Slick Vik

There is a severe difference of opinion here. Some of us have a vision of what there could be without the pierce. Others can't imagine houston without the pierce because of fear of the unknown. Irontiger who for the most part I don't see eye to eye with on anything had one reasonable idea, shut it down 3-6 months and see what happens.

Yeah, but the restrictions applied: SF had the earthquake-damaged spurs, Seoul has freeways of ambiguous use and construction, Vancouver has never had very many freeways to speak of with its famous anti-freeway attitude, Portland had an old pre-Interstate highway replaced, and Seattle has a very old earthquake-prone viaduct that needs to be replaced (not removed) anyway. Fort Worth and Oklahoma City have done "freeway removals" to an extent, the latter moving the highway south to some ROW that happened to be mostly vacant.

Ambiguous use? That's subjective

Population statistics for these towns from 1960 to present:

Syracuse: I can't find the 1960 numbers, but 'steep decline' is used a lot where I am looking.

New Orleans: 628,000 -> 344,000

New Haven: 660,000 -> 862,000

Detroit: 1,670,000 -> 714,000

Cleveland: 876,000 -> 397,000

Milwaukee: 741,000 -> 595,000

In all but one (new haven) there is a drop in population (nearly a halving of population in most cases), which I think explains why those freeways were removed. Houston's population is not declining, and we are adding in years what New Haven added over a course of half a century. So no, these examples are in no way comparative to Houston at all.

There is no way possible that Houston can remove freeways. They need to be expanded, and other forms of transit need to be added to supplement.

San Francisco, Seoul, Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland haven't been losing population

The Northeast Metro with its vast commuter rail system (which you, SV, love the idea of) stretches from DC to NYC in about 200 miles alone and there are people who travel a long distance, mostly rail-based, for their commute. However, you are correct in that at the density we have right now that won't work, which isn't why I'm pushing it. A Galveston-Houston line COULD be the start of a larger system, and it would be relatively cheap to start one and see how that actually works out.

Big difference between riding a train and driving.

Also the one issue with galveston houston is where would the downtown station be? Hopefully once the bullet train station is decided it could pull into there.

I never said it wouldn't work. Look at what Denver is doing with similar density.

Not everyone works in downtown. College Station to The Woodlands is 70 miles and Beaumont to Baytown is 65.

Everyone in college station that commutes works in the woodlands, and Beaumont in Baytown?

Also do you seriously consider 130 miles a feasible daily commute?

Not to mention Syracuse, New Orleans, New Haven, Detroit, Cleveland and other cities where freeway removal is being pondered. Cleveland has actually begun removal of portions.

Also you forgot Milwaukee.

Well, I have seen dozens of people walking under the Shepherd underpass in just the last 2 months, so I guess you just weren't paying attention. The volume of pedestrians there will never be as high as under the Pierce, for a variety of reasons, ranging from free street level parking South of the Pierce to the bus station clientele, etc. You still have not explained what you think will happen to the hundred thousand plus cars that use the Pierce every day, 10 and 59 have nowhere near the capacity to handle the traffic.

And where did you get the idea that since the Pierce divides Downtown and Midtown it is unnecessary? With the same argument, perhaps Paris ought to fill in the Seine, or London the Thames. Think of how much real estae they could gain. Heck, we could fill in Buffalo Bayou as well.

Traffic would ideally go to 610 east. People just passing through downtown to go north don't need to take 45. If you care about the future of the city and not the routing of an automobile the intelligent thing to do would remove the pierce and the traffic would adapt. Fear mongering is a Fox News tactic, when all else fails.

I don't have any hard numbers, but it's a significant number. I'm guessing you don't have hard numbers on that either.

Since I don't know what the numbers are, I'm not really arguing either way.

There are enough that commute from league city/Dickinson/clear lake that there is an island transit system that takes commuters in and out. And of course the metro park and ride system that takes people downtown. So presumably commuter rail would have sufficient ridership north and south in the mornings and the opposite in the evenings with limited trains on weekends for tourists to galveston.

I've gone under the shepherd underpass hundreds of times and never seen a single person trying to walk under it. The pierce does divide midtown and downtown and thus is unnecessary: 1+1 = 2. As for the childish name calling instead of letting the thread devolve I'll let you whoop your aggie pride.

I would think a tunnel southbound but northbound remaining the Pierce Elevated would actually work out. A cut and cover would be disastrous to every business around it while a true tunnel would at least let that work out.

Part of the big problem about the elevated segment isn't so much the 1997 rebuild but rather the capacity issue. It isn't designed to take as much traffic as it does now so a way to reduce that (possibly by adding a new SB tunnel) would be beneficial.

The Pierce removal issue I think is more of a vanity/novelty thing than anything else with little regard for how congestion moves, because the only way to remove congestion right now effectively is to get rid of a large portion of the population.

I've changed my mind on the induced demand theory, and I think there's an element of truth to it but constantly misinterpreted.

The induced demand theory isn't "add highway lanes=instant congestion" with the conclusion of "remove highway lanes=remove congestion" it's more of the fact that it de-incentivizes other routes, which is why I started the parkway thread with the ideas of parkways and their lower capacity, but still viable. A good road network should include freeways, parkways, and major roads, because each of them have advantages and disadvantages. A parkway is one of the worst ideas for the Pierce Elevated because it is a freeway that's actually connecting other freeways (no frontage roads) and parkways have lower capacity than freeways (and the Pierce is already overcapacity).

One reason I've ignored IDT before now is that every time someone talks about it, they use it as a vehicle to promote mass transit, which is a bit like using the theory of evolution to prove that there isn't a god (which we actually don't know if it does or not).

If the Pierce was truly closed, then the next "best thing" would be going east on Interstate 10 and going south on 59, with lots of would-be Pierce traffic (and there will be traffic, even if some of them do choose sneakier alternative routes--think trucks) jogging on that part of 59 then going 45 south. Part of this discussion often leads to double-decking 59 or doing something with 10...but if we're talking double-decking, than it would stand to divide more of East Downtown and Downtown more than anything.

There are really two questions to be asked here:

1. What can we do with congestion on the Pierce?

2. What can we do about the Pierce's appearance?

The second question should not be answered without a good thought about the first--doing something for aesthetic purposes is a pretty bad idea when the thing you want to do something about has a real purpose and all you can offer is some vague ramblings about land value.

That said, tearing it down isn't the best option right now. Some of the freeways in Houston (Shepherd under 59) are indeed rather dark and scary, so one option would be adding lots of lights, energy efficient, so they can stay on 24/7. Perhaps some soundproofing as well so you don't have to hear the constant rumblings. Or maybe add plants and greenery along the side so it almost looks like a giant hedge.

Or perhaps adding a pedestrian underpass to bypass the streets paralleling the Pierce Elevated and add some soundproofing at that as well.

Maybe there could be something where TxDOT could let the columns be painted by different civic organizations and turn the freeway into a living art installation. The possibilities are endless, and while that doesn't help the congestion issue all that much, it doesn't make it worse, and that's also important.

Kicking the bucket on mass transit is an ignorant path and will just lead to higher costs down the line.

Saying talking about the land value of pierce is rambling while talking about painting undersides of bridges as a solution to something is, ironic.

Induced demand is simple. If people see something they use it. So take it away and they won't. The pierce is unnecessary, if it wasn't there people would adjust to 59 and hopefully 610. People that have no reason to cross downtown cause unnecessary congestion.

They are valid comparisons if you're actually looking at commuter rail destinations (notice I already said that Galveston is closer to either). Of course people commute to Houston from Galveston and vice versa, but also those two cities too. But they're not suburbs either. These cities are all unique in that they both have people that commute regularly but are real self-contained cities in their own right and will become more important as the Houston sphere of influence grows.

How many people commute from college station and Beaumont to houston as compared to people that commute into and out of galveston? That's not a comparable comparison at all.

It's under study. Beaumont and college station aren't 60 miles away from downtown, invalid comparisons. Also a lot of people from clear lake and south of that commute to galveston.

Again, there would be no need for a parkway on the south side of downtown.

If you demolish the Pierce elevated and either upgrade 59/10 or re-route 45 along those two freeways, then you'd only need to put a 'parkway-like' section along the west side of downtown.

You place a spur to the north side of downtown from 45 north. You then use the trenched section of 45 to connect w/ Houston avenue and create a grand bayou bridge. You then tie the new parkway trench section w/ the existing downtown grid system of Pierce street and St. Joseph's parkway. Both of those roads can handle the traffic.

Agreed

Bravo to poster Thomas Colbert in the linked article for noticing that road construction in Texas is driven neither by needs nor wants, but by the magically reinforcing nexus of an agency (led in turns by a buddy of Rick Perry, or by some woman who used to bring him his coffee) with hundreds of billions of dollars of contracts in its gift, and a huge consulting and roadbuilding industry, with job offers and campaign contributions in its gift.

(Please note that Bubba, whatever else he may be, is not an ideologue, and this is an utterly non-partisan rant; 25 years ago it likely would have concerned Bob Bullock, to whom it is tempting, as the anecdotes pile up, to apply the word "amoral." Nor of course is it exclusive to roadbuilding: healthcare, education ... but those things, though lucrative, bear no particularly Texas stamp.)

The governorship might as well be an appointed position. It's TxDOT chair that people should be voting on, as it's TxDOT that largely determines what Texas becomes.

Until then, I don't think parkways (in Colbert's words,"serious attention being paid in the design of the roadway to the scenic and spatial experience of drivers and the development of meaningful relationships between roadway, landscape and urbanism") are something you need to seriously fear.

Truth

I don't want this to be a Pierce Elevated hijack, and I still stand by the quote in the original paragraph, bolded for emphasis:

What's made the most sense in this discussion is trying to figure out where parkways would still work.

On that related subject, I think given the amount of ROW the light rail took up, Harrisburg Blvd. could've been a viable route for a parkway and could maintain most (if not all) of its businesses. That's what could've been a compromise plan for 225.

There's nothing stupid about that. There are cities everywhere with different ideas about how to develop than houston. Using inflammatory rhetoric instead of trying to understand the benefits is self defeating.

Alternative 11 sounds the best out of the options but it's unfortunate that 59 has to be widened as a result. All a catch 22

Don't even get me started with the ADA.....Don't even!

You're against rights for the disabled?

Ugly retail isn't necessarily the fault of the feeders though. I think it's entirely possible for Houston to have attractive freeways and feeder roads with retail. It all comes down to the municipal government's approach to regulating things like signage and architectural design, and planting some trees in the green space.

True.

To you and your lifestyle. Not everyone lives the same way you do. More and more people, even in Houston, are living less car-centric lifestyles. You shouldn't pretend that the solution that works best for you is the solution that works best for everyone.

This. Plus, saying people drive a lot when there are minimal viable alternatives is disingenuous.

I've spent the last few weeks all over the west coast and Vancouver and have to say not having feeders is nice. No ugly retail all over the place.

Memorial and allen parkway are redundant to an extent

Unfortunately, building rail doesn't really reduce congestion by much. That's the real problem. It's hard to agree to spend that much money and still have crowded freeways once it's built. If you could build rail and congestion really went down, that would be another story. I don't think that happens in the real world.

I don't know why people get so down on the park and ride system. It's cheaper and more efficient than rail and has a proven track record here. I guess it's just not as sexy.

The problem with the park and ride is the HOV isn't guaranteed to have the speed it promises due to the fact it shares traffic with cars. 45 north in particular is slow every day. But I would like to see it expanded to weekends and more often in non peak times also. But there is a significant portion of the population that has rail bias and that's always going to be there.

I don't think anyone ever thought he Katy project would reduce congestion significantly. It did however, provide additional capacity to handle growth on the West side. That's all rail does as well, provide additional capacity. I've never been in a large city that had trains that did not also have significant traffic problems.

But not having alternatives only makes the situation worse. I don't think widening then stacking freeways while ignoring alternatives is a viable long term solution.

The 1983 rail proposal was easily the best rail proposal we've had, and likely ever will have. All of the proposals since then have been a joke, not even close to having the same impact on ridership that the '83 proposal would have had, if fully implemented.

Cities like DC and SF that went ahead and fully implemented their '70s/'80s rail plans are light years ahead of Houston in the public transportation department.

Cities like Atlanta and Miami that only built out phase I and never finished the job on those heavy rail systems are still ahead of Houston.

If metro didn't go ahead with the proposal at least one line would've been built anyway

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You came on a thread about a new stadium and dropped insults at the school where it is being built. You therefore lose the right to claim that the people speaking up for the school have an inferiority complex.

I'd argue, as would most pop psychologists, that the one showing the inferiority complex is the one dropping the insults.

I didn't drop insults I said the majority of UH students commute and generally they can't get in or perhaps can't afford a better school. That being said I'm happy it's improving good for it.

Article about 290, westpark, and 90 commuter trains being heavily studied in chronicle today.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Officials-narrowing-options-for-commuter-rail-5631622.php

I attended UH for graduate school. I applied to four schools, UH, Texas, Columbia, and Cal Berkeley for my graduate program. Was admitted to UH, UT, and Columbia. I decided against Columbia due to the overall cost and I really didn't want to live in NYC. Chose UH over UT because even though UT was rated about 20 spots higher nationally in this particular program, I had friends that were enrolled at UT at the time who were terribly unhappy with their field placements. Many had to travel weekly to Dallas or Houston to fulfill their requirements without a travel stipend. Meanwhile, over at UH, the field placement options were so much better locally, with massive ties to the TMC, various school districts, non-profits, and more. UH even let me create my own field placement in a field that wasn't offered. It didn't hurt that I actually like Houston better than Austin.

UH's reputation is based upon old ideas about race and class. People who look down upon the University reveal more about themselves than any actual knowledge of academia.

It's UH people that always have the inferiority complex. I don't even hear UT or Rice or A&M people talk about UH. Nothing wrong with UH I'm happy it's improving but it's not really in the same league as a university overall.