Jump to content

I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)


Recommended Posts

Putting aside the costs of building an entirely new (elevated?) freeway in the city core, this plan assumes that the railroad ROW would be easy to obtain. I can attest that this is a heavily used rail corridor, and without adequate rail infrastructure in place near burgeoning West Texas, Eagle Ford, and North Dakota oil fields, and with the upcoming Panama Canal expansion, it is very likely to see even more freight rail traffic in the future.

 

That and the ROW is about 90 feet wide for half of this segment. That would get you a 2x2 freeway, like Westpark.

 

Not that I wouldn't want to see a traffic simulation for your proposal, but it's far cheaper to use existing ROW or just widen it slightly than to acquire an entirely new area.

Hmmm...one thing to do would be to get the old ROW in the old KBR site, build a bridge (there might have been originally one), then the spur carries full traffic, and instead of street running northwest on Commerce Street, the rail runs southeast on the Commerce Street ROW (road abandoned). The ROW will be continued on the Harrisburg Hike & Bike Trail. Keep in mind that the railtrail system was created with the possibility of a rail line being re-activated there. The yard to the east of Spur 5 is retained (it just terminates). The creation of the Highway 35 expansion will take some additional ROW, and it may possibly split (that apartment at Canal and Navigation may end up having the northbound to the east, southbound to the west).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...one thing to do would be to get the old ROW in the old KBR site, build a bridge (there might have been originally one), then the spur carries full traffic, and instead of street running northwest on Commerce Street, the rail runs southeast on the Commerce Street ROW (road abandoned). The ROW will be continued on the Harrisburg Hike & Bike Trail. Keep in mind that the railtrail system was created with the possibility of a rail line being re-activated there. The yard to the east of Spur 5 is retained (it just terminates). The creation of the Highway 35 expansion will take some additional ROW, and it may possibly split (that apartment at Canal and Navigation may end up having the northbound to the east, southbound to the west).

 

What's the reasoning for expanding 35?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the plan I'm proposing, extending TX-35 to the east of EaDo, and creating ramps back up on Interstate 45 north of downtown to prevent through traffic from going on the Pierce Elevated that aren't exiting at 288.

So extending 35 by trampling low income neighborhoods in the east end? Does 35 even have enough traffic to consider justifying that? East end is the same neighborhood that fought off 225

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen Parkway has a light at Taft. Also Memorial eventually has a lot of lights once you pass Waugh westward.

 

So ... no examples then (there is no crosswalk at Taft). It was more of a rhetorical question anyway, since we already know there are no parkways with a 40-45 second pedestrian signal, but thanks for playing! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you actually unaware of all of such measures that have been taken since Allison and continue to be taken?

 

I'm aware that many retention tanks ("ponds") have been installed in outlying areas that are higher up the watershed.  However, we have yet to see whether they will be enough to significantly mitigate flooding in the 3 places I mentioned (downtown, Rice U, TMC).   My guess is that they will mostly help diminish or at least delay flooding their own local areas.  Perhaps, in the aggregate, they will help slow the pile-up of water downstream ... but I'm skeptical that we'll be immune to another Allison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So extending 35 by trampling low income neighborhoods in the east end? Does 35 even have enough traffic to consider justifying that? East end is the same neighborhood that fought off 225

No, not the East End, that's east of my proposed freeway. Rest assured, the idea of a northern TX35 proposal is to take out the least amount of property reasonably possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Memorial has lights after waugh.

The lights on Memorial are far further West than Waugh. The first one is past Shepherd. I also fail to see how a parkway across downtown with traffic moving at 60-80 mph is at all safe. Surely you don't expect the 100,000 plus cars a day that use the Pierce to stop for light rail and pedestrians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lights on Memorial are far further West than Waugh. The first one is past Shepherd. I also fail to see how a parkway across downtown with traffic moving at 60-80 mph is at all safe. Surely you don't expect the 100,000 plus cars a day that use the Pierce to stop for light rail and pedestrians.

 

It won't move at 60-80 mph if it has to keep stopping for lights.

No, not the East End, that's east of my proposed freeway. Rest assured, the idea of a northern TX35 proposal is to take out the least amount of property reasonably possible.

 

Does 35 have the traffic justify this? Even so, the idea of the Alvin Freeway died a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does 35 have the traffic justify this? Even so, the idea of the Alvin Freeway died a long time ago.

The more accurate question is "Does 45 have enough traffic to justify this?" I say yes. The Pierce Elevated is always backed up, Pearland Parkway is often crowded and needs a freeway at least going to Interstate 45 for a more direct route to Houston, and 288 is getting pretty packed as well. Getting 35 up to downtown Houston would also give a more direct route to Corpus Christi.

Edited by IronTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't move at 60-80 mph if it has to keep stopping for lights.

 

Does 35 have the traffic justify this? Even so, the idea of the Alvin Freeway died a long time ago.

 

Do you have a link showing that it was cancelled? I'm just curious. TxDOT hosted a public meeting about it in 2007 for the long-term plan. I clearly remember one alternative was to follow Spur 5 south along Mykawa crossing 610, and meeting with 35 north of Pearland. Another alternative was to widen 288 more, widen BW 8 between 288 and FM 865 (Cullen), and then a freeway would go south from there and join TX 35 south of Pearland. So depending on what you consider a long time ago...

 

From what I heard, it was just put to the back of the project queue, as in not starting construction until at least 2025. Which makes sense. There are a dozen more pressing transportation issues than the Alvin Freeway. A cancellation is a different matter though. Even the freeway extension of South Post Oak has been delayed indefinitely, but not yet cancelled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more accurate question is "Does 45 have enough traffic to justify this?" I say yes. The Pierce Elevated is always backed up, Pearland Parkway is often crowded and needs a freeway at least going to Interstate 45 for a more direct route to Houston, and 288 is getting pretty packed as well. Getting 35 up to downtown Houston would also give a more direct route to Corpus Christi.

 

It gives ANOTHER route to Corpus Christi, but not a quicker or more direct one. Plus, the traffic on 59 can't even justify a freeway west of Rosenberg, so I don't see how a freeway even further east would be necessary for this purpose. And, I-69 will be built as a freeway on 59 in the coming years, further reducing the need for a freeway alternative to Corpus.

 

There may be a lot of good reasons to build the Alvin Freeway, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lights on Memorial are far further West than Waugh. The first one is past Shepherd. I also fail to see how a parkway across downtown with traffic moving at 60-80 mph is at all safe. Surely you don't expect the 100,000 plus cars a day that use the Pierce to stop for light rail and pedestrians.

if the parkway plan is implemented 45 will be rerouted along 59 and 10 so no, 100,000+ cars will not be using the parkway each day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the parkway plan is implemented 45 will be rerouted along 59 and 10 so no, 100,000+ cars will not be using the parkway each day.

 

It's probably a safe assumption that 40-50,000 vehicles per day would use a parkway in this location, depending on # of lanes, # of intersections, and how feeder streets connect to it. For a comparison, Memorial Drive sees around 40k/day, and Allen Parkway sees about 30k/day.

 

I also doubt the 60-80 mph hour mentioned earlier. I can't think of any parkway that sees traffic with these average speeds.  If designed as a parkway, 50 mph is probably a safe assumption. Memorial Drive normally moves at 50-60 mph (speed limit is 50 mph), and Allen Parkway moves at 40-50 mph (speed limit is 40 mph). If it were made more "street-like", it would probably move just as fast. (South Main, where it is 5 lanes each way, has a speed limit of 40 mph).

 

Now, 45,000 vpd and 50 mph. Does that still sound more pedestrian friendly to anyone compared to the current Pierce Street? Does it sound driver-friendly to have to wait 45 seconds for the pedestrian walk signal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably a safe assumption that 40-50,000 vehicles per day would use a parkway in this location, depending on # of lanes, # of intersections, and how feeder streets connect to it. For a comparison, Memorial Drive sees around 40k/day, and Allen Parkway sees about 30k/day.

I also doubt the 60-80 mph hour mentioned earlier. I can't think of any parkway that sees traffic with these average speeds. If designed as a parkway, 50 mph is probably a safe assumption. Memorial Drive normally moves at 50-60 mph (speed limit is 50 mph), and Allen Parkway moves at 40-50 mph (speed limit is 40 mph). If it were made more "street-like", it would probably move just as fast. (South Main, where it is 5 lanes each way, has a speed limit of 40 mph).

Now, 45,000 vpd and 50 mph. Does that still sound more pedestrian friendly to anyone compared to the current Pierce Street? Does it sound driver-friendly to have to wait 45 seconds for the pedestrian walk signal?

Hillcroft south of 59 is 8 lanes and 10 lanes at some intersections with left turn lanes and people are constantly crossing there. It's okay to have a balance, 45 second walking time sounds fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go to A&M. Dividing the campus and the neighborhood immediately north of it is a nine lane road (counting turn lanes etc.). It is just as a barrier to anything. A surface level "Pierce Parkway" still puts a substantial (if not bigger) wall between Midtown and Downtown.

Anyone believing that this is a more desirable setup (in terms of walkability, integration) than what's there is living a fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go to A&M. Dividing the campus and the neighborhood immediately north of it is a nine lane road (counting turn lanes etc.). It is just as a barrier to anything. A surface level "Pierce Parkway" still puts a substantial (if not bigger) wall between Midtown and Downtown.

Anyone believing that this is a more desirable setup (in terms of walkability, integration) than what's there is living a fantasy.

People walk across hillcroft all the time. It's not as big a barrier as an elevated freeway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An elevated freeway is o barrier at all, compared to a very wide street.

I totally disagree. You're telling me pierce elevated is not a barrier but Allen parkway is?

It's all perception, my urban-based friend. If and when they build the Ashby high-rise, for instance, it will never grow eyes, teeth, and arms.

Two unrelated subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree. You're telling me pierce elevated is not a barrier but Allen parkway is?

 

 

Excellent example!!  Yes, Allen Parkway is MUCH more of a barrier than the Pierce Elevated.  That is why there exists a pedestrian bridge and the BBP master plan hopes to add at least one more.

 

I cannot understand all of the wailing and nashing of teeth over the idea of walking under an elevated freeway.  I have walked under the Pierce Elevated many times.  It is really a non-event.  Agreed, it could be better, but it could be better very easily and with not that much imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent example!!  Yes, Allen Parkway is MUCH more of a barrier than the Pierce Elevated.  That is why there exists a pedestrian bridge and the BBP master plan hopes to add at least one more.

 

I cannot understand all of the wailing and nashing of teeth over the idea of walking under an elevated freeway.  I have walked under the Pierce Elevated many times.  It is really a non-event.  Agreed, it could be better, but it could be better very easily and with not that much imagination.

 

I have too but after dark it's probably not the best idea especially south of Main. I don't think the Allen Parkway is much of a barrier though there are crossings at Waugh and Montrose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot understand all of the wailing and nashing of teeth over the idea of walking under an elevated freeway. I have walked under the Pierce Elevated many times. It is really a non-event. Agreed, it could be better, but it could be better very easily and with not that much imagination.

I have too but after dark it's probably not the best idea especially south of Main. I don't think the Allen Parkway is much of a barrier though there are crossings at Waugh and Montrose.

It looks like the consensus is "better lighting". See how easy that was?

Edited by IronTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use a pedestrian underpass to avoid a five lane road and a railroad. Sometimes I'm the only one under there. Sometimes I go under when a train is passing. Should the underpass be backfilled and the traditional crosswalk and the pedestrian at-grade railroad crossing be restored because of those two facts?

 

Also, as an addendum to how ridiculous this discussion is, the whole thing is like complaining about people parallel parking on a narrow street because of an elementary school in the neighborhood. If your answer to the problem is something along the lines of "provide better parking", then you're on the right track. If your answer is to "demolish the school", then you're not on the right track.

Edited by IronTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...