I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[JLWM8609]

7 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

I've been pushing for something similar for a long time. TxDOT does regional traffic a great disservice by not signing 610 for thru traffic.

 

For example, 610 at the North Freeway SB could be signed:

 

610 West: Austin, San Antonio

610 East: Beaumont, Pasadena, Galveston

45 South: Downtown

 

My guess is that TxDOT operates off the assumption that most people navigate by route number, rather than control city. However, in the age of GPS navigation, it would seem to me that control cities are a much more potent navigation tool than route numbers.

 

 

That makes sense. That's what they do with I-285 in Atlanta. 

[Dolphin]

It would be great if they could build the Pierce Skypark and integrate the station for the bullet train to Dallas into it. That way the train could drop people right downtown.

[Ross]

29 minutes ago, Dolphin said:

It would be great if they could build the Pierce Skypark and integrate the station for the bullet train to Dallas into it. That way the train could drop people right downtown.

That's hilarious, since there's no way to get the bullet train there without using eminent domain on a bunch of properties that belong to people with the money to fight. Bullet train terminus belongs at Northwest Mall.

[JLWM8609]

5 hours ago, Ross said:

That's hilarious, since there's no way to get the bullet train there without using eminent domain on a bunch of properties that belong to people with the money to fight. 

1

Not really. One of the proposals to bring the bullet train downtown was to elevate it along I-10 so it wouldn't go through residential areas near Washington Ave.

http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/High-speed-rail-route-would-affect-Houston-6085167.php

[Sparrow]

19 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Have you ever driven on the West Loop?  It doesn't take a traffic engineer to know that rerouting I-69/US59 over the West Loop is not a solution.

Okay, agreed, forget re-signing I-69 for the short term, but I-45 and I-10 could be done with the North Loop and East Loop with very little effort. Take the money intended for the Big EaDo project and instead of giving the West Loop one (~2) express lane each direction as planned, build 4+ express lanes each direction as an elevated viaduct.

 

Added capacity is needed for the West Loop regardless--the current plan for that will help for about two weeks. More funding on the West side (with the end game intent of re-signing for I-69 thru traffic) will help both Downtown and Uptown without the need to acquire large amounts of land and with what could likely be a faster, less disruptive construction period. Little change would be needed for the current infrastructure--simply leave it as is. Build two segmented elevated viaducts just like US 183 in north Austin.

[ADCS]

How about let's look at loop expansion while keeping the 45 reroute project. Both are needed. But I'm afraid a larger West Loop express lane would be a non-starter, as you'd have substantial opposition due to nuisance and park impact concerns. That's something I often see missed - no one likes els in their neighborhood, period. Removing an el is far more politically viable than adding one, even if the el is much cheaper than excavation.

 

We'll have to wait 20-25 years before the West Loop is reconstructed in line with what they did with North LBJ in Dallas. It's a near-miracle that we're getting the express lane now.

 

What I see missed about the 45 reroute is that capacity is indeed added. The Downtown Connector is new capacity that draws traffic away from the thru traffic. 

[cspwal]

I think re-signing just I-45 could work.  Going along 610 is only 3.2 miles longer than going along the current alignment of I-45; if you're maintaining 60 mph that whole time instead of dropping down to 45 mph for downtown, travel time would most likely be similar.  A caution though is that Google maps doesn't suggest that as an alternate route even during bad traffic downtown; a higher speed limit on the east loop might be necessary to lure people onto the new bypass

[Danny1022]

1 hour ago, Sparrow said:

Okay, agreed, forget re-signing I-69 for the short term, but I-45 and I-10 could be done with the North Loop and East Loop with very little effort. Take the money intended for the Big EaDo project and instead of giving the West Loop one (~2) express lane each direction as planned, build 4+ express lanes each direction as an elevated viaduct.

 

Added capacity is needed for the West Loop regardless--the current plan for that will help for about two weeks. More funding on the West side (with the end game intent of re-signing for I-69 thru traffic) will help both Downtown and Uptown without the need to acquire large amounts of land and with what could likely be a faster, less disruptive construction period. Little change would be needed for the current infrastructure--simply leave it as is. Build two segmented elevated viaducts just like US 183 in north Austin.

This is totally true, I like this.

Maybe the 610 East could be renumbered as i-45 and widened to be able to carry the extra traffic the bad thing is that it would need to modify 5 interchanges including possible full reconstruction of 4 of them (i-45/610, 610/255, 59/610 and 45/610n) I th8nk that the i-10/610 mightnot need such huge reconstruction.. also it would include the reconstruction of the ship channel bridge if lanes are added. That would be expensive but the speed limit wouldn't be lowered and the right of way taking would be less. There would also be a need to fix various bottlenecks in downtown,like at I 45 and us'59 And i'45 And Allen pkwy.. eliminate most bad merges and left exits/entrances. Take off one lane from pierce street to give space for a reconstructed pierce 4 lanes wide. As well as making the i-45 inside the 610 turned into like business route or an i-245 or I don't know 

Also the i-45/610 North interchange could be kind of like a high five with a hov connector and same with the one at the South except it wouldn't have so many changes... like the i-45 north.

I'm just saying. The US 59 might need widening though... yeah... I suck atexplaining well.

[samagon]

2 hours ago, cspwal said:

I think re-signing just I-45 could work.  Going along 610 is only 3.2 miles longer than going along the current alignment of I-45; if you're maintaining 60 mph that whole time instead of dropping down to 45 mph for downtown, travel time would most likely be similar.  A caution though is that Google maps doesn't suggest that as an alternate route even during bad traffic downtown; a higher speed limit on the east loop might be necessary to lure people onto the new bypass

 

that is weird, it doesn't even list it as an alternative. right this second it says it will take 28 minutes to go from edgebrook to airline, but if you drop a waypoint on the east loop, it says travel time is 29 minutes.

 

the really odd thing is one of the alternative routes it shows is 45 > 610 > 10 > 45 which is showing as an extra minute over taking 45 > 610 > 45?

 

google AI is not smart enough for Houston, it would seem.

 

and since writing this post, it seems that the times are 26 minutes for both, and still longer for the google alternate route.

Edited April 5, 2017 by samagon

[Triton]

Potential new rendering 

[BeerNut]

They keep putting the park in the renderings trying to sell this thing.  If the park doesn't happen this will be a huge loss for EADO.

[Danny1022]

I swear that the hell.. destroy a highway to build a stupid park is stupid there are already enough parks in downtown, 

And why don't they have common sense, they take excessive right of way, but that doesn't matter cos the companies in downtown Houston are selfish and dont care about what happens and now the majority has to face the disadvantages because txdot doesn't realise that the pierce is needed...

Whatever, hell this project. That photo looks like trash.. yes that last sentence is meant to be offensive.

 

[cspwal]

What will also suck is there won't be as good E/W connections - no polk, and it looks like leeland will also be affected (right now it splits over 59 into bell and leeland)

[EllenOlenska]

I get it, it'll be a mess.

But there's never enough parks. 

[Danny1022]

There are already various parks meaning that isn't a priority but their and downtown act as if it were a priority, Boston didn't have enough parks so it made sense, in New  Orleans the highway destroyed a park so it makes sense, but Houston already has many parks so parks aren't a priority, 

Or at least only bury the 59 but the pierce is necessary. As long as it doesn't look to take or too modern.

[cspwal]

I'm genuinely curious why the chose this plan.  Having 45 jog the way it will doesn't seem like the shortest path, and expanding a trench can't be cheap, so why do it?

The main bottle neck is the narrow right of way for the Pierce elevated.  You could double deck it (so there would be room for 6 lanes each way) but that would be a large eyesore (since it would be minimum 3 stories tall) and would make the 59 interchange difficult and make it hard to go into the west side downtown connector jumble.

You could cantilever it over pierce, but that might actually be blocked by the federal building and the new Hamilton apartment building.  I do wonder if they looked at it though - seems the simplest method since you're just widening the existing highway.

If I had to guess, it came down to money - selling the land where the pierce elevated is now is going to pay for the rest of the project in downtown, where if they didn't the budget would be much higher and they wouldn't get to do it at all.

[samagon]

25 minutes ago, cspwal said:

I'm genuinely curious why the chose this plan.  Having 45 jog the way it will doesn't seem like the shortest path, and expanding a trench can't be cheap, so why do it?

The main bottle neck is the narrow right of way for the Pierce elevated.  You could double deck it (so there would be room for 6 lanes each way) but that would be a large eyesore (since it would be minimum 3 stories tall) and would make the 59 interchange difficult and make it hard to go into the west side downtown connector jumble.

You could cantilever it over pierce, but that might actually be blocked by the federal building and the new Hamilton apartment building.  I do wonder if they looked at it though - seems the simplest method since you're just widening the existing highway.

If I had to guess, it came down to money - selling the land where the pierce elevated is now is going to pay for the rest of the project in downtown, where if they didn't the budget would be much higher and they wouldn't get to do it at all.

 

Considering how close to the freeway that new apartment building at the 59/45 interchange is, there's plenty of room to expand near the federal building without encroaching.

[cspwal]

They could just have direct access - drive in/drive out on to 45 N

[Danny1022]

Why not build the 45 connectors to us 59 South which would be parallel to the i-10 to make the pierce elevated only carry through traffic.

I've suggestedthat before. At least reply to that idea. Just saying..

[JJxvi]

I don't know how it would be paid for or how much it would cost (Im guessing that tax increment from TIRZ 15 and TIRZ 24 would be funneled into it)  but that park would not be anything to sneeze at.  By my rough estimate that park is over 40 acres or roughly 4 times the size of discovery green and roughly the same size as Eleanor Tinsley Park.

Edited April 17, 2017 by JJxvi

[cspwal]

would it be big enough for a top golf

[Sanjorade]

17 minutes ago, cspwal said:

would it be big enough for a top golf

Before Top Golf came about, I thought it would be cool to put a "resort" on the south eastern part of downtown with a driving range on the roof. It would have to span 3-4 blocks. The skyline views would be amazing!

[samagon]

20 hours ago, JJxvi said:

I don't know how it would be paid for or how much it would cost (Im guessing that tax increment from TIRZ 15 and TIRZ 24 would be funneled into it)  but that park would not be anything to sneeze at.  By my rough estimate that park is over 40 acres or roughly 4 times the size of discovery green and roughly the same size as Eleanor Tinsley Park.

 

with 8 streets crossing through it at regular intervals

 

Don't get me wrong, if this is going to happen, the cover park is going to be the only good that comes of this for local residents that aren't displaced as a result of this taking, but at the same time, it's still going to have drawbacks.

Edited April 18, 2017 by samagon

[Sparrow]

13 hours ago, samagon said:

 

with 8 streets crossing through it at regular intervals

 

Don't get me wrong, if this is going to happen, the cover park is going to be the only good that comes of this for local residents that aren't displaced as a result of this taking, but at the same time, it's still going to have drawbacks.

Streets that will likely be closed to thru traffic quite often when Houston plays host to a Super Bowl or a parade or 5k or street festival etc. Barricades will be present quite often I would think. Several cross streets, while dividing the one large park into several, would make parking more accessible (and preclude any large parking lot from taking up any park land like it does by the zoo).  

[samagon]

But on any normal weekend when local residents would use it, it's a park with 8 roads going through it, or more rightly, as you say, several parks with streets dividing them.

[cspwal]

It wouldn't allow for big fields but, if properly programmed, having the several distinct park areas would be an asset not a hindrance.  You could have the playground section separated from the adults eating lunch section, so all the watchful parents wouldn't have to worry about that stranger eating a sandwich.  And @Sparrow has a good point - for special events, you'd close down those streets and then boom - more park space.  Would be good for food trucks, setting up stages - things that kill the grass at discovery green

[Diaspora]

So i'm apparently part of the 29% of respondents on this board who would like to see the PE kept and repurposed, serving as a destination, a connection, a park, a public space separate from the grid.  Examples of similar projects in other cities have driven $ to the repurposing of elevated train tracks, viaducts and freeways in a manner that tearing down the PE cannot accomplish (not to mention the demolition cost).  For those who see too many parks in Houston I suggest you view the concept as a conduit and connector instead, a means to collapse the distance between the area east of downtown and BB, a means for Midtown to access BB and points east without the use of a car.  This span runs the entire border marking Midtown and Downtown.  As a freeway it divides, but as a destination for Houstonians it brings Downtown and Midtown together.  

[Houston19514]

3 minutes ago, Diaspora said:

So i'm apparently part of the 29% of respondents on this board who would like to see the PE kept and repurposed, serving as a destination, a connection, a park, a public space separate from the grid.  Examples of similar projects in other cities have driven $ to the repurposing of elevated train tracks, viaducts and freeways in a manner that tearing down the PE cannot accomplish (not to mention the demolition cost).

 

Can you provide us some examples of repurposed viaducts and elevated freeways?

[Houston19514]

On 4/5/2017 at 11:39 AM, cspwal said:

I think re-signing just I-45 could work.  Going along 610 is only 3.2 miles longer than going along the current alignment of I-45; if you're maintaining 60 mph that whole time instead of dropping down to 45 mph for downtown, travel time would most likely be similar.  A caution though is that Google maps doesn't suggest that as an alternate route even during bad traffic downtown; a higher speed limit on the east loop might be necessary to lure people onto the new bypass

 

Google maps routinely suggests 610 as an alternate route to I-45 through downtown.  It just usually takes longer.  But the discussion of Google maps raises a thought.  I suspect freeway signage is less important than it used to be and therefore, changing the signage would accomplish less that it would have previously.  Because a large number of people now navigate by Google/Waze, etc.  So they take the fastest route, regardless of whether it is named I-45, TX 288, I-610, or whatever. (And at most times, I-45 through downtown is still faster than taking the East and North Loop around.)

[Diaspora]

Sure, the Promenade Plantee in Paris is a repurposed viaduct.  Most of the other repurposed transportation lines are elevated train platforms in Philadelphia and Chicago for instance, in Singapore and Toronto  they are both elevated and ground level.  Seoul and Helsinki have sunken pedestrian connectors that were formerly rail lines or freeways.  Underway in D.C., at the funding stage is an effort to repurpose the 11th Street bridge over the Anacostia river.  Each of these have had, (and have) different challenges depending on the urban spaces through which the former transportation lines have run.