I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Luminare]

6 hours ago, houstontexasjack said:

I think you're on the money there regarding Mr. Speck. I also appreciate @Luminare 's comments on the freeway reroute and Mr. Speck's criticisms.  His alternative "proposal" amounts to a bag of beans and wishful thinking. From the summary I've read of his presentation, it seems the bulk of his criticisms involve Segments 1 and 2. Segment 3, the Downtown reroute, has a very large number of positives.  I think urban sentiment can be mobilized behind the park decks to make them happen.  If the @$$holes to the north (Dallas) can fund Clyde Warren Park, surely we can produce something bigger and better.

 

Demolishing the Pierce, even to sell off the pieces of land to developers, isn't a bad thing in my view.  It'd eliminate the psychological barrier between Downtown and Midtown. And heck, some of the proceeds could fund the deck east of the George R. Brown.

 

Appreciate the mention.

 

Berlin went through the same sort of discussions once the wall fell. Some parts are non-existent. Some parts are barely visible. Some parts are incredibly stark. Some parts are educational while others are utilized in unique ways.

 

I think the same approach should be had with the Pierce. Whether its bad history or good history it should have a place and exist. By re-purposing it we are educating future generations that whatever we do today, good or bad, it can always change at some point in the future. Even our mistakes can be altered to become great things. The Pierce can become a really good teachable moment. On one hand it stands as the poster child of the great aspirations and follies of Modernism, and on the other it can stand for what a new generation can do, good or bad. Lets remember that when we don't learn from our history we are doomed to repeat it.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Luminare

[Jbarn]

On 3/27/2019 at 8:30 AM, houstontexasjack said:

I think you're on the money there regarding Mr. Speck. I also appreciate @Luminare 's comments on the freeway reroute and Mr. Speck's criticisms.  His alternative "proposal" amounts to a bag of beans and wishful thinking. From the summary I've read of his presentation, it seems the bulk of his criticisms involve Segments 1 and 2. Segment 3, the Downtown reroute, has a very large number of positives.  I think urban sentiment can be mobilized behind the park decks to make them happen.  If the @$$holes to the north (Dallas) can fund Clyde Warren Park, surely we can produce something bigger and better.

 

Demolishing the Pierce, even to sell off the pieces of land to developers, isn't a bad thing in my view.  It'd eliminate the psychological barrier between Downtown and Midtown. And heck, some of the proceeds could fund the deck east of the George R. Brown.

 

 

Jealous much? Sounds like you haven’t been to Dallas recently. 

 

[houstontexasjack]

2 hours ago, Jbarn said:

 

 

Jealous much? Sounds like you haven’t been to Dallas recently. 

 

I gave a talk there last March. I prefer to have same day departures/returns to minimize my time there, so I only walked a short distance near the towering inferno and the Meyerson after the talk. But, credit where credit’s due. 

[samagon]

On 3/27/2019 at 4:26 PM, Luminare said:

I think the same approach should be had with the Pierce. Whether its bad history or good history it should have a place and exist. By re-purposing it we are educating future generations that whatever we do today, good or bad, it can always change at some point in the future. Even our mistakes can be altered to become great things. The Pierce can become a really good teachable moment. On one hand it stands as the poster child of the great aspirations and follies of Modernism, and on the other it can stand for what a new generation can do, good or bad. Lets remember that when we don't learn from our history we are doomed to repeat it.

 

to reference history and say we're using it as a reminder of what we have learned. well, you actually have to have actually learned from it.

 

in the case of the pierce (and any freeway in general), I would think the thing to learn would be that taking land, or reducing mobility in local communities for the benefit of a freeway is a bad thing. 

 

removing the pierce, and leaving some of it as a monument to what we have supposedly learned... from looking at this project and what it's going to do to the local communities, maybe we should say it could be a monument to what we may some day learn? 

 

for the city of Houston, and for us to have learned anything, then there would be a caveat placed on txdot that any freeway expansion project must be done without expanding ROW, and cannot reduce local surface street mobility.

[thedistrict84]

On 3/27/2019 at 11:26 AM, samagon said:

The problem with this is as a reason is that to accomplish this you are increasing a physical barrier between other close in areas and downtown. unfortunately, no one cared about midtown before it was filled with affluence. Now that it has affluence, the Pierce has to go to create synergy and remove a psychological barrier, but at the expense of adding bigger physical and psychological barriers between downtown and other poor neighborhoods.

 

The physical and psychological barrier between downtown and the area directly to the north is going to expand drastically.

 

While the gulf between downtown and east end might have a nice park on it (which will be behind a building that is a massive psychological barrier in and of itself), they are still removing one of the 4 remaining through streets that cross 59 and continue on beyond the railroad tracks, thereby reducing local mobility, and adding to a psychological barrier.

 

so yeah, affluent people gonna get a psychological barrier removed, but at the expense of poor neighborhoods. that shouldn't be acceptable in this day and age, so if there is a benefit you want to expand upon it should be for helping traffic flow around town, not for making affluent people more comfy at the expense of poor people.

 

Very well said. The same people advocating for removing the Pierce also harp on how the elevated portion of 59 is a “psychological” barrier too. 

 

I’d much rather have a “psychological” barrier than a buried freeway/concrete cap that represents a (further) physical barrier nearly two football fields in width between the East End and EaDo, and downtown. If the park does not get built—which is entirely possible at this juncture—this will be a disaster for the East End.

 

And the point about losing access is important too. Polk would be lost, and there is a chance that Runnels would be eliminated too (although as of the presentation a few months ago at GRB they are still trying to figure out what to do with Runnels).

Edited April 1, 2019 by thedistrict84
Grammar

[Angostura]

On 3/4/2019 at 2:32 PM, CaptainJilliams said:

I understand the concerns that have been raised by Mr. Speck, but like Luminare said, what is the solution?

 

Houston's population is still on an upward trend, automobiles will dominate the city for the foreseeable future, congestion will likely get worse as time goes on with the current system in place, and not to mention in another 10-15 years the existing infrastructure will likely need to be updated due to aging and deterioration. 

 

It is what it is unfortunately.

 

 

We're not without options if we want to reduce the demand for highway VMT. Off the top of my head, here are some things we could do, with zero (net) tax dollars:

• Eliminate parking minimums citywide
• Per-sf tax on land used for surface parking anywhere inside 610, expanding eventually to anywhere inside BW8.
• Dynamic pricing of on-street parking
• Congestion charge for every vehicle that enters or crosses IH-610.

 

By spending a little bit of tax dollars (especially as compared to the cost of the I-45 project):

• Migrate surface street ROW from vehicle traffic to last-mile alternatives (bikes, e-bikes, scooters)
• Improved park-and-ride services from suburban locations to job centers other than downtown
• Local high-frequency jitney services in job centers other than downtown

 

The concern about infrastructure affordability is a good one. The best indicator of affordability of infrastructure is assessed property tax value per square mile. If we're really concerned about infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs, the last thing we should be doing is spending billions of dollars on a highway project that encourages low-density suburban development that can't pay for itself over time. We should be encouraging growth closer to job centers. Every time we knock down a bungalow in Cottage Grove and replace it with 6 townhouses, we take 5-10 cars off the freeway, and increase the assessed value of that street frontage by 4X or more. Ditto every time we replace a warehouse with a midrise.

 

If we keep it up, we can eventually get to a density where grade-separated transit starts to work for a significant fraction of the population without a lot of last-mile help. Midtown and parts of EaDo are already there.

 

 

 

[thedistrict84]

1 hour ago, Angostura said:

Congestion charge for every vehicle that enters or crosses IH-610.

 

I’m all for sticking it to suburban dwellers, but I just don’t see this happening in Houston any time soon—even if we do make exponential progress with public transportation and other alternative solutions to single-occupancy vehicle traffic.

[CaptainJilliams]

1 hour ago, Angostura said:

 

 

We're not without options if we want to reduce the demand for highway VMT. Off the top of my head, here are some things we could do, with zero (net) tax dollars:

• Eliminate parking minimums citywide
• Per-sf tax on land used for surface parking anywhere inside 610, expanding eventually to anywhere inside BW8.
• Dynamic pricing of on-street parking
• Congestion charge for every vehicle that enters or crosses IH-610.

 

By spending a little bit of tax dollars (especially as compared to the cost of the I-45 project):

• Migrate surface street ROW from vehicle traffic to last-mile alternatives (bikes, e-bikes, scooters)
• Improved park-and-ride services from suburban locations to job centers other than downtown
• Local high-frequency jitney services in job centers other than downtown

 

The concern about infrastructure affordability is a good one. The best indicator of affordability of infrastructure is assessed property tax value per square mile. If we're really concerned about infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs, the last thing we should be doing is spending billions of dollars on a highway project that encourages low-density suburban development that can't pay for itself over time. We should be encouraging growth closer to job centers. Every time we knock down a bungalow in Cottage Grove and replace it with 6 townhouses, we take 5-10 cars off the freeway, and increase the assessed value of that street frontage by 4X or more. Ditto every time we replace a warehouse with a midrise.

 

If we keep it up, we can eventually get to a density where grade-separated transit starts to work for a significant fraction of the population without a lot of last-mile help. Midtown and parts of EaDo are already there.

 

 

 

 

I can't really argue many of these points, in fact I probably support a majority of them. My biggest gripe was with Mr. Speck in how he presented his argument, at least from what I read/heard it was a lot of negativity and very little constructive talk on alternatives to current congestion. Sure, he may have offered solutions at different talks in different cities, but I wish he had presented options similar to what you did.

 

Also, I could see the "congestion charge" facing some serious pushback from locals.

Edited April 1, 2019 by CaptainJilliams

[cspwal]

I don't think we really need a congestion charge for entering 610; I would consider that to be a last resort measure.  Instead, I would advocate more of the HOV/HOT lanes to be made 2 way, relieving some traffic, as well as interchanges between them.  I have come to think that the pierce elevated should probably remain as some sort of elevated road structure, but maybe scale it back in size to just carry 2 way bus lanes & toll lanes.  It would work since the downtown TC is right next to the pierce elevated, so you could have a BRT platform on the elevated structure.  The bigger thing would be to make the underside of the pierce elevated both more inviting to walk along while trying to activate the sidewalk enough that it is not a permanent home for homeless people.  Maybe one of the parking lots could be turned into a more permanent shelter?

[samagon]

congestion charges, and extra taxes wouldn't be a good idea without alternatives in place or being built.

 

just read this, not sure if it's April fools or not...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-state-budget-deal-brings-congestion-pricing-plastic-bag-ban-and-mansion-tax/ar-BBVrCcT?OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

Quote

a groundbreaking plan to charge motorists to drive into Manhattan’s busiest stretches.

 

I think a congestion charge, very minimal with every dollar going to metro would be a start that could give metro the leverage to get some serious dollars to add more mass transit.

[Angostura]

16 hours ago, CaptainJilliams said:

 

Also, I could see the "congestion charge" facing some serious pushback from locals.

 

This is probably an understatement. It would be HUGELY unpopular.

 

We're just now seeing NYC decide to implement one, and that's not even for all of Manhattan (only below 60th). It's also somewhat regressive. It de-values the homes of the lower-middle- and middle-middle-class in the suburbs and increases the value of the homes of the upper-middle-class and wealthy closer to town.

 

However, to get people out of single-occupancy vehicles, the alternative has to be either faster, cheaper, or better (more comfortable/convenient). Preferably two out of three. 

[cspwal]

Driving in lower manhattan is always congested (when I arrived a few years ago and emerged from the subway at 2 am, the street was full of stopped cars); there is no comparison to Houston where it's only really that congested at rush hour, and even then there are cross town freeways that will move cars along as opposed to relying soley on surface streets.  Like it or not, NYC is in a different league in many different ways - the last time NYC was smaller than Houston's current population was in 1890 (according to the 1890 census), and Brooklyn was still a separate city of 800,000.  They have multiple different alternatives to driving in the lower manhattan, including multiple, duplicative subway lines, multiple commuter rail lines that go to more than one terminal station in the city, a huge bus network, as well as biking or taking a ferry.  

 

Houston, for the majority of the population, has to either drive or take the bus.  Unless you can take a park and ride bus to near your destination, the bus will take longer.  We have to focus on building up both more population and the density to feed a better public transportation network before we have to implement congestion pricing.

 

One idea I could get behind is dynamic tolling freeways inside the loop, but leaving surface streets free.  Tolls could start at $0.00 when there's no traffic, and slowly rise as the average speed drops below 60 mph.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, cspwal said:

Driving in lower manhattan is always congested (when I arrived a few years ago and emerged from the subway at 2 am, the street was full of stopped cars); there is no comparison to Houston where it's only really that congested at rush hour, and even then there are cross town freeways that will move cars along as opposed to relying soley on surface streets.  Like it or not, NYC is in a different league in many different ways - the last time NYC was smaller than Houston's current population was in 1890 (according to the 1890 census), and Brooklyn was still a separate city of 800,000.  They have multiple different alternatives to driving in the lower manhattan, including multiple, duplicative subway lines, multiple commuter rail lines that go to more than one terminal station in the city, a huge bus network, as well as biking or taking a ferry.  

 

Houston, for the majority of the population, has to either drive or take the bus.  Unless you can take a park and ride bus to near your destination, the bus will take longer.  We have to focus on building up both more population and the density to feed a better public transportation network before we have to implement congestion pricing.

 

One idea I could get behind is dynamic tolling freeways inside the loop, but leaving surface streets free.  Tolls could start at $0.00 when there's no traffic, and slowly rise as the average speed drops below 60 mph.

 

Houston's near 24/7 traffic is not on surface streets, but freeways. 

 

I like the idea of a freeway charge, I like the idea of a congestion charge for anyone that doesn't drive a vehicle registered inside the city limits.

 

only if 100% of the money was put directly into funding mass transit.

Edited April 2, 2019 by samagon

[cspwal]

It would have to be pay by mail/toll tag because of the through traffic on I-10, but a dynamic charge on the inner loop freeways would probably work - and I agree, as long as it is earmarked entirely for Metro, with a requirement it's put into developing either more rail or more regional express service (aka park and ride busses, commuter rail)

[houstontexasjack]

Construction on segment 3 to start late spring 2021 per the presentation to the Museum Park NA:

 

https://www.museumparkna.org/resources/Documents/Highway Impovement Project Overview SWA April 2019.pdf

[Triton]

Wait... is this official.... Pierce Skypark?

 

Edit: I don't remember ever seeing this:

 

Nevermind. Found it in the City Planning document.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/west/presentation-west.pdf

 

 

[BeerNut]

This just popped up on my FB feed.  I wonder how much impact a group like this would have at this stage.  Make I-45 Better Coalition Fundraiser

[cspwal]

On 4/9/2019 at 5:07 PM, Triton said:

 

What is going on here??  It looks like they plopped a stage down on the freeway, damming it up and only allowing a trickle of freeway to remain (the bike path)

[dbigtex56]

2 hours ago, cspwal said:

 

What is going on here??

I don't know, but it appears that someone's photo editing program has a steeper learning curve than they anticipated.
 Or, perhaps it's a collaboration between M. C. Escher and Salvador Dali. I can't make head nor tail of it.

[Texasota]

Guys, it's a cap above a sunken ramp. Not a great rendering (and the blur doesn't help). The bike trail tail connecting to the abandoned Pierce Elevated adds to the confusion I suppose.

[EllenOlenska]

I'll tell y'all something. I'm genuinely unsure what in the world is likely to be here. Is the Pierce Skypark the most likely event? 
 

[samagon]

On 4/9/2019 at 6:02 PM, BeerNut said:

This just popped up on my FB feed.  I wonder how much impact a group like this would have at this stage.  Make I-45 Better Coalition Fundraiser

 

I suspect, until they begin actual demo work on the existing structure, there's a chance at having a positive impact.

 

There's always hope of possibility.

[cougarpad]

I believe the East End cap will get built and it will be because of Houston First convention organization. The Houston convention organization was a major driver in Discovery Green being built because of the impact on the GRB Conv Center. The East End cap over the trench will be right behind the GRB and would allow for opening up the back as a new entrance to the convention center. A GRB entrance can be built opening up to the park on the cap like the one opening up to Discovery Green. When it comes to project in Houston that positively improves the convention centers they always get done. Because of the impact the park space on the cap will have on the GRB, I believe it will get built.

Edited April 15, 2019 by cougarpad

[samagon]

logistically, the back of the building is used for getting all the stuff that makes up conventions in and out. booths, equipment, etc. that means loading docks, so an 18 wheeler can back up and the floor of the trailer is at the height of the floor.

 

sure they can reconfigure it, but they will have to consider logistics heavily.

 

there are certainly a lot of places that the money can come from for the cap parks, but until an entity, or group comes forward and says they're going to take on the burden, we can only speculate. 

[houstontexasjack]

5 hours ago, cougarpad said:

I believe the East End cap will get built and it will be because of Houston First convention organization. The Houston convention organization was a major driver in Discovery Green being built because of the impact on the GRB Conv Center. The East End cap over the trench will be right behind the GRB and would allow for opening up the back as a new entrance to the convention center. A GRB entrance can be built opening up to the park on the cap like the one opening up to Discovery Green. When it comes to project in Houston that positively improves the convention centers they always get done. Because of the impact the park space on the cap will have on the GRB, I believe it will get built.

The caps over 69 (nice) are right by Rice University's upcoming Innovation District.  A representative from Rice was a co-presenter to the Museum Park NA along with a rep on the construction.  Rice is communicating with other stakeholders on the design of the caps in connection with its Innovation District.  Because of Rice's involvement, I am thus optimistic the 69 caps will also get built.

[kennyc05]

What about the ones north of downtown on 45?

[CaptainJilliams]

1 hour ago, houstontexasjack said:

The caps over 69 (nice) are right by Rice University's upcoming Innovation District.  A representative from Rice was a co-presenter to the Museum Park NA along with a rep on the construction.  Rice is communicating with other stakeholders on the design of the caps in connection with its Innovation District.  Because of Rice's involvement, I am thus optimistic the 69 caps will also get built.

 

Agreed on the East End Cap and the 69 Caps near the Innovation District. The element that seems less certain is the Pierce Elevated Skypark, I don't know if they will re-purpose the highway for a park or if they will simply knock it down and connect Midtown and Downtown.

[houstontexasjack]

1 hour ago, kennyc05 said:

What about the ones north of downtown on 45?

Those are the ones in Segment 2 of the proposal. I am far less optimistic about those at this time, as the cap parks proposed there lack natural institutional allies to help lead a sustained effort to back construction such as the Convention Center or Rice.  Segment 2 also is the portion with far more single-family residences in the cross-hairs for ROW expansion. 

 

 

[hindesky]

About a year ago I remember seeing them getting core samples on the south bank of the White Oak Bayou and thought it might be for the IH 45 realignment, this time they were on the north bank and I stopped and asked a member of the company taking the core samples what it was for, he said for the IH 45 realignment and he guessed they might start the project 2020 winter. It will be a nightmare for traffic but will be great in the long run.

Edited April 20, 2019 by hindesky
Wrong time frame, winter of 2020.

[CaptainJilliams]

I figured that it was only a matter of time. Let the countdown to a congestion nightmare begin.