I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Montrose1100]

I'm sure it's already been discussed, but what if one alternative is to re-do all the highways entirely?

1. Reroute Interstate 10 to north of the Hardy Yard, eliminating the curviness of the original Interstate 10.

2. This older part of Interstate 10 is rebadged as part of Interstate 45/US-59.

3. Tear up Bagby Road and create a new "cut and cover" sunken freeway. This connects to the existing Spur 527 and takes the part of the old Interstate 45 that leads south to the Pierce Elevated.

4. The aging Southwest Freeway stretch between that and 288 is partially dismantled and turned into new exit lanes for 288.

5. Dismantle the Pierce Elevated.

Of course, this is extremely expensive and probably won't solve any of the biggest problems.

No but it would look purdy.

[Slick Vik]

When the gulf freeway was built there was no pierce elevated. Gulf freeway was opened in 1948 but pierce elevated was opened in 1967. Just food for thought.

[IronTiger]

When the gulf freeway was built there was no pierce elevated. Gulf freeway was opened in 1948 but pierce elevated was opened in 1967. Just food for thought.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say...we should go back to the 1940s? (also, the Gulf Freeway has been extensively rebuilt since then)

All the Pierce Elevated needs is some lighting underneath to make the thing more welcoming and other aesthetic improvements. It doesn't interrupt the street grid like other freeways do, and anyone whining about it dividing Midtown and Downtown needs to remember there are divisions to everything. It was a six-lane surface street boulevard, it would still be a barrier. Bayous are a barrier between neighborhoods; should they be backfilled?

[Slick Vik]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say...we should go back to the 1940s? (also, the Gulf Freeway has been extensively rebuilt since then)

All the Pierce Elevated needs is some lighting underneath to make the thing more welcoming and other aesthetic improvements. It doesn't interrupt the street grid like other freeways do, and anyone whining about it dividing Midtown and Downtown needs to remember there are divisions to everything. It was a six-lane surface street boulevard, it would still be a barrier. Bayous are a barrier between neighborhoods; should they be backfilled?

Lol come walk under the pierce elevated from grooves to the kbr building any night. See how "welcoming" it is, particularly the south portion and around main.

Also it's just a point to show the original gulf freeway design never had a pierce elevated, the freeway was connected by surface roads.

[IronTiger]

I'm sure that the Pierce Elevated is not a place hang out after dark, but Midtown I've felt was a bit sketchy as well. Thing is, what the Pierce Elevated sounds like it needs is lighting. Imagine LED strips running up the columns and underneath the beams. It would give a stunning appearance to the once drab expressway.

[Ross]

Lol come walk under the pierce elevated from grooves to the kbr building any night. See how "welcoming" it is, particularly the south portion and around main.

Also it's just a point to show the original gulf freeway design never had a pierce elevated, the freeway was connected by surface roads.

 

I don't see surface streets carrying the volume of the Pierce Elevated with any degree of safety, especially for pedestrians. The early days of the Gulf Freeway had minimal traffic compared to today.

 

[Slick Vik]

I don't see surface streets carrying the volume of the Pierce Elevated with any degree of safety, especially for pedestrians. The early days of the Gulf Freeway had minimal traffic compared to today.

People will find alternate routes. Downtown is full of streets that could take people where they want to go. It's all about what's more important, vitality of what could be, or a freeway being more important than everything else.

[Ross]

People will find alternate routes. Downtown is full of streets that could take people where they want to go. It's all about what's more important, vitality of what could be, or a freeway being more important than everything else.

The freeway, and its ability to move large numbers of people efficiently to a multitude of destinations is far more important than your ability to walk without encountering an elevated roadway.

[IronTiger]

The freeway, and its ability to move large numbers of people efficiently to a multitude of destinations is far more important than your ability to walk without encountering an elevated roadway.

Yup. Hard truth is that in urban areas, there's ALWAYS going to be elevated structures (road or rail) above you. The way to avoid that, of course, is if you move to the suburbs.

Frankly, I like my LED idea, which I shamelessly borrowed from Keep Houston Houston. Besides, when I actually look at it on Google Street View I find the trees, fences, and blue wraps on the column are a nice touch.

[Slick Vik]

The freeway, and its ability to move large numbers of people efficiently to a multitude of destinations is far more important than your ability to walk without encountering an elevated roadway.

At the expense of adding liveliness to the most interesting area of town? I disagree.

[IronTiger]

At the expense of adding liveliness to the most interesting area of town? I disagree.

Lol. I fail to see how removing the Pierce Elevated would somehow magically make Midtown more "alive" (your passion to remove the Pierce Elevated is admirable, your logic in doing so, not so much). Maybe if someone, say, renovated Sears (licensing the name), restoring its beautiful original art deco, maybe adding a grocery store inside, etc., well, that would improve Midtown like nothing else.

 

Besides, best case scenario is that if it were removed, there would still be parking lots there for years to come (look at San Francisco and the Central Freeway, for instance). How hip and urban! Surface parking lots!

[Slick Vik]

Lol. I fail to see how removing the Pierce Elevated would somehow magically make Midtown more "alive" (your passion to remove the Pierce Elevated is admirable, your logic in doing so, not so much). Maybe if someone, say, renovated Sears (licensing the name), restoring its beautiful original art deco, maybe adding a grocery store inside, etc., well, that would improve Midtown like nothing else.

Besides, best case scenario is that if it were removed, there would still be parking lots there for years to come (look at San Francisco and the Central Freeway, for instance). How hip and urban! Surface parking lots!

Well the edge if midtown is at pierce, blackfinn. If the elevated was removed, that would give a lot more space to add new retail and/or residential. Not to mention the price of the land would skyrocket.

[Ross]

Well the edge if midtown is at pierce, blackfinn. If the elevated was removed, that would give a lot more space to add new retail and/or residential. Not to mention the price of the land would skyrocket.

 

More space? Midtown has lots of empty space, and doesn't need more. Adding another 10 or 12 blocks would just keep prices stable for many more years.

 

[Slick Vik]

More space? Midtown has lots of empty space, and doesn't need more. Adding another 10 or 12 blocks would just keep prices stable for many more years.

Yes but there is a barrier between downtown as midtown, the pierce elevated. Eliminating that would do wonders.

[Ross]

Yes but there is a barrier between downtown as midtown, the pierce elevated. Eliminating that would do wonders.

I doubt that. Eliminating the bus station would do more to help that area than tearing down the freeway.

[Slick Vik]

I doubt that. Eliminating the bus station would do more to help that area than tearing down the freeway.

 

Eliminating the freeway opens up far more possibilities than moving the bus station. And where would you recommend moving it? Right now, it's next to the downtown transit center and a metrorail stop, making it a very convenient location.

[august948]

Yes but there is a barrier between downtown as midtown, the pierce elevated. Eliminating that would do wonders.

 

Don't think of it as a barrier, think of it as a flyover.

 

[arche_757]

It is a barrier.  You can argue that its not, but it absolutely is.

 

What is the 610 Loop at Westheimer?  Is it just a flyover?  It is a barrier.

[IronTiger]

A lot of things are "barriers". For instance, the bayous divide neighborhoods and could be considered a barrier.

Therefore, we should bury them in concrete culverts or backfill them.

As much as nonsense that seems to you, it's thinking along the same lines.

[arche_757]

bayous divide neighborhoods and could be considered a barrier.

Therefore, we should bury them in concrete culverts or backfill them.

I think you're missing my point.  And Slick Vik's, though I suspect there are some people here that simply like to argue with him (and vice versa), which is fine, but still his point is valid.

 

If the Pierce Elevated went away either the city would develop that land into parkspace, or it would allow "natural" development here and there.  I think it would fill in rather quickly.  And we would still distinguish the difference between Downtown and Midtown as Pierce Street, but we wouldn't have an ugly freeway serving as a barrier any more.  Or don't you want that?  Would you really rather have the Pierce Elevated in place of 10 or so new high and midrises?

 

Here is a great hypothetical question to H.A.I.F.ers all around...

What would you rather have as a "barrier" between Downtown and Midtown: A) An elevated freeway, A park or series of parks, C) nothing, allow it to develop into a zone without distinction.

[IronTiger]

Well, the Pierce probably should probably be torn down around 2027, when it has reached the end of its functional lifespan. Highway demolitions are frankly uneconomical, and you usually only see them when they've reached the end of their lifespan and redundant (Oklahoma City actually is seeing this), or there's some other pressing factor (the San Francisco freeways have the Loma Prieta earthquake to thanks for their removal--the damage made the freeways unusable to their full capacity without a ton of money).

 

Removing the Pierce Elevated isn't a realistic idea, but it's fun to discuss it. However, removing the Pierce has been discussed many, many times with some very good points made, and it's not cool if someone keeps pushing the issue with some rather glib and ignorant insistence. You could make more expanded arguments which address issues like "What do you with the traffic that the Pierce Elevated normally carries?" or "What do you do with the area?"

 

For instance, what if the Pierce Elevated was closed and converted to a walkable park, without wasting money destroying perfectly good infrastructure? Pedestrians could walk and bike safe from traffic below.

 

What if we had Interstate 45 continue to parallel Interstate 10, initially on the north side (sparing UHD) then on the south (sparing St. Arnold), then replacing the freight train tracks dividing 2nd Ward and EaDo, before meeting up with the Spur 5/Interstate 45 interchange? This could then be 8 lanes (instead of six) with interior breakdown lanes (which the Pierce Elevated lacks).

 

Interstate 45 to 288/59 is then rebadged as Spur 5. I think that would be a much more interesting way of getting rid of the Pierce Elevated and more beneficial overall.

Edited November 27, 2013 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

For instance, what if the Pierce Elevated was closed and converted to a walkable park, without wasting money destroying perfectly good infrastructure? Pedestrians could walk and bike safe from traffic below.

 

I've actually mentioned this idea before. Would be similar to a high line type of thing.

[Slick Vik]

Removing the Pierce Elevated isn't a realistic idea.

 

It is to people that have the vision to see something different and better.

[august948]

I think you're missing my point.  And Slick Vik's, though I suspect there are some people here that simply like to argue with him (and vice versa), which is fine, but still his point is valid.

 

If the Pierce Elevated went away either the city would develop that land into parkspace, or it would allow "natural" development here and there.  I think it would fill in rather quickly.  And we would still distinguish the difference between Downtown and Midtown as Pierce Street, but we wouldn't have an ugly freeway serving as a barrier any more.  Or don't you want that?  Would you really rather have the Pierce Elevated in place of 10 or so new high and midrises?

 

Here is a great hypothetical question to H.A.I.F.ers all around...

What would you rather have as a "barrier" between Downtown and Midtown: A) An elevated freeway, A park or series of parks, C) nothing, allow it to develop into a zone without distinction.

 

The bigger question here is whether or not the greater interest is served by removing it and redeveloping the land or expanding it to handle more traffic.  If you remove it you're going to have to find another avenue for the thru-traffic on 45.  That would mean expanding 59 on the east side of downtown at least and possibly all the way from 610 to I10.  But then, isn't 59 a barrier, too?

 

[IronTiger]

It is to people that have the vision to see something different and better.

 

Oh, so you're not only ignorant of any consequences, but with a side order of smug superiority. Classy and thoughtful response, there.   

 

 

 

I've actually mentioned this idea before. Would be similar to a high line type of thing

You realize that by endorsing that, you inadvertently undermine your arguments about it being a dark scary barrier etc. etc.?

The bigger question here is whether or not the greater interest is served by removing it and redeveloping the land or expanding it to handle more traffic. If you remove it you're going to have to find another avenue for the thru-traffic on 45. That would mean expanding 59 on the east side of downtown at least and possibly all the way from 610 to I10. But then, isn't 59 a barrier, too?

See, that's why I offered a real alternative to removing the Pierce instead of this pedestrian-friendly la-la land. More lanes to handle more traffic, avoids downtown, more exits, and it can't be considered "adding a barrier" since the railroad was already there beforehand.

Edited November 27, 2013 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

The bigger question here is whether or not the greater interest is served by removing it and redeveloping the land or expanding it to handle more traffic.  If you remove it you're going to have to find another avenue for the thru-traffic on 45.  That would mean expanding 59 on the east side of downtown at least and possibly all the way from 610 to I10.  But then, isn't 59 a barrier, too?

 

 

No you don't. As I and others have mentioned time and time again, when the pierce elevated was shut down for months, there was no predicted traffic armageddon.

[Slick Vik]

 

Oh, so you're not only ignorant of any consequences, but with a side order of smug superiority. Classy and thoughtful response, there.   

 

 

 

You realize that by endorsing that, you inadvertently undermine your arguments about it being a dark scary barrier etc. etc.?

See, that's why I offered a real alternative to removing the Pierce instead of this pedestrian-friendly la-la land. More lanes to handle more traffic, avoids downtown, more exits, and it can't be considered "adding a barrier" since the railroad was already there beforehand.

 

1. I'm not ignorant of future consequences, but I'm very aware of the current ones as a result of what we have now.

 

2. This would be a last ditch endorsement. I still favor the pierce elevated being demolished completely.

 

3. Calling anything a pedestrian friendly la la land makes me wonder if you've gone to any pedestrian friendly cities, or even been to our own midtown on a Friday or Saturday night. It's the most attractive neighborhood in the city to young people because they like the walkable lifestyle.

[august948]

Calling anything a pedestrian friendly la la land makes me wonder if you've gone to any pedestrian friendly cities, or even been to our own midtown on a Friday or Saturday night. It's the most attractive neighborhood in the city to young people because they like the walkable lifestyle.

 

The crowds don't gather anywhere on a Friday or Saturday night because of walkability.  That's just a nice-to-have when you're pub crawling.

 

[IronTiger]

1. I'm not ignorant of future consequences, but I'm very aware of the current ones as a result of what we have now.

Don't give me that. When talking about the vast amount that Pierce moves (not to mention it being part of the Interstate highway system), you basically wrote that off as "they'll find alternate routes". ("I'm demolishing 300 acres of residential areas for my theme park resort. It's okay, they'll find other places to live!")

 

Calling anything a pedestrian friendly la la land makes me wonder if you've gone to any pedestrian friendly cities, or even been to our own midtown on a Friday or Saturday night. It's the most attractive neighborhood in the city to young people because they like the walkable lifestyle.

That was a hyperbole, and if I insulted you, I'm sorry. My point was demolishing the Pierce to make a walkable paradise is a fantasy...and that's okay. I don't fault you for having an imagination.

Meanwhile, on Midtown: I've both driven through and ridden the light rail on it. It's rather run-down, and what isn't run-down is pretty ugly (mid-rise townhomes!)

That's just a nice-to-have when you're pub crawling.

And there you go. You can easily make a walkable neighborhood just by adding a cluster of bars and nightclubs.

Edited November 27, 2013 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

The crowds don't gather anywhere on a Friday or Saturday night because of walkability.  That's just a nice-to-have when you're pub crawling.

 

 

They do gather because of walkability, many places in one area, so you can go to 4-5 places in a night via your feet instead of one.