Slick Vik

One day away

Common sense prevailed

Those were my favorite parts of the whole article

"Hmmm, maybe if I use big words without context and old catchphrases, maybe these lowly-I mean common folk might think I'm one of them!"

As much crap as we can give this guy though, we really ought to be directing our anger towards HBJ. Screw those morons for even letting something like this be published. Journalistic integrity? How much money was "donated" for this weird rant?

Bill King writes equally moronic material for Houston chronicle.

After all, there is no actual binding contract - nothing to stop the veteran lawmaker from returning to his self-appointed role as a one-man veto on Metro and nothing to stop the next mayor from setting a new agenda for the mass transit agency. Rather, the agreement provides little more than written evidence of Culberson and Metro making a promise to play nice, and we all know that politicians handle promises with the delicacy of a bull in a china shop. The only thing guaranteed is a shower of press releases to reward an elected official for doing something that should have been part of his regular job in the first place.

How is a light rail commuter train going to go up the Red line to wheeler station? It will have to stop at all the stations in the Med center, because there's no express rail or passing switches for most of the track. Which means that it'll be similar to the north line extension - some trains during peak hours will turn around at Fannin south, while others go all the way to sugarland/Missouri city. I'm intrigued by the Idea though of what they are wanting to make.

Are there any designs or maps or anything of this?

Wheeler is probably the worst station on the original line. My friend got held up at knifepoint there. That being said if the university line eventually goes there and the 90a commuter line goes there, there will be more eyes at least.

More details on this.

1. Culberson will try to get $300 million in federal funds for buses, park and ride shelters, and HOV lane maintenance/construction

2. Culberson says the 90 commuter rail is the first rail priority

3. Culberson will speed up legislative action making the metro board 11 members instead of 9, giving the counties a majority over the city

4. Culberson will try to get $587 million federal funds for 90a commuter line

I wonder about point 3. If the board changes before a vote for university line I wonder if it will ever go through.

Then the politicians got it right by accident and the engineer's view was as myopic as President Eisenhower.

If your concern is just about hopping in your car and getting where you need as fast as possible, the aesthetic value of your city be damned, along with many minority neighborhoods as well, then your point is valid. Otherwise it was a disastrous idea.

You need to really expand your vocabulary. Specifically as it pertains to the connotative and denotative definitions of the words "Envision", and "Design".

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Eisenhower 'envisioned' over 50 years ago (based on a design that was envisioned nearly 100 years ago by Hitler), times and needs change, and urban commuting is what these freeways are needed for in Houston.

Those European highways you are heralding as being used primarily as cross country travel, you need to take another look, in large cities and small cities alike they are very much exactly like they are in the US of A. In town there are plenty of on/off ramps to allow your urban commute around town. Yes, they often do not go directly through the core, there is a ring, but those cities also often have buildings inside that ring that have been there since before the Allen brothers even knew what Texas was. But the ring roads have entrances and exits at every major thoroughfare that crosses that ring road and highways have on and off ramps for every little town and hamlet, and they are all very much used for urban and suburban commuting.

Urban Commuting on major interconnected highway systems is a fact of pretty much every highway system everywhere and planners design the systems with this in mind. Who cares what Eisenhower's limited imagination allowed him to envision? He was shortsighted in the need of the system and thankfully, others were forward thinking enough to design the system the way it needed to be designed, not the way that Eisenhower envisioned it.

Disagree on your last paragraph vehemently. There was no forward thinking, just political shrewdness. Even the engineers agreed with Eisenhower.

Thanks for finding the quote slick, this was exactly my point.

They were not originally envisioned to go through towns,

but rest assured, they were indeed designed to go through town.

False

This is the point I try to convey to people, particularly this board. American highways were never intended to carry “urban commuters”. They were intended as long-distance cross-country travel like European highways.

Political pressure has forced highway alignments to cut through the city. We don’t like it, highway engineers don’t like it, but to politicians, it’s a good way of saying “we got something accomplished”.

Unfortunately, we as a country are making our cars do what it’s not designed to do: Urban commuting

That’s very standard in Europe as well. Highways don’t simply stop right at a city. It goes around. If it does go “to” a city, it transitions into a limited-access large arterial before it reaches the city. This reduces the amount of traffic being dumped at the city center.

Again, the problem with the U.S. is that we’ve turned highways into short-distance express arterials, which was not its original intent.

It's possible Culberson also realized there's no chance for Richmond road repair without the rail project.

They were not originally envisioned to go through towns, but rest assured, they were indeed designed to go through town.

[The President] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way . . . and that he was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored. He added that those who had not advised him that such was being done, and those who steered the program in such a direction, had not followed his wishes.

You have never expressed a willingness to do anything but screw up the lives of anyone who doesn't agree with you. My trips are proxies for thousands of other trips taken by thousands of other people. If TXDOT announced that the freeways would stop at Downtown, there would be torches and pitchforks everywhere.

Actually I want to make the city better which improves the lives of millions and possible tourists at well. This fear mongering and resistance to change is typical of a stubborn old timer. Change is coming deal with it.

So you basically want to screw anyone who doesn't have an EZ tag, since you can't take BW8 East from 45 or 59 without one. Plus the tolls from the North side to 45 South will run $10 or more, round trip. That's more than a lot of folks are willing to pay.

Let's just agree that running through town is the optimum route.

The interstates were never designed to go through town in the first place. Also there's a freeway called 610.

Nor does it revolve around you.

I know that. I'm willing to support measures that inconvenience me if it makes this city a better city. My life doesn't revolve around going to my dentist. And if a few minutes are added to make the city more attractive and a better city it's worth it. The selfish mentality of I have to drive wherever I want as fast as possible has made Houston the congested mess it is.

Routes 2 and 3 are far slower. I've dne both. They are longer by several miles, and don't move as well as the the through town routes. Using surface streets fir number 1 turns a 10-15 minute trip into an hour long slog. And I generally take surface streets when possible.

The world doesn't revolve around ross

In reality I think developers and the Feds probably put a lot of pressure on Culberson. Developers wanting to develop the Richmond corridor and Feds probably threatening to not give any more money in the future for Houston projects if Culberson didn't give in after all the effort that was done already with the university line.

This is bizarre. Voters spoke a long time ago. What's the point of a revote? And who's to say that Culberson won't change his mind again and block funding later if he doesn't like the result of the vote? I think Culberson realizes it's almost impossible to get federal funding now so it doesn't matter what plans are made. And probably wants metro to spend hundreds of millions doing studies again. Or maybe be compromised to get the Missouri city rail built. Or maybe he just drove down Richmond.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Transit-agency-powerful-critic-reach-compromise-6264614.php

Culberson announced he would seek to continue cutting off the Richmond money in the next federal funding bill, but he softened his stance by saying Metro could seek money for the lines if they receive local voter support in a new election.

My overall problem with the plan is where capacity is reduced in one area it's just shifted somewhere else. Why not just remove the pierce and not add capacity to 59? Force people to shift their driving habits, and perhaps mobility habits as a whole. That would be a real way to get people to stop going through the city center in the first place.

But your post said you wanted the freeways gone. Make up your mind.

And, do you really htink that 610 can carry all of the through traffic? The answer is, probably not.

I said the parts that ring around downtown. Ideally yes I'd want all freeways within 610 gone but I'm being reasonable.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were some fixed mode of transportation that went down these spines emanating from downtown, that would not have to worry about incidental traffic.

What a crazy thought

Then how do people who live in Spring Branch, Memorial, Meyerland, and other areas get downtown to work? Spend an hour on crowded surface streets? I remember those days. They were bad.And that was when Houston was much smaller than it is now.

Just take downtown exits from the freeway like the ones that already exist.

Not really, as stated in this thread, "Midtown" was the 3rd Ward and only picked up that name post freeways. Besides, that logic is flawed anyway because that's like saying "Afton Oaks existed first, therefore the rail can't go on Richmond." (Not that said argument hasn't been used, but you get the idea)

There was a neighborhood pre-pierce. That's my point. Midtown or third ward either way same concept. And in general people on the lowest socioeconomic and political rung had freeways shoved down their throats and at that time that was predominantly blacks.

But, is it sensible to trade one psychological barrier for others?

If you ask me I would eliminate 45, 59, and 10 through downtown and there would be no ring around downtown anymore. Through traffic could go via 610.

Maybe it isn't a race issue, but it is an economic one, to the point where Midtown NIMBYs (which the freeway pre-dated, might I add) are willing to screw over every other part of the areas surrounding downtown (including taking out Clayton Homes), not to mention motorists, to get rid of the Pierce.

Midtown existed before the pierce...

Sorry, if people are already supportive of a "Pierce Skypark" then the whole "psychological and physical wall" issue wasn't nearly a big issue as they were making it out to be. I don't really want to remove the Pierce, because of (what I perceive of) the park hypocrisy, not actually improving capacity or design significantly despite new ROW, enormous cost, single point of failure, etc.

1. I would remove the inner-lane entrance from Allen Parkway to Pierce Elevated, first and foremost.

2. Then, I would simplify the Interstate 45/US-59 five-stack by taking out the lanes from 59 to 45, and directly paralleling them on Interstate 10 to 45 N. This would not only cut distance but reduce traffic on the Pierce Elevated.

3. With less pressure from those exits to and fro the Pierce, the 59 ramp stubs are then used for a direct 288 connection instead of those ramps southwest of that interchange. Those ramps are now closed.

4. Then we do as the rest of the plan suggests and straighten out Interstate 10 (and those new 59-45 ramps suggested, instead the whole 45) to be a bit closer to the Hardy Yard site.

5. Finally, we take whatever they were suggesting for being underneath the Pierce Skypark and implement that. Add lots of soundproofing, plate the concrete with stainless steel, and add lots of lights.

EDIT: To those saying the Hardy Toll Road extension has more impact to SF homes, I read on another thread (and you can see this on Google Earth) that most of the homes in the actual ROW area have been cleared for years and would be far more devastating to the warehouses along that stretch, which is obviously less "meaningful" than homes.

Not sure who you're calling a hypocrite but it seems a good amount of people want it gone for good. Pierce skypark is a last gasp effort to save it by nostalgists, though I'm not sure of what awe the pierce ever inspired.

Sorry, if people are already supportive of a "Pierce Skypark" then the whole "psychological and physical wall" issue wasn't nearly a big issue as they were making it out to be. I don't really want to remove the Pierce, because of (what I perceive of) the park hypocrisy, not actually improving capacity or design significantly despite new ROW, enormous cost, single point of failure, etc.

1. I would remove the inner-lane entrance from Allen Parkway to Pierce Elevated, first and foremost.

2. Then, I would simplify the Interstate 45/US-59 five-stack by taking out the lanes from 59 to 45, and directly paralleling them on Interstate 10 to 45 N. This would not only cut distance but reduce traffic on the Pierce Elevated.

3. With less pressure from those exits to and fro the Pierce, the 59 ramp stubs are then used for a direct 288 connection instead of those ramps southwest of that interchange. Those ramps are now closed.

4. Then we do as the rest of the plan suggests and straighten out Interstate 10 (and those new 59-45 ramps suggested, instead the whole 45) to be a bit closer to the Hardy Yard site.

5. Finally, we take whatever they were suggesting for being underneath the Pierce Skypark and implement that. Add lots of soundproofing, plate the concrete with stainless steel, and add lots of lights.

EDIT: To those saying the Hardy Toll Road extension has more impact to SF homes, I read on another thread (and you can see this on Google Earth) that most of the homes in the actual ROW area have been cleared for years and would be far more devastating to the warehouses along that stretch, which is obviously less "meaningful" than homes.

Not sure who you're calling a hypocrite but it seems a good amount of people want it gone for good. Pierce skypark is a last gasp effort to save it by nostalgists, though I'm not sure of what awe the pierce ever inspired.

IronTiger, I like your basic idea: Do not allow any connections onto the Pierce Elevated (allow through-traffic only), and all traffic connecting to/From Interstate 45 makes the connections on the north side of downtown or on the south side (for example I-10 eastbound to I-45 southbound would go along US 59).

I don't think that idea was one of the preliminary alternatives, although it could have been considered separately and not offered as a preliminary alternative.

As I mentioned in my analysis http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis, removing the Pierce Elevated is a bad move from the transportation perspective. But it is likely to be a good move for other objectives. I think the Pierce Corridor is highly valuable as a transportation corridor, either for the scenario that you suggest or perhaps for managed lanes or certain connections. But I also think it is almost surely impossible to save the Pierce transportation corridor at this point since the influential downtown folks want it gone. That's why I focused my analysis on improving what is proposed, rather than saving the Pierce transportation corridor.

I don't think blaming it on just influential downtown folks is fair. It's a sensible move to remove that psychological barrier. It's been there for decades and underneath it is as desolate as ever.

Maybe, but all the cities I visited around the world with elevated transit, I don't think any of those have a good looking…

True but they're efficient and generally 65% cheaper than subways. Beats street level light rail without a doubt.