierce currently sits and we get closer to lowering the impact.

[Danny1022]

I know this is stupid But... I'm sick of this project in sick of it why don't they demolish every freeway like this post says.

I know it's an April fools post... but I feel... like we need to shut the mouths of those complainers. So this should be done. Cos it's annoying.

 

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2016/04/txdot-responds-to-mayor-turners-call-to.html?m=1

I don't care... but that way people will stop complaining because they'll beg to bring back the freeways and no one will hear them.

Ugkkhhhh

[JJxvi]

I feel like capacity of the system is greatly increased.  The ROW on the east side looks like it is a massive 18 mainlanes, and on the north...16?  Each freeway currently has 6 mainlanes, so combining without increasing capacity would be a highway with 12 lanes, which these ROW of 16 and 18 are 33%-50% greater than that even before I take into account what seems to be more integrated and complete feeder roads, especially in east downtown, and the managed lanes in the I-10 corridor, all seem to add up to vastly improved capacity for these roads.  

Edited February 2, 2017 by JJxvi

[JJxvi]

It appears to me that the I-45 marked lanes in the new design (correct me if I'm very wrong) are basically express through lanes that bypass downtown.  They cannot be considered as the "same 3 lanes each way" that 45 currently has because traffic on the current 45 includes people that want to exit downtown, 10, 59, or 288.  With those people now shunted off 45 and onto brand new giant 12 and 14 lane I10 and I69, 3 lanes would seem very adequate for the I45 lanes, especially since we're talking express lanes with no exits.

 

In other words, in a real sense this is NOT an expansion of 45 in the downtown sections.  This is a big time capacity expansion of both I-10 and I-69, both of which seem like their marked lanes will be able to carry maybe more than 100% each of what they can right now.  These two become the heavy lifters for carrying the local traffic downtown, and the I-45 lanes have the load taken off of them so they can be used for through traffic.

Edited February 2, 2017 by JJxvi

[Danny1022]

3 hours ago, JJxvi said:

It appears to me that the I-45 marked lanes in the new design (correct me if I'm very wrong) are basically express through lanes that bypass downtown.  They cannot be considered as the "same 3 lanes each way" that 45 currently has because traffic on the current 45 includes people that want to exit downtown, 10, 59, or 288.  With those people now shunted off 45 and onto brand new giant 12 and 14 lane I10 and I69, 3 lanes would seem very adequate for the I45 lanes, especially since we're talking express lanes with no exits.

 

In other words, in a real sense this is NOT an expansion of 45 in the downtown sections.  This is a big time capacity expansion of both I-10 and I-69, both of which seem like their marked lanes will be able to carry maybe more than 100% each of what they can right now.  These two become the heavy lifters for carrying the local traffic downtown, and the I-45 lanes have the load taken off of them so they can be used for through traffic.

You probably are misunderstanding..

(Although your idea isn't as bad as the txdot mess...) 

They're demolishing the stupid pierce...  I don't know why, probably to benefit a friend they have working in downtown Houston. (Sounds more disgusting than cheese)

But there arent express lanes, there's nothing, only reruting of the 45 which sounds bad And add 2 lanes to the 59 

And I don't get how 99.99999% of the people who know about this project are in favour of the pierce demolition. 

 

In their plan. 3 lanes go on the 45 southbound. (Same as before) some ramps are reduced to 1 lane. Thousands of houses/businesses are demolished, it costs 4 thousand million dollars, how is this a good idea. Why not simply have common sense because nothing makes sense.

Every one says they won't widen the pierce cos it's a barrier (barrier is the new project they cut some necessary streets) their alternative isn't a good idea. Ughh...

[samagon]

13 hours ago, Danny1022 said:

In their plan. 3 lanes go on the 45 southbound. (Same as before) some ramps are reduced to 1 lane. Thousands of houses/businesses are demolished, it costs 4 thousand million dollars, how is this a good idea. Why not simply have common sense because nothing makes sense.

Every one says they won't widen the pierce cos it's a barrier (barrier is the new project they cut some necessary streets) their alternative isn't a good idea. Ughh...

 

thousands of homes and businesses is a pretty strong exaggeration. maybe you did it for effect? 

 

hundreds of homes demolished with half of them being low income housing with no alternative mentioned.

 

19 full city blocks demolished.

 

of major through streets in the east end (Leeland/Telephone, Polk, Harrisburg and Navigation), one will be cut off from downtown.

[Danny1022]

46 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

thousands of homes and businesses is a pretty strong exaggeration. maybe you did it for effect? 

 

hundreds of homes demolished with half of them being low income housing with no alternative mentioned.

 

19 full city blocks demolished.

 

of major through streets in the east end (Leeland/Telephone, Polk, Harrisburg and Navigation), one will be cut off from downtown.

 

Thousands of houses and businesses yes maybe im exaggerating, but really if there's a way to not take right of way then I would consider that if there's mo space then take it, but don't just randomly take houses that aren't necessary to take. But really including the ones North of the 10 that becomes over a thousand. 

The 24 blocksI include parking lot blocks and the ones at the curve of the 45 59 interchange. But blocks with houses or businnesee are 19

 

Whatever this project is the damn worst crap I've seen, every crap O say is controversial. This is the first time someone replies to me, although to complain haha, I hate myself... cos I come up with alternatives, either no one hears or everyone complains, i try to make common sense no one hears, i would list them but I know no one will hear and all I'll get are complains so I shall not. whatever. I'm glad I'm considering moving to England for university.

Houston sucks anyway. 

Thank you.

 

[JJxvi]

15 hours ago, Danny1022 said:

You probably are misunderstanding..

(Although your idea isn't as bad as the txdot mess...) 

They're demolishing the stupid pierce...  I don't know why, probably to benefit a friend they have working in downtown Houston. (Sounds more disgusting than cheese)

But there arent express lanes, there's nothing, only reruting of the 45 which sounds bad And add 2 lanes to the 59 

And I don't get how 99.99999% of the people who know about this project are in favour of the pierce demolition. 

 

In their plan. 3 lanes go on the 45 southbound. (Same as before) some ramps are reduced to 1 lane. Thousands of houses/businesses are demolished, it costs 4 thousand million dollars, how is this a good idea. Why not simply have common sense because nothing makes sense.

Every one says they won't widen the pierce cos it's a barrier (barrier is the new project they cut some necessary streets) their alternative isn't a good idea. Ughh...

 

I know they are demolishing pierce.  I'm not gonna get into cost and benefit, or about the pros and cons of all the ROW acquisition that would need to be done. My posts were only concerning the capacity.  Its clear to me this is a massive capacity increase, mostly by expanding lanes that are signed I-10 and I-69.  In east downtown the freeway cross section at Rusk is 21 lanes wide.  That is a MASSIVE freeway, and to argue that these represent no capacity increase from the current elevated I45 on the pierce and US59 in east downtown which have 6-8 lanes each cannot be true.  

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

Yes the yellow lanes in the diagram are similar to the already existing I-45 routed at Pierce, but my point is that most local traffic getting to downtown will be directed off those lanes onto massively expanded I-10 lanes and I69 lanes or onto direct downtown connectors.  The yellow lanes are therefore not expected to carry as much traffic (mainly only through traffic that wants to go from the Gulf Freeway onto the North freeway or vice versa), and yet they have basically the same or more lanes than the Pierce currently has. This is a capacity increase.

Edited February 3, 2017 by JJxvi

[Danny1022]

4 minutes ago, JJxvi said:

 

I know they are demolishing pierce.  I'm not gonna get into cost and benefit, or about the pros and cons of all the ROW acquisition that would need to be done. My posts were only concerning the capacity.  Its clear to me this is a massive capacity increase, mostly by expanding lanes that are signed I-10 and I-69.  In east downtown the freeway cross section at Rusk is 21 lanes wide.  That is a MASSIVE freeway, and to argue that these represent no capacity increase from the current elevated I45 on the pierce and US59 in east downtown which have 6-8 lanes each cannot be true.  

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

Yes the yellow lanes in the diagram are similar to the already existing I-45 routed at Pierce, but my point is that most local traffic getting to downtown will be directed off those lanes onto massively expanded I-10 lanes and I69 lanes or onto direct downtown connectors.  The yellow lanes are therefore not expected to carry as much traffic (mainly only through traffic that wants to go from the Gulf Freeway onto the North freeway or vice versa), and yet they have basically the same or more lanes than the Pierce currently has. This is a capacity increase.

I wish I could delete my post...

[samagon]

3 hours ago, JJxvi said:

 

I know they are demolishing pierce.  I'm not gonna get into cost and benefit, or about the pros and cons of all the ROW acquisition that would need to be done. My posts were only concerning the capacity.  Its clear to me this is a massive capacity increase, mostly by expanding lanes that are signed I-10 and I-69.  In east downtown the freeway cross section at Rusk is 21 lanes wide.  That is a MASSIVE freeway, and to argue that these represent no capacity increase from the current elevated I45 on the pierce and US59 in east downtown which have 6-8 lanes each cannot be true.  

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20160428_NHHIP_Seg3_Project_Updates.pdf

 

Yes the yellow lanes in the diagram are similar to the already existing I-45 routed at Pierce, but my point is that most local traffic getting to downtown will be directed off those lanes onto massively expanded I-10 lanes and I69 lanes or onto direct downtown connectors.  The yellow lanes are therefore not expected to carry as much traffic (mainly only through traffic that wants to go from the Gulf Freeway onto the North freeway or vice versa), and yet they have basically the same or more lanes than the Pierce currently has. This is a capacity increase.

 

Read through this:

http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis#cost

 

specifically, the last bullet point:

• For downtown (after the IH-69 section between Spur 527 and SH 288), I would prefer to see IH-69 improved and sunk into the trench, leaving IH-45 and IH-10 mostly intact. That should cost in the range of $1 to $1.5 billion if the US 59/IH-10 interchange can be preserved. For that money, IH-69 would get its vaunted 24 mph speed increase and downtown interests would get the freeway sunk below ground level. And it has a price tag which can be funded.

for me at least, I think this is a decent compromise, depending on what ROW would be still needed, and what, if any street closures there would be.

 

this would reduce costs, yet still increase capacity.

Edited February 3, 2017 by samagon

[Danny1022]

What is even good about sinking the highway, tbey Would get the same benefits with widening the elevated highway, plus not massively destroy an entire neighbourhood  (of apartment complex with an appearance of a neighbourhood) And many blocks maybe demolish half of the block is fine, but not the entire block,  And not blockading various streets.

And the fact that the elevated highways are barriers is nonsense, ive crossed under the pierce elevated and it's not bad you can still get to the other side without even realising that there's an elevated highway there.(okay you realise it but you don't have to stop and go around various blocks away to get to the other side)

Whilst i-45 North, you go on some random city street, turns out it's blockaded by the freeway, great now I've to go to airline drive or Tidwell or West or any, to get to the other side. The elevated highway was made to not create a barrier, so that the cars could cross on the streets below, it's downtown Houston, not the old West Berlin. And why do they not demolish the convention centre, that's a barrier too. It takes like 10 blocks,.(I'm assuming) 

And if they want to do it because we "don't have enough parks" that's nonsense. We have many parks compared to other cities.and I don't know about you but nearly every time I've been to downtown they're not crowded, except once but it was because it was new year.

And the worst.... rerouting the 45 creating curves where you have to curve more than 80 degrees... and it's longer and pointless. Makes drivers not want to take that highway. 

And besides they're covering it so its a tunnel. Have you ever been in a tunnel.? It's terrifying, you get the feeling like you dont have enough space to breathe and like it all will collapse you and the noise makes the closed in space (as my friend calls it) too uncomfortable And the lights inside the tunnel don't make it better. It's scary.

I hope this project doesn't happen, and that elevated highway stay up cos elevated highways are the best thing ever. (I used to be (amd still am) so fascinated by the fact that there were many elevated highways here when I moved here... but i guess the Houstonians and every one else hates it)

 

So I'm trying to peacefully and not aggressively make sense. I hope someone reads. That... i want to get this project cancelled which I've tried for 14 months and only 1 person (who moved to Europe) understood 

Just saying idk..