I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Houston19514]

On 5/5/2017 at 7:33 AM, samagon said:

That must be recent, or the Energy Institute High School did finger paintings last year.

 

Since 2014?

Edited May 9, 2017 by Houston19514

[DNAguy]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 3:41 PM, Houston19514 said:

 

I think I agree with you on the Walker St.- Allen Parkway connector, especially the way they show it designed.  The Walker Street traffic would have two right turns to get on to Allen Parkway anyway.  They might was well just use Bagby and Lamar and remove the current Walker Street connection to Allen Parkway and gain more parkland.  That little one-lane connector looks kind of ridiculous and ineffective.

 

 

This

[Triton]

Was anyone at the meeting last night? Wish I could find the video presentation online. Edit: not the one from 2015.

[Danny1022]

So.. 

Hi. So . They've posted a video about this stupid project that really.. it's not a project. It's crap..

It's the end. They've posted the bloody video = they're 100% fornsure doing the project and i can't stop it. I tried, but hey. Thanks for reading my ideas haha. that was sarcasm.. they were total disaster. at least thanks for the only 2 people who agreed with me about the project.. 

I hope txdot goes broke. And i wish them bad luck on the project.. 

Just saying. Goodbye. Thus is my last post on the thread.

[Triton]

7 hours ago, Triton said:

Was anyone at the meeting last night? Wish I could find the video presentation online. Edit: not the one from 2015.

 

 

[KinkaidAlum]

Lame. More inner city scars so developers can make money in far flung places.

 

 

[cspwal]

Wow it really is showing how large the combined 45 & 59 freeway is. It's not sunk for very long - that interchange is huge, and it's a wide swath in the SE part of downtown. 

Also, if they were showing deck parks that aren't going to happen anyway, why not cap 288/59 south of downtown?

[Danny1022]

I realised something...

They out trees on the caps over the highway, that's impossible, there's not enough space for the roots to grow when tbe trees grow, they picture it as a cool treeful park but that can't happen, it'll look like a fake park. Grass cam because the roots aren't as large, but trees will eventually grow for the roots to reach the structure and the trees will die or the roots can damage the structure.

I'm noy saying i support it i still oppose this project. 

 

[Houston19514]

50 minutes ago, Danny1022 said:

I realised something...

They out trees on the caps over the highway, that's impossible, there's not enough space for the roots to grow when tbe trees grow, they picture it as a cool treeful park but that can't happen, it'll look like a fake park. Grass cam because the roots aren't as large, but trees will eventually grow for the roots to reach the structure and the trees will die or the roots can damage the structure.

I'm noy saying i support it i still oppose this project. 

 

 

Two things:  

 

1.  Take a look at Klyde Warren Park in Dallas. 

2.  Didn't you promise us just yesterday that you weren't going to post any more in this thread?  ;-)

[Danny1022]

17 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Two things:  

 

1.  Take a look at Klyde Warren Park in Dallas. 

2.  Didn't you promise us just yesterday that you weren't going to post any more in this thread?  ;-)

I've never seen that park but I've gone underneath that thing but i hate tunnels cos they're terrifying..

Yes i said that i forfot i said that shit and I'm done. I'm sorry for even talking. (Also cos you only reply when i say something thati don't care about and never about other crap i said) and for Grting on this thread.

Thank you 

I dont csre if im wrong im a stupid student who's not even experiences with engineering like you guys so that's why I'm wrong 200% of the time... 

Honestly the tree roots may still grow.

Whatever I'm wrong cos that ugly fake park in dallas exists

Now I'm sorry fot forgetting To stop posting and goodbye...

Thank you. And I hopethere's opposition on tonight's meeting.

[BeerNut]

Yea keep showing green space that requires funding outside of TXDOT... /s

[Montrose1100]

Wow! What a mess!

 

1) Why are the Downtown connectors on the present I-45 over Buffalo Bayou +3 lanes? I can't imagine that type of capacity is needed?

 

2) How on earth are they going to bury the freeway under Main & the other streets? I might be dead by the time they finish it.

 

3) Why add arches over the already established bridges over the 59/288/45 shuffle? They didn't add any design to help it out (traffic & bottleneck wise)?

 

4) Good god, the elevated Katy Freeway! The northern interchanges between Hardy/45/59/10 is way too wide. Whom exactly do those I-10 express lanes help? How many commuters on the east side of town travel on I-10 west? Mega homeless camp to be built under it I guess...

 

5) I suppose the connectors are super long & tall to keep the speeds higher but come on!

 

I was very much supportive of the elimination of  the Pierce Elevated but now I take my words back. This is a steaming pile of tax payer money that will not alleviate traffic flow.

 

Bush-era design in this day and age?

[Houston19514]

56 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

Wow! What a mess!

 

1) Why are the Downtown connectors on the present I-45 over Buffalo Bayou +3 lanes? I can't imagine that type of capacity is needed?

 

I would imagine they have traffic studies demonstrating the need for that capacity. That does seem like a bit of overkill.  That would be a good question to submit.

 

Quote

 

2) How on earth are they going to bury the freeway under Main & the other streets? I might be dead by the time they finish it.

 

Probably in a manner similar to the way they buried portions of the Southwest Freeway some years back.  Except this particular portion should be even easier, since it's already buried at Main Street.

 

Quote

 

3) Why add arches over the already established bridges over the 59/288/45 shuffle? They didn't add any design to help it out (traffic & bottleneck wise)?

 

Probably because these will be new bridges, not the already established bridges.

 

Quote

 

4) Good god, the elevated Katy Freeway! The northern interchanges between Hardy/45/59/10 is way too wide. Whom exactly do those I-10 express lanes help? How many commuters on the east side of town travel on I-10 west? Mega homeless camp to be built under it I guess...

 

Might be another good question to raise with them.  But again, they've probably done a lot of studying of traffic patterns. 

 

Quote

 

5) I suppose the connectors are super long & tall to keep the speeds higher but come on!

 

I was very much supportive of the elimination of  the Pierce Elevated but now I take my words back. This is a steaming pile of tax payer money that will not alleviate traffic flow.

 

It is nonsensical to pretend this will not alleviate traffic flow.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by Houston19514

[samagon]

28 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

 

It is nonsensical to pretend this will not alleviate traffic flow.

 

 

 

It is even more nonsensical to pretend that this is the best solution to alleviate traffic flow.

[Houston19514]

26 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

It is even more nonsensical to pretend that this is the best solution to alleviate traffic flow.

 

Actually, it is not more nonsensical.  Rational argument can be made this is the best solution.  No rational argument can be made that this will not alleviate traffic flow.

[samagon]

14 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Actually, it is not more nonsensical.  Rational argument can be made this is the best solution.  No rational argument can be made that this will not alleviate traffic flow.

 

What you mean is that rational arguments can be made that this is the best solution that TXdot released.  There are plenty of alternatives that have been conceived in this thread that could be rationally argued would alleviate traffic even more than this will. Fixing exits at 610 from the gulf freeway and adding signage to route through traffic that way being the best idea.

 

Again, what you mean is that no rational argument can be made that this will not alleviate traffic flow on the freeways but you didn't say that, so no, where there will be permanent street closures for this, traffic flow will absolutely not be alleviated by this, and will actually be worsened.

[KinkaidAlum]

Correction, adding lanes to freeways temporarily reduces congestion. However, it encourages sprawl. More sprawl will eventually bring more traffic. More traffic will bring more congestion. Period. 

 

 

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, KinkaidAlum said:

Correction, adding lanes to freeways temporarily reduces congestion. However, it encourages sprawl. More sprawl will eventually bring more traffic. More traffic will bring more congestion. Period. 

 

 

 

Is this a contest to see how many cliches can be fit into a five sentence post?  And a nice strawman, too!

 

No correction necessary.  No one has suggested this will permanently eliminate congestion. The only way to do that is to halt economic and population growth. Period.  All I said was that it will alleviate traffic flow.  That is inarguable.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

53 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

What you mean is that rational arguments can be made that this is the best solution that TXdot released.  There are plenty of alternatives that have been conceived in this thread that could be rationally argued would alleviate traffic even more than this will. Fixing exits at 610 from the gulf freeway and adding signage to route through traffic that way being the best idea.

 

Again, what you mean is that no rational argument can be made that this will not alleviate traffic flow on the freeways but you didn't say that, so no, where there will be permanent street closures for this, traffic flow will absolutely not be alleviated by this, and will actually be worsened.

 

No, I actually said what I meant.  There may indeed be other alternatives for which rational arguments could also be made.

 

And again, I said exactly what I meant.  No rational argument can be made that this will not alleviate traffic. You are playing dishonest word games to pretend that means that this will improve traffic flow for everyone in all places at all times with no negatives for anyone on any single street in the entire corridor.

 

I hope some day you'll share with us the traffic studies that show how effective your 610/Gulf freeway proposal would be.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Houston19514

[Sparrow]

5 hours ago, cspwal said:

Wow it really is showing how large the combined 45 & 59 freeway is. It's not sunk for very long - that interchange is huge, and it's a wide swath in the SE part of downtown. 

Also, if they were showing deck parks that aren't going to happen anyway, why not cap 288/59 south of downtown?

Seriously, 288/69/59 between Elgin and McGowen seems like it'd be a no brainer. How many soccer or baseball fields could you add to that expanse? Add to that why only cap part of 69 south of Midtown? Why not all the way to Almeda? Why not add in capping 69/59 from Hazard to Montrose as well?

 

If others would have to provide the financing TxDOT might as well "plan" to deck park as much as they possibly could.

 

 

[samagon]

13 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Is this a contest to see how many cliches can be fit into a five sentence post?  

 

No correction necessary.  No one has suggested this will permanently eliminate congestion. The only way to do that is to halt economic and population growth. Period.  FWIW, it seems likely that not addressing the current congestion will encourage sprawl by discouraging people from coming any where near downtown.

 

It took less than 10 years for each segment of the reconstructed i-10 to get back in the top 10 most congested roadways in all of Texas (see my thread in this forum regarding the top 100 most congested roadways in Texas for link to source).

 

How many billions were spent?

 

If that project is any indication to this project, we can expect over 10 years of construction for less than 10 years of traffic alleviation? 

[Sparrow]

10 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

No, I actually said what I meant.  There may indeed be other alternatives for which rational arguments could also be made.

 

And again, I said exactly what I meant.  No rational argument can be made that this will not alleviate traffic. You are playing dishonest word games to pretend that means that this will improve traffic flow for everyone in all places at all times with no negatives for anyone on any single street in the entire corridor.

 

I hope some day you'll share with us the traffic studies that show how effective your 610/Gulf freeway proposal would be.

I don't know of any studies, but during the construction time frame one would sure believe taking 610 around the city will sure be faster than venturing anywhere near Downtown. Construction will be a nightmare.

[Houston19514]

9 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

It took less than 10 years for each segment of the reconstructed i-10 to get back in the top 10 most congested roadways in all of Texas (see my thread in this forum regarding the top 100 most congested roadways in Texas for link to source).

 

How many billions were spent?

 

If that project is any indication to this project, we can expect over 10 years of construction for less than 10 years of traffic alleviation? 

 

Yes, we know about the Katy Freeway.  If we would just stop adding so damned many jobs and people to the metro area...

 

1. I think it is still not as congested for as many hours of the day as it was before, plus there is additional opportunity to bypass the congestion in the HOT lanes.  

2.  Even if it was now as congested as before, that does not say the Katy project provided no traffic alleviation, or that it only provided 10 years of traffic alleviation.  Imagine today's Katy Freeway traffic on the old pavement.  That project provides massive traffic alleviation every day of the week and will continue to do so for many years. 

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by Houston19514

[Triton]

9 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

It took less than 10 years for each segment of the reconstructed i-10 to get back in the top 10 most congested roadways in all of Texas (see my thread in this forum regarding the top 100 most congested roadways in Texas for link to source).

 

How many billions were spent?

 

If that project is any indication to this project, we can expect over 10 years of construction for less than 10 years of traffic alleviation? 

As someone who takes I-10 daily to and from work, I blame poor design for that. You have thousands of cars weaving across multiple lanes of traffic from the Katy Tolllanes over to the exit ramps and vice-versa. It's especially bad at the Gessner entrance ramp over to the toll-lanes for people trying to head back to downtown after work. 

[samagon]

6 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Yes, we know about the Katy Freeway.  

1. I think it is still not as congested for as many hours of the day as it was before, plus there is additional opportunity to bypass the congestion in the HOT lanes.  

2.  Even if it was now as congested as before, that does not say the Katy project provided no traffic alleviation, or that it only provided 10 years of traffic alleviation.  Imagine today's Katy Freeway traffic on the old pavement.  That project provides massive traffic alleviation every day of the week and will continue to do so for many years. 

 

 

Now who's playing dishonest word games?

 

I can tell you for a fact, that the road was expanded less than 10 years ago to alleviate traffic. Today it is on a top 10 list of worst traffic in the state. You think it's better than it was. You imagine the old alignment with today's traffic (you have to assume the people making that traffic would have located along the corridor and not somewhere else).

 

Maybe we'd be having a discussion about all the new condos in and around Montrose because more people want to live near the city and not along the katy freeway and all that traffic, and the city would be forced to build some serious fixed guideway transit options. Maybe downtown would have kept more energy business rather than it fleeing to the katy corridor, and more buildings would be going up downtown.

 

We can't guess how this town would have evolved differently over the last 10 years had the freeway not been expanded, we can only state what we know as fact. I-10 it is top 10 worst in Texas less than 10 years after having been reconstructed to alleviate traffic.

[Houston19514]

42 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

Now who's playing dishonest word games?

 

I can tell you for a fact, that the road was expanded less than 10 years ago to alleviate traffic. Today it is on a top 10 list of worst traffic in the state. You think it's better than it was. You imagine the old alignment with today's traffic (you have to assume the people making that traffic would have located along the corridor and not somewhere else).

 

Maybe we'd be having a discussion about all the new condos in and around Montrose because more people want to live near the city and not along the katy freeway and all that traffic, and the city would be forced to build some serious fixed guideway transit options. Maybe downtown would have kept more energy business rather than it fleeing to the katy corridor, and more buildings would be going up downtown.

 

We can't guess how this town would have evolved differently over the last 10 years had the freeway not been expanded, we can only state what we know as fact. I-10 it is top 10 worst in Texas less than 10 years after having been reconstructed to alleviate traffic.

 

No dishonest word games on my part.  You've done a good job of slip-sliding away from your original claim and argument and posited a whole bunch of stuff for which good arguments can be made. I'll just remind you again of the actual topic point.   Someone said the I-45 project would not alleviate traffic flow.  

 

I told you that "No rational argument can be made that this project will not alleviate traffic." Nothing you have said since either proves your point or disproves mine, or even begins to challenge mine. And I'll even add to it:  No rational argument can be made the Katy Freeway project did not alleviate traffic.  

 

Note: what I have said is not remotely the same as saying this is the best way to build a city, or that this is the best way to spend money.  Those, and many others, are topics about which rational arguments can be made.  On the other hand, there is simply no rational argument to be made for the proposition that this project will not alleviate traffic flow or that the Katy project did not or does not alleviate traffic flow.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Houston19514

[Ross]

5 hours ago, samagon said:

 

It took less than 10 years for each segment of the reconstructed i-10 to get back in the top 10 most congested roadways in all of Texas (see my thread in this forum regarding the top 100 most congested roadways in Texas for link to source).

 

How many billions were spent?

 

If that project is any indication to this project, we can expect over 10 years of construction for less than 10 years of traffic alleviation? 

If the Katy Freeway had not been widened, how bad would the congestion be now? Where would all of the people who moved to the West be living? I've seen arguments that they would move near their jobs. That's patently ridiculous, since very few of them have any interest at all in being Downtown, except to go to work. They odon't want to live downtown, have thier kids go to school downtown, or do much of anything Downtown. They want to go home each evening to their nice suburban home.

5 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Yes, we know about the Katy Freeway.  If we would just stop adding so damned many jobs and people to the metro area...

 

1. I think it is still not as congested for as many hours of the day as it was before, plus there is additional opportunity to bypass the congestion in the HOT lanes.  

2.  Even if it was now as congested as before, that does not say the Katy project provided no traffic alleviation, or that it only provided 10 years of traffic alleviation.  Imagine today's Katy Freeway traffic on the old pavement.  That project provides massive traffic alleviation every day of the week and will continue to do so for many years. 

 

Exactly. 

[samagon]

14 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

No dishonest word games on my part.  You've done a good job of slip-sliding away from your original claim and argument and posited a whole bunch of stuff for which good arguments can be made. I'll just remind you again of the actual topic point.   Someone said the I-45 project would not alleviate traffic flow.  

 

I told you that "No rational argument can be made that this project will not alleviate traffic." Nothing you have said since either proves your point or disproves mine, or even begins to challenge mine. And I'll even add to it:  No rational argument can be made the Katy Freeway project did not alleviate traffic.  

 

Note: what I have said is not remotely the same as saying this is the best way to build a city, or that this is the best way to spend money.  Those, and many others, are topics about which rational arguments can be made.  On the other hand, there is simply no rational argument to be made for the proposition that this project will not alleviate traffic flow or that the Katy project did not or does not alleviate traffic flow.

 

I never tried to argue against your statement. I simply responded to your statement with a statement of my own by saying that it is more nonsensical to believe that the current design being floated by TXdot is the best way to alleviate traffic. Each statement is just as accurate as the other. So why are we arguing about it?

Edited May 12, 2017 by samagon

[Danny1022]

I couldnt delete the comment so i edited and wrote this.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Danny1022
Common sense doesn't exist anymore.

[Fitch]

Oh. My. God. Is the way you type how your brain actually processes the English language? 

 

 

There's not a single rational point made in the entire collection of posts. The closest thing to a coherent opinion that doesn't flip flop every other line is "big ass highways aren't ugly, mmkay... 

 

Let's just clarify a few things:

• The project is moving forward. 
• Nothing shy of a collapse of the Texas economy will stop that.
• It will be beneficial for the City - yes some areas stand to benefit more than others - that's been true since the dawn of time. 
• The Pierce Elevated needs to be entirely wrecked down.
• Highways are going to always be ugly pieces of necessary infrastructure.
• The best decision TXDOT has made is trying to hide as much of the roadway as possible to blend downtown and the East End into one contiguous urban grid. 

For those who care to talk about actual project details - I found it interesting that the land under the interchange at 59/69/45/10 and Buffalo Bayou will be a set of detention basins. With that type of space right on the bayou I would imagine that the Buffalo Bayou Partnership will be able to program a green space or park to connect the west and east park systems. Also interesting that they're planning for possibly two bayou bypasses.