I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Houston19514]

12 minutes ago, Triton said:

If you look back at the schematics now that I just posted, there is a somewhat weird connection at Dallas now. In order to keep going straight towards Allen Parkway, you must cross the Dallas Bridge and turn right. Hopefully that doesn't become a bottleneck.

 

 

Not sure what the concern is.  That's not the only way to get on Allen Parkway, but it does appear to be an additional route that does not currently exist.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Houston19514

[Triton]

11 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Not sure what the concern is.  That's not the only way to get on Allen Parkway, but it does appear to be an additional route that does not currently exist.

The concern is the optimal way. Look at the schematic from last year. Straightforward access on the feeder north towards Allen Parkway. Now, however, you must turn left on Dallas and then a right back onto the feeder. Only concern is a traffic jam at this bridge... that's all. Nothing major though.

[Houston19514]

4 minutes ago, Triton said:

The concern is the optimal way. Look at the schematic from last year. Straightforward access on the feeder north towards Allen Parkway. Now, however, you must turn left on Dallas and then a right back onto the feeder. Only concern is a traffic jam at this bridge... that's all. Nothing major though.

 

I see.  That does not strike me as a route that will be particularly high-volume and it looks like this will retain the current situation with regard to this route to Allen Parkway. I don't know of any particular traffic jams there. Plus, this will add the Andrews Street option. I think it's more than a fair trade in exchange for eliminating more of the elevated structure.

[Houston19514]

44 minutes ago, Triton said:

My two other big beefs are still about San Jacinto at I-10 and N Main at I-45. Both are major thoroughfares but San Jacinto still doesn't not have any type of major intersection at I-10... that has to be a mistake that needs to be addressed, especially if this is to ever connect to Fulton.

 

Because there should be a major intersection at every point where a major thoroughfare intersects with a freeway?   ;-)  I don't think that is feasible or desirable. East bound I-10 has an exit and entrance very nearby. Westbound I-10 has an entrance very nearby.  Westbound I-10 can exit just before crossing I-69.  All can access San Jacinto (and other streets in the area) via the feeder roads.

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, Triton said:

N Main also does not have anyway to get onto I-45 before 610 and people from 610 have no way to get to N Main either. Right when I-45 is going downwards from the Patton St Bridge, it seems like a perfect opportunity to have ramps on both sides.

 

Technically, there is an entrance to I-45 northbound just before 610. I presume your concern is access to 610, and the I-45 entrance does not provide that. I'm with you on the concern about 610 traffic having access to North Main (and Cavalcade etc) and vice versa. There are, of course provisions for getting there, but it becomes quite a trek to/from the North Main/I-45 area to/from the Loop.  (This is not a change from prior iterations, though, is it?)

[H-Town Man]

It looks like, at 3 lanes each direction, the downtown connector is just as big as the current freeway where it crosses the bayou. I'm not sure I understand, from a quality of life perspective, why we are doubling the freeway on the east side of downtown with only marginal benefit to the west side of downtown. Do they really need as many lanes for their downtown connector as they formerly did for the entire freeway? The only winner in this is Midtown.

 

 

[Houston19514]

 

20 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

It looks like, at 3 lanes each direction, the downtown connector is just as big as the current freeway where it crosses the bayou. I'm not sure I understand, from a quality of life perspective, why we are doubling the freeway on the east side of downtown with only marginal benefit to the west side of downtown. Do they really need as many lanes for their downtown connector as they formerly did for the entire freeway? The only winner in this is Midtown.

 

 

 

I think west of downtown benefits greatly, especially with these recent revisions.  More connectivity, many fewer elevated structures and a significantly smaller footprint.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

It looks like, at 3 lanes each direction, the downtown connector is just as big as the current freeway where it crosses the bayou. I'm not sure I understand, from a quality of life perspective, why we are doubling the freeway on the east side of downtown with only marginal benefit to the west side of downtown. Do they really need as many lanes for their downtown connector as they formerly did for the entire freeway? The only winner in this is Midtown.

 

 

 

I've been a negative nancy on this project since the awesomeness of Houston continuing to have the biggest freeways in the world wore off.

 

The only winner is the developers that will own the land that the pierce elevated is on. Everyone else will be net 0, or loss.

Edited May 16, 2018 by samagon

[Triton]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Technically, there is an entrance to I-45 northbound just before 610. I presume your concern is access to 610, and the I-45 entrance does not provide that. I'm with you on the concern about 610 traffic having access to North Main (and Cavalcade etc) and vice versa. There are, of course provisions for getting there, but it becomes quite a trek to/from the North Main/I-45 area to/from the Loop.  (This is not a change from prior iterations, though, is it?)

 

Exactly.

 

Right, it's not a change from earlier schematics and I'm hoping it's something I can voice one last time before their final decision. As you basically said, there are ways of still getting to these points by taking the feeder roads under the 610/45 interchange but with N Main being a major thoroughfare, I am just surprised it doesn't have more access on its north side.

 

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Because there should be a major intersection at every point where a major thoroughfare intersects with a freeway?   ;-)  I don't think that is feasible or desirable. East bound I-10 has an exit and entrance very nearby. Westbound I-10 has an entrance very nearby.  Westbound I-10 can exit just before crossing I-69.  All can access San Jacinto (and other streets in the area) via the feeder roads.

 

The San Jacinto intersection is a major one that already exists. I feel like because they've moved I-10 further north, they aren't taking into account that they also need to move this intersection and a 5 lane road (with median) along with it. There is now zero access going north unless you take a right, drive all the way down to Hardy St. and then come back, or south unless you drive all the way to N Main, take the u-turn, and come back to San Jacinto.... and if they ever plan to connect this to Fulton, they just missed an opportunity. I feel like this is where the City of Houston needs to engage with TxDOT about this matter.

 

 

Also whatever happened to some people's comments that they heard Polk would end up getting a bridge over 59/45 in the latest revision? I certainly don't see that. 

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, Triton said:

 

The San Jacinto intersection is a major one that already exists. I feel like because they've moved I-10 further north, they aren't taking into account that they also need to move this intersection and a 5 lane road (with median) along with it. There is now zero access going north unless you take a right, drive all the way down to Hardy St. and then come back, or south unless you drive all the way to N Main, take the u-turn, and come back to San Jacinto.... and if they ever plan to connect this to Fulton, they just missed an opportunity. I feel like this is where the City of Houston needs to engage with TxDOT about this matter.

 

There is an existing major intersection between San Jacinto and I-10?  How so?  Compared to the current situation, the new plan provides at least equivalent connection from San Jacinto to eastbound I-10; slightly better connection from San Jacinto to westbound I-10;  Slightly better connection from eastbound I-10 to San Jacinto; Somewhat less good of a connection from westbound I-10 to San Jacinto (depending on exactly how it's constructed; it may be equivalent).

[Houston19514]

3 hours ago, Triton said:

Also whatever happened to some people's comments that they heard Polk would end up getting a bridge over 59/45 in the latest revision? I certainly don't see that. 

 

If anyone said Polk would end up getting a bridge, I think they misspoke or were confused. The depressed roadway is not (and cannot be) deep enough at Polk to allow a bridge in that location.  What they changed from the original plan (and this was already done in the prior iteration), was to add the U-turn lane on the Lamar Street bridge, which, combined with the Leeland Street bridge, allows Polk Street traffic to continue through. 

[MaxConcrete]

22 hours ago, BeerNut said:

Any noticeable changes since the last drawing?

 

The most significant change is for the connection to the SH 288 toll lanes. The connection into Chenevert Street is eliminated. The northbound SH 288 toll lane now connects into the ramp which connects to IH 45. The southbound entrance to the toll lane is now from the frontage road.

 

The only other significant change is on the downtown connector at Dallas Street, as already pointed out and discussed. Looking at the schematic, the schematic creates the suggestion that the Sabine Street bridge is slated to be replaced.

 

Trivial changes include some modifications to streets connecting to the frontage road at the 610/45 interchange, frontage road right turn geometries at the 610/45 interchange, and a two-lane exit to Bell on southbound IH-69 (previously one lane). So overall, changes in the design are minimal.

 

I was disappointed to see that there were no adjustments in the locations of my list of concerns, so I think I can safely conclude that the design in basically final in those locations.

http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis

[Triton]

14 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

If anyone said Polk would end up getting a bridge, I think they misspoke or were confused. The depressed roadway is not (and cannot be) deep enough at Polk to allow a bridge in that location.  What they changed from the original plan (and this was already done in the prior iteration), was to add the U-turn lane on the Lamar Street bridge, which, combined with the Leeland Street bridge, allows Polk Street traffic to continue through. 

@swtsig hadnt you mentioned somewhere on HAIF that you heard Polk Bridge was possibly coming back? I know you said it was rumors but your rumors tend to become more of a reality in general. 

[cspwal]

15 minutes ago, MaxConcrete said:

The most significant change is for the connection to the SH 288 toll lanes. The connection into Chenevert Street is eliminated. The northbound SH 288 toll lane now connects into the ramp which connects to IH 45. The southbound entrance to the toll lane is now from the frontage road.

 

I was going to crazy trying to find that connection ramp.  Why are they eliminating the early exit to midtown?  Seems like it will just increase traffic on 59 of people trying to get into downtown

[corbs315]

12 minutes ago, cspwal said:

 

I was going to crazy trying to find that connection ramp.  Why are they eliminating the early exit to midtown?  Seems like it will just increase traffic on 59 of people trying to get into downtown

 

Boo, they're getting rid of the Chenevert exit from 288N? That's my way home from the med center

[MaxConcrete]

13 minutes ago, cspwal said:

 

I was going to crazy trying to find that connection ramp.  Why are they eliminating the early exit to midtown?  Seems like it will just increase traffic on 59 of people trying to get into downtown

At the public hearing last year, the homeowners in the Chenevert area were opposed to ramp due to the potential for more traffic on their streets. That probably was a factor.

[cspwal]

But the ramp is already there now...

[Naviguessor]

TXDOT is actually doing a good job of listening and responding to neighborhood groups and concerns.   Our neighborhood group, in the Lower Fifth Ward, received positive responses and made some design modifications as a result of some concerns that we had and vocalized.   

[wilcal]

Looking at the map, I'm kind of confused how you would go from say, Minute Maid Park, to get on 288.

 

The only on-ramp I see is would be Webster, and 288 splits off before that. 

[cspwal]

It looks like you would get on at the end of Hamilton, and either go to the main lanes or the managed lanes

[wilcal]

I see it now. You're right, it'll have it's own ramp that bypasses 59. Makes sense. 

[BeerNut]

Wasn't able to get a picture but TXDOT was getting soil samples east and west of I69 on Preston St this morning.

[Triton]

Site has been updated today:

 

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

 

[BeerNut]

More soil sampling being taken.  They're working in the median of 69 near Gray.

[cspwal]

I sometimes wonder what they get from that.  Not being a civil engineer, I would take a sample, look at it, and say "Yep, that's dirt"

[samagon]

4 hours ago, cspwal said:

I sometimes wonder what they get from that.  Not being a civil engineer, I would take a sample, look at it, and say "Yep, that's dirt"

 

Obviously you'd first want to pick and prod at the dirt with the toothpick from your mouth first for about a minute. After you've exclaimed that it is indeed dirt, you re-insert the toothpick back in your mouth.  

[mollusk]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

 

Obviously you'd first want to pick and prod at the dirt with the toothpick from your mouth first for about a minute. After you've exclaimed that it is indeed dirt, you re-insert the toothpick back in your mouth.  

 

Upon tasting the dirt on the toothpick you can then determine what kind of dirt it is, and how well it drains and can bear a load. 

[mkultra25]

21 hours ago, mollusk said:

 

Upon tasting the dirt on the toothpick you can then determine what kind of dirt it is, and how well it drains and can bear a load. 

 

aka "terroir du teardown"

[wilcal]

Some new renderings were presented at the open house last night. They said that they would be up on the Houston Planning website by the end of the week.

 

Updated timelines: Initial concept development through summer '19. There's a TxDOT deadline then where they have to know about trees on bridges, etc. Design work begins then and has a deadline of Dec 19. Construction from TxDOT begins 2020 or 2021. 

 

Big question is keeping/demoing the Pierce Elevated. They are still unsure, but the renderings today showed it in place. Talked with one of the presenter's associates and they said that they have had some engineering work done to determine the feasibility and it looks very good. Land swap between the city and TxDOT looks good. He said they've even looked at the possibility of using the concrete barriers to hold in soil to plant trees/grass and engineering said it was workable. Would likely need "stakeholders" to help with the development. Meaning commercial spaces below and on top to help develop their portion. He made it sound like the city may be up for renting or selling part of the land that they receive for further development to hug the elevated park. 

 

I somehow forgot to take a picture, but the Pierce would dump into a large park underneath 45 where Hutchins is approximate. They had some decent renderings of this.

 

They're now planning a pedestrian/bike only bridge to connect Polk into downtown.

 

I think we knew this, but full Montrosification of the 3 Third Ward bridges: https://i.imgur.com/tBwGZnU.jpg

 

As you can see on the renderings, adding separated bike/pedestrian lanes and they want to integrate trees and/or grass on the bridge.

 

New render of the EaDo Cap. Pretty spectacular imho even though BBVA gets the shaft on how big it is (it's the same length as MMP). Elevated walkways to GRB built as hotels are built and needed them. Some type of outdoor concert venue towards the south end of the cap. 

 

https://i.imgur.com/F1ll4Oq.jpg

 

"Program Areas" of the cap:

 

https://i.imgur.com/IMtlgqc.jpg

 

Train-themed park area on the cap. Speaker talked about the history of trains in that area, wants to integrate that into that portion of the cap. 

 

https://i.imgur.com/5s2nAyn.jpg

 

"Trailhead Overlook Hill" is a key entry into the parks system. Rent a bike and explore, etc. Several blocks of elevated pedestrian/bike highway. Big part of the green loop initiative. I talked with the associate about how the goal is to have as few as 10 road crossings for bikes/pedestrians for an entire loop of downtown. 

 

https://i.imgur.com/70H1eKe.jpg

 

The latest image of the NE corner:

 

https://i.imgur.com/VhbaXoJ.jpg

 

Those are detention ponds in the center. Think we knew pretty much all of this. 

 

Frostown Crossing portion utilizes existing historical railway as part of the elevated bikeway.

 

https://i.imgur.com/tUtb9ju.jpg

 

 

[kennyc05]

I like!