I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Amlaham]

https://communityimpact.com/houston/lake-houston-humble-kingwood/government/2020/07/29/new-sign-ordinance-aims-to-make-houston-airport-corridors-more-visually-appealing/

 

Amazing news! However, I'm not sure how effective it will be.

Edited July 30, 2020 by Amlaham

[kennyc05]

Nice

[kennyc05]

[Amlaham]

Can someone summarize what this technically means? Does it mean the city will order the removal of some signs if they are not up to date? 

[skooljunkie]

Well it's a start in reducing sign blight. The ordinance changes add an abandoned category for your typical business sign (Chili's, CVS, generic beige shopping center, etc.). Citywide, an owner with a sign that's not in use must now maintain (pay for) an annual permit or the sign can be removed after two years of non-compliance. I believe, but I'm not certain, prior to this, a sign not in use merely had to meet certain visual requirements to stay up: no words/symbols blacked out, and the pole maintained. Also, signs within 600 feet of the freeways outlined on the map now must be smaller in size and height. For example, a freeway sign (excluding billboards) now has a 31' height max instead of 42.5' and the size of the sign must now be 25-33% smaller in area. I'm guessing they wanted to get this set up prior to the North Frwy. rebuild so anything removed must be rebuilt with the new rules.

 

I'm more concerned with LEDs though. I think this is an area the City needs to focus next. Many cities have brightness regulations. From what I can tell, Houston's are loose suggestions. It seems the city has made it easier to convert existing signs to LED with this ordinance as well. So yay...more bright lights in your face at night. I've never understood why some business owners don't use a proper dimmer on LED signs so that people could actually read the damn sign at night. Some can't even be read: ahem, Star Pizza. I might order from them again if they dim that solar flare out front. 

[Amlaham]

1 hour ago, skooljunkie said:

I'm guessing they wanted to get this set up prior to the North Frwy. rebuild so anything removed must be rebuilt with the new rules.

Oh thats actually a really smart move from the city! This is such a huge step forward for the city of Houston. Property owners have too much leeway in how they design/maintain their shopping centers. Huge signs, no trees/ landscape, and just straight up not caring for the property. My family is friends with the guy who owns the shopping center below and as you can see it's mess. He has 2 separate signs, one not even being used, not to mention how poorly kept the center is. Side note, this dude is loaded. He can afford to clean up the shopping center, and I feel like thats the case with a lot of owners, if its bringing them money thats all they care about. 

 

In terms of LED billboards, I can see how the bright lights can be an issue for some people driving. However, part of me does wish there were more digital billboards around Houston. I know other cities have initiatives to replace multiple traditional billboards for 1 digital billboards.

[skooljunkie]

I like the incentive idea. Before Houston started having disasters every six months I would periodically read about deals between the city and billboard companies. I believe five or so years back 10-15 short, wooden billboards along Richmond Ave were removed and replaced with a few modern freeway types in more prominent areas. 

[Houston19514]

Lots of Interesting stuff regarding plans for Segment 3.

Scroll to page 29

[Texasota]

Yeah some definite forward movement on development of the EaDo cap and the garden bridges. Very glad they're thinking about having buildings on the cap. 

 

Oh, and... the Holiday Inn!!!!

[rechlin]

Lots of really, really interesting information in there.  Thanks for finding that and sharing it!

 

However, it's frustrating that the Terminal Subdivision Relocation isn't getting any traction, per that document.  In some ways that's one of the most important additions to the plan.  It would allow divided neighborhoods in the 6th ward to be reconnected, reduce traffic blockages in the Warehouse District, and make the North Canal feasible.

[TheSirDingle]

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

Yeah some definite forward movement on development of the EaDo cap and the garden bridges. Very glad they're thinking about having buildings on the cap. 

 

Oh, and... the Holiday Inn!!!!

OMG literally 20+ pages on the Holiday Inn!!! Looks like they're trying to open 2021? Honestly somebody should post all of that info in the Holiday Inn thread, I honestly didn't expect this. 

[zaphod]

I don't like the EaDo cap. Where is the money going to come from if the city is so fiscally spread thin? Are they going to close down or stop funding other parks or parks services? Why are so many neighborhoods in the city under-served with parks and why are various activities lacking? This would be really expensive project to build a patch of grass next to some "visionary" development locations and put on it a gym and other facilities that could be built at 1/10th the cost elsewhere in town that needs them and leave money over for 100 other things.

 

I like how the 59 trench is proposed. They put in extra wide sidewalks with landscaping to join the two sides together, they went with an aesthetically pleasing decorative molded concrete for the walls, and where a mini tunnel is necessary due to the oblique angles a couple streets cross at they'll put some grass on top and line it with bushes.

 

Why not just do that for EaDo and be done with it? They could set up the trench walls to support a roof at a later date if private funds come from developers who are interested in building adjacent.

[Texasota]

TXDOT is already funding the structure of the cap. The City/ Management district etc would be funding the amenities on top. 

[HouTXRanger]

18 minutes ago, zaphod said:

I don't like the EaDo cap. Where is the money going to come from if the city is so fiscally spread thin? Are they going to close down or stop funding other parks or parks services? Why are so many neighborhoods in the city under-served with parks and why are various activities lacking? This would be really expensive project to build a patch of grass next to some "visionary" development locations and put on it a gym and other facilities that could be built at 1/10th the cost elsewhere in town that needs them and leave money over for 100 other things.

 

I like how the 59 trench is proposed. They put in extra wide sidewalks with landscaping to join the two sides together, they went with an aesthetically pleasing decorative molded concrete for the walls, and where a mini tunnel is necessary due to the oblique angles a couple streets cross at they'll put some grass on top and line it with bushes.

 

Why not just do that for EaDo and be done with it? They could set up the trench walls to support a roof at a later date if private funds come from developers who are interested in building adjacent.

Over the past few decades, urban planners and researchers have come to realize that urban highways damage the cityscape it travels through in multiple ways, most obviously by physically separating parts of the city with wide, unattractive, unsafe overpasses like we have right now. Cities are now spending considerable time and effort to reunite neighborhoods originally segregated by the highways back in the 60s. You can see the effects of this in places like Dallas, or in more extreme cases like in Boston.

The effect of literally, physically reconnecting city streets in place of what was once a highway is hard to understate. 

The CoH has been trying to encourage unbroken "real city" development to unite different areas of interest around the inner loop of Houston. Downtown, Midtown, the Med Center, and EaDo. Currently, they are separated by the Pierce Elevated, 69, and 288. So, by burying these and building uninterrupted cityscape on top, they can try and undo the damage done by our urban highways. 

To my understanding you have to build the highways with the pillars and structures necessary to put buildings on the caps from the beginning, you can't do that after the fact. So, they're doing all this planning before they break ground.

Finally, TXDOT is doing all the heavy lifting. They're making the highway, the caps, and the pillars and engineering to make it all work. All the city has to do is build and maintain the parkspace, and encourage private development on the caps. 

[Triton]

Uploaded this week:

 

 

[mfastx]

Houston's big dig

[samagon]

15 hours ago, HouTXRanger said:

Over the past few decades, urban planners and researchers have come to realize that urban highways damage the cityscape it travels through in multiple ways, most obviously by physically separating parts of the city with wide, unattractive, unsafe overpasses like we have right now. Cities are now spending considerable time and effort to reunite neighborhoods originally segregated by the highways back in the 60s. You can see the effects of this in places like Dallas, or in more extreme cases like in Boston.

The effect of literally, physically reconnecting city streets in place of what was once a highway is hard to understate. 

The CoH has been trying to encourage unbroken "real city" development to unite different areas of interest around the inner loop of Houston. Downtown, Midtown, the Med Center, and EaDo. Currently, they are separated by the Pierce Elevated, 69, and 288. So, by burying these and building uninterrupted cityscape on top, they can try and undo the damage done by our urban highways. 

To my understanding you have to build the highways with the pillars and structures necessary to put buildings on the caps from the beginning, you can't do that after the fact. So, they're doing all this planning before they break ground.

Finally, TXDOT is doing all the heavy lifting. They're making the highway, the caps, and the pillars and engineering to make it all work. All the city has to do is build and maintain the parkspace, and encourage private development on the caps. 

 

I hope you're talking about reconnecting streets along other parts of this project.

 

along the 59 alignment of this project the reconnecting streets are literally dead ending into the convention center. there is no reconnecting happening on the east side of downtown.

 

as a matter of fact, streets designated by Houston as major thoroughfares, and major collectors are going to be severed by this project. Leeland (connection to Bell) and Polk (in the entirety).

 

this cap is pretty, and it will be a nice consolation prize when you consider that the state is again destroying the high quality connections in our city that are used by the poorer sections of town, all so they can appease the desires of the rich and wealthy and move the alignment of i45 from the wealthy side of downtown to the poor side of downtown.

 

map of 2019 Houston major thoroughfares https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/transportation/MTFPMap/2019_MTFP_Map.pdf

Edited August 19, 2020 by samagon

[HouTXRanger]

4 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

I hope you're talking about reconnecting streets along other parts of this project.

 

along the 59 alignment of this project the reconnecting streets are literally dead ending into the convention center. there is no reconnecting happening on the east side of downtown.

 

as a matter of fact, streets designated by Houston as major thoroughfares, and major collectors are going to be severed by this project. Leeland and Polk.

 

this cap is pretty, and it will be a nice consolation prize when you consider that the state is again destroying the high quality connections in our city that are used by the poorer sections of town, all so they can appease the desires of the rich and wealthy.

The other parts of this project, widening 45 north, is a complete mistake and is absolutely going to hurt and disconnect communities. I guarantee you the "poorer sections of town" are much more concerned with that than a downtown highway cap (and are much more likely to use public transit, which is unaffected if not improved by this project). If I could have my way, I'd only do segment 3 and totally shelve the other segments.

Leeland is also still in the render posted above, only Polk was severed.

Furthermore, this is not about connecting collectors and thoroughfares, or about connecting streets themselves. It's about improving the pedestrian experience by improving sidewalks, parks and buildings in a natural unbroken streetscape that make a city feel like a city rather than skyscrapers separated by deserts of parking lots. Whereas the highway was a barrier to this, the highway cap theoretically unites EaDo and Downtown.

[samagon]

1 minute ago, HouTXRanger said:

The other parts of this project, widening 45 north, is a complete mistake and is absolutely going to hurt and disconnect communities. I guarantee you the "poorer sections of town" are much more concerned with that than a downtown highway cap (and are much more likely to use public transit, which is unaffected if not improved by this project). If I could have my way, I'd only do segment 3 and totally shelve the other segments.

Leeland is also still in the render posted above, only Polk was severed.

Furthermore, this is not about connecting collectors and thoroughfares, or about connecting streets themselves. It's about improving the pedestrian experience by improving sidewalks, parks and buildings in a natural unbroken streetscape that make a city feel like a city rather than skyscrapers separated by deserts of parking lots. Whereas the highway was a barrier to this, the highway cap theoretically unites EaDo and Downtown.

 

I updated my post to read appropriately, Leeland connection is not going away, it will still cross, but the direct connection from Leeland westbound to Bell westbound will be severed.

 

I like a lot of the ideas, 59 from Montrose through to 288 being below grade is long overdue and will absolutely improve safety and movement.

 

if they want to make 59 below grade all the way to i10, perfect, lets do it, it's already below grade through Leeland anyway and they could keep it below grade easily until after Runnels. make 45 below grade from Nettleton all the way to Dallas street in downtown. that would be awesome too. 

 

but moving 45 from the current alignment on the rich side of downtown to the poor sides of downtown, all that does it benefit the rich people at the expense of the poor people.

 

no one ever even seems to bring up how this is going to have an impact along the i10 alignment... oh well right?

[hindesky]

Meanwhile, the North Canal Project would reroute White Oak Bayou along downtown creating greater conveyance upstream in the Heights and reduce flooding downtown. A design firm will likely be chosen by the end of 2020, said Laura Patino, the chief of staff for the Mayor’s Office of Recovery, to Houston City Council members in an Aug. 6 briefing.

 

From Community Impact.

[Big E]

On 8/19/2020 at 1:20 PM, samagon said:

but moving 45 from the current alignment on the rich side of downtown to the poor sides of downtown, all that does it benefit the rich people at the expense of the poor people.

 

I mean what would you rather they do? Try to tunnel the whole freeway? Talk about Houston's Big Dig. The guys at TXDOT have long ruled out tunneling any portion of the I-45 rebuild as either unfeasible or, more than likely, too expensive, though it would make more sense to do that if the goal was to affect the least number of people possible. And I'm talking about a full bore tunnel, not the cut and cover tunnel they are planning to do here with the freeway caps

[samagon]

a double decker freeway would be something that could be accomplished. heck, if you look at what they are doing on the i10 alignment, this is precisely what they are doing.

 

their only reasoning for not doing it is (and I'm paraphrasing): I don't wanna

 

as far as tunneling 45 on the current alignment would cost more than moving the entire alignment, and tunneling, I just don't see how the cost would be that much different.

[JLWM8609]

22 hours ago, Big E said:

 

I mean what would you rather they do? Try to tunnel the whole freeway? 

 

Or rebuild the Pierce Elevated where it is.

 

I imagine in an alternate universe where the fortunes of Midtown and the East End are reversed, TxDOT is planning a double decked and cantilevered Pierce Elevated to carry 59/69 around downtown and along I-10 to reconnect the East End to Downtown. 

[Houston19514]

8 hours ago, JLWM8609 said:

 

Or rebuild the Pierce Elevated where it is.

 

I imagine in an alternate universe where the fortunes of Midtown and the East End are reversed, TxDOT is planning a double decked and cantilevered Pierce Elevated to carry 59/69 around downtown and along I-10 to reconnect the East End to Downtown. 

 

Great idea!  </s> Almost double the length of the I-69 route to get through/around downtown and add a bunch of additional twists and turns. 

 

Wouldn't the reverse be a below-grade capped freeway, with plans by other entities to develop green space on top?  In that case, one can imagine certain people complaining that the "rich"  side of town gets everything while the "poor" side gets nothing.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Houston19514

[JLWM8609]

17 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Wouldn't the reverse be a below-grade capped freeway, with plans by other entities to develop green space on top?  In that case, one can imagine certain people complaining that the "rich"  side of town gets everything while the "poor" side gets nothing.

 

Nah. If the area is the poor side, they get the double decker elevated freeway with some colorful bridge columns thrown in.

[Big E]

9 hours ago, JLWM8609 said:

 

Or rebuild the Pierce Elevated where it is.

 

I imagine in an alternate universe where the fortunes of Midtown and the East End are reversed, TxDOT is planning a double decked and cantilevered Pierce Elevated to carry 59/69 around downtown and along I-10 to reconnect the East End to Downtown. 

 

While rebuilding the Pierce Elevated is not something I'm opposed to, that ship has probably sailed. The city and community seems personally invested in the idea of tearing the thing down wholesale or converting it into a park. Freeway tear down seems to be all the rage among the urbanist city planner set these days, even if the "tear down" really translates to just building an entirely new freeway somewhere else to carry traffic more efficiently, or tearing down an old freeway spur that was supposed to be part of a larger freeway system that never got built, and if you actually look into most examples of tearing out freeways in the U.S. that is exactly what has generally been the case.

 

I-30 through downtown Fort Worth. Yeah they tore the freeway down...only to build a newer, wider, better designed freeway a few blocks further south. Same with I-40 in Oklahoma City. Tearing down old I-5 in Portland. Yeah they tore down the freeway portion the passed through downtown, but they just rerouted I-5 across the river, and the reason they tore down the old freeway was because it was old and out of the date, and the newer, wider, better designed I-405 had already been built to the west of Downtown Portland, and could carry traffic much more efficiently than the old freeway.

 

And what of the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco, the example to end all examples of freeway tear downs? The Embarcadero Freeway was supposed to be part of a much larger freeway system that would have followed The Embarcadero all the way to the Golden Gate Bridge. That freeway system wasn't built, leaving the small section that was a truncated spur that served no real purpose. Destroying it was no big loss because it was overbuilt for the traffic it carried and carried no thru-traffic anyway. The Park East Freeway in Milwaukee was the exact same situation: a short freeway spur that was supposed to be part of a larger freeway system that was never built. The spur was thus overbuilt for the traffic it served, so destroying it was justifiable.

 

While replacing the Pierce Elevated with a tunnel or adding a second deck maybe feasible or even preferable, the TxDOT won't do it. They've convinced themselves that the first option is too expensive, and everyone else has convinced themselves that the second option doesn't solve the problem of Pierce Elevated being a "barrier" (though it isn't a barrier in any way except psychologically; the entire street network passes unimpeded underneath). Thus, the push for another "freeway removal" which isn't a removal at all but simply moving the freeway a few miles away.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Big E

[JLWM8609]

5 hours ago, Big E said:

 

Thus, the push for another "freeway removal" which isn't a removal at all but simply moving the freeway a few miles away.

 

Yes. At the end of the day, this is a freeway relocation. We know TxDOT and drivers wouldn't get with actual removal of the freeway, but this looks like a removal to the layman, so they're ok with it. 

[samagon]

21 hours ago, Big E said:

 

While replacing the Pierce Elevated with a tunnel or adding a second deck maybe feasible or even preferable, the TxDOT won't do it. They've convinced themselves that the first option is too expensive, and everyone else has convinced themselves that the second option doesn't solve the problem of Pierce Elevated being a "barrier" (though it isn't a barrier in any way except psychologically; the entire street network passes unimpeded underneath). Thus, the push for another "freeway removal" which isn't a removal at all but simply moving the freeway a few miles away.

 

this is the exact pinnacle of the problem.

 

everyone, in your sentence, only consists of the rich people with a voice, and land investors around the area with a voice.

 

it doesn't take into consideration the people along the north end of downtown on the i10 corridor (where they will get the extra high freeway treatment). 

 

it doesn't take into consideration the east end of downtown where they will lose over 19 (Houston sized) city blocks, and roads (or portions of roads) that are designated as major thoroughfares.

 

the city/state has already started the process of moving Clayton homes. did anyone care that they weren't part of the group that convinced themselves a realignment was the only option?

[Naviguessor]

Sam - True that blocks will be lost in Eado and a few of those blocks are presently built upon.  But, East End isn't an ultimate looser in the deal.  EADO will lose the barrier of an elevated Highway and most likely gain significant green space and build-able real estate, as envision in the latest plans.  The cap-park, could be a real connector and it also appears that the GRB, would now have an East Facing entrance on the north end, further connecting the east to downtown/convention distinct.  Regarding Clayton Homes, most of this was deeply flooded in Harvey and the units are planned to be replaced in the area.  

[HouTXRanger]

1 hour ago, Naviguessor said:

Sam - True that blocks will be lost in Eado and a few of those blocks are presently built upon.  But, East End isn't an ultimate looser in the deal.  EADO will lose the barrier of an elevated Highway and most likely gain significant green space and build-able real estate, as envision in the latest plans.  The cap-park, could be a real connector and it also appears that the GRB, would now have an East Facing entrance on the north end, further connecting the east to downtown/convention distinct.  Regarding Clayton Homes, most of this was deeply flooded in Harvey and the units are planned to be replaced in the area.  

Additionally, although I can't confirm it because I don't know where I saw the source, but I'm pretty sure 100% of the people in clayton homes are going to get replacement public housing north of the bayou. I think they've already started relocating.