DNAguy

It's Ionic.....not iconic >.>

What about covalent columns? I'm pretty sure those are the ones that share the load bearing.....

"iconic" seems to be the big buzzword of the year, but people who use it really don't understand its meaning.

If you break it down, it's actually pretty accurate in its current usage:

Iconic:

I con - as in "I con you" or "I am lying to you" or 

Ic - as in "Ick" or something you would say if something is nasty or not pleasing

So most things labeled 'iconic' in Houston are just not really pleasing to the eye and mostly a fabrication or distortion or the truth.

The biggest problem with the Pierce Elevated isn't that it exists, but that it's kind of ugly. That can be said for a lot of the freeways that encircle Downtown. If they clean it up a bit, embellish it architecturally and add a lot more lighting underneath (maybe some color?) that entire area would feel more inviting. Plant some trees. Add some vines. The parkway TxDOT proposes is a far worse "barrier" between Downtown and Midtown. Houston can do something creative with an elevated freeway, instead of it being a collection of concrete pillars. You could even get rid of the fenced-off parking lots and put some retail (or something else interesting) under there.

 

I don't think we can act like it's feasible for Houston to begin removing freeways. Houston will probably never be an urbanist paradise. Whenever this city does decide to go for a mass transit / commuter rail system, it'll have to adapt to the auto-centric nature of this town. That means lots of park & rides, lots of buses and accepting the fact that improved freeway infrastructure is absolutely a necessity. The city and state should be looking to do three things with the redesign of the Downtown freeway complex: improve traffic flow around Downtown, upgrade the existing infrastructure to modern-day engineering standards, and improve the aesthetic/architectural appearance of the freeways.

 

Do I think Houston could really benefit from an extensive heavy rail system? Yes. But that's a network that needs to fit the city it's being designed for. We shouldn't be copy-pasting ideas from the Northeast or California, or relying on a few miles of light rail to provide a real alternative to the inevitable traffic situation in this city. Otherwise we'll end up like Dallas, with a ridiculous rail system that doesn't actually take into account the fact that it's serving a sprawling, heavily car-dependent area. I think it's possible to have a reasoned discussion about the future of transportation in this city – car or otherwise – without having to resort to outlandish proposals like shutting down freeways or calling the entire concept of rail an "obsession with living in the 1800s." Houston suffers from transportation problems because of a lack of vision and the failure to come up with a real plan to tie the entire metropolitan area together. That's how you end up with a light rail plan that literally does absolutely nothing to address the traffic situation that is clogging up all 600 square miles of the city! Meanwhile it just makes METRO look bad and gives anti-transit politicians plenty of rhetorical ammunition.

 

Can we all just get along, please? Houston needs its freeways, yes. Many of them need to be widened. But it also needs a real mass transit system that commuters can use when freeway capacity just isn't enough. Roads, buses and rail are all essential to the future of the city. We need to innovate to solve the traffic problem, because Houston is a unique city that has an urban form unlike any other in the entire country. Don't demolish freeways. Don't rail against rail. Instead, think about solutions that streamline the roads and provide a working alternative and accommodate the car culture. If you've ever read Houston Freeways, you should know about the incredible amounts of effort and innovation that led to the creation of Houston's world-class freeway network. That same level of dedication can solve the current problem.

I disagree with this your opening assertion. The biggest problem with the Pierce is that it exists. It's an under-performing asset (transportation-wise) that drags down property values and prevents the needed blending of Midtown's residential focus w/ downtown's business focus.

We wouldn't need to subsidize builders to the tune of 10+ million dollars to build apartments downtown if we didn't have such a barrier between downtown and midtown. There would be a more organic blending of the two together if not for such a stark elevated freeway barrier.

Planting trees won't help property values immediately adjacent to the elevated freeway. Growing vines won't help disperse the homeless that congregate under the Pierce. 

I agree that bulling a parkway from Bagby to 59 does something similar in dividing the two areas. That's why I think its a stupid idea. The downtown street grid is more than capable of handling east/west traffic from 59 to west downtown  in the midtown/downtown junction. If we take the Pease/Jefferson and combine it w/ Pirece/St. Joesph couplet, you've got 20 total lanes full lanes of traffic. Taking away turning / bus lanes, that's still 12 dedicated lanes of East/west flow. 

I've read Houston Freeways and while I believe that lot's of effort went into building Houston's freeways, there was little 'innovation' outside of the original Gulf freeway. I might give you reversible HOV lanes, but technically that was funded by METRO. Freeways were built without regard to surrounding neighborhoods. That is not a way we should operate nowadays. I mean, what are the tax implications for 13 new and almost total blocks city that would be added to downtown if the Pierce were to disappear tomorrow? What does the cost of re-routing 45 along other freeways come out to when TxDOT could sell 13 different lots of prime midtown/downtown Houston real estate?

Going way back here y'all, but instead of the suggestion of putting all traffic onto one massive roadway to the east of Downtown as some suggest, why not provide an outlet for traffic to bypass the bottlenecks? Downtown has freeways on all sides, perhaps it would be the most direct solution for the Pierce would be to do the same for Midtown as JLWM8609 suggested. Cut-and-cover a Spur extension all the way to 45. (The inner cartographer in me loves the idea of Midtown being defined fully by clear boundaries on a map.)

 

As an immediate fix perhaps even a simple change in signage could reduce bottlenecks. Have SB 45 traffic wishing to exit 288S/59S do so by taking I-10 EB north of downtown and take the 59S exit behind the GRB--they'd avoid the Pierce altogether. Same for 288NB/59NB exiting to 45N, sign for them to exit I-10W and then join exit 45N. Some of us do this already depending upon traffic one day to the next. TxDot could potentially reduce the Pierce bottleneck simply by providing alternative exit routes. Perhaps label "thru" route exits via the east side of Downtown and keep the current exits labeled as "local"?

Ummmm... this is a forum for those proposing ideas that cost billions of dollars. Your 'immediate' ideas don't meet the $ threshold.

http://swamplot.com/houstons-biggest-boosters-planning-their-own-downtown-perch-offices-track-through-parking-garage-future-hotel/2014-08-06/

That's what I figured as the only way I could see it, but TC Jester ends there rather than continues so that was throwing me off making me wonder if this was different than it appeared to be.

Yeah, and there's no high rise farther north on TC Jester as it would appear in the photo. Confusing.

But with the just completed complex on TC Jester & the railroad tracks AND the development just down the street at the Washington circle getting bulldozed, the western Washington Corridor / Rice Military is really picking up.

What's the over/under for the building on the NW corner (next to El tiempo market) getting bulldozed and developed into an apartment complex?

Those 100,000 could take 610 or 59. Most of them would avoid the surface street.

And the reason is I want the city to be a better place aesthetically not just a place that's convenient for cars.

You sir speak with the devil's tounge!

So, what happens to the current 45 freeway between 610 and I-10, if we're shifting everyone over to the new Hardy extension as the new 45? Turn it back into a bayou for flood control? EDIT: Never mind, you stated a spur. Heck, I think we might be better off with the bayou, lol.

By going the route DNAguy describes, wouldn't we be switching freeways from 45 to 610 to "new 45" (Hardy) to 10 to 59 then reconnecting back to 45 at the interchange by GRB, just to go from Northline to Gulfgate? Instead of just scooting by the side of downtown as it is now, on one constant highway? That doesn't sound too appealing. Hardy's extension only goes to 10, right? Then you've got to filter onto 59 to get back towards the on ramp for the Gulf Freeway. Maybe I'm not following something correctly, but that sounds like a big tie up just waiting to happen.

You would have to upgrade east downtown's freeway system as well. There is some row that could be purchased north of grb. From the grb south, you would have to trench 59 farther and stack 45 as an elevated freeway above in the same row.

I can't quite tell how it fits into the neighborhood, but it looks good. I'd love to see what they do with the creek that runs through the property. It will also be interesting to see what kinds of development will follow (restaurants, apartment blocks, etc.). With the light rail nearby, it should be a good location for additional projects, but the locals may end up priced out of the neighborhood.

Think of it in Rice Military.... because that neighborhood is going to be chalk full of townhouses faster than you can say 'gentrification'.

More radical ideas for Pierce redesign (which takes from a lot of others' ideas)....

Build the Hardy downtown connector as I45 instead (and connect it along elevated 610 freeway to 45 which would remain the same north of 610), route 45 along 59 on east side of dt as an elevated freeway while making 59 a below grade freeway from Leeland to Franklin, Make the existing I45 section north of downtown a spur, and demolish the Pierce. Then do the Parkway thing.

Thoughts?

Good point. Also portions of I-10 are also below grade too. So why not reroute 45 over a redesigned, completely below-grade I-10, then over a completely below-grade 59/69 as a double-decker highway? 10 & 59 would below grade, existing streets pass through at grade, 45 above grade. This could work without looking too imposing as in this scenario, only 1 overpass above grade would be visible, as currently exists on the East End.

Meanwhile from the 45-10 reroute, you could have 1 exit still trace the existing 45 route offering an exit to Bagby and Pierce for direct access to Midtown (same from south approach, maybe creating a grand boulevard). Coupled with the removal of all of the ramps above Buffalo Bayou, the single 45 Midtown exit ramp could create the opportunity for a signature bridge of some sort over the bayou, as previously envisioned.

Nice pic. I had a very similar idea and posted a rough sketch in another thread.

Here's the rough sketch:

For those who are curous, here's everything you wanted to know about I69 in texas...

A good board for 'road-heads' 'road-fanatics'.

Start of thread:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=41e6b1fae1b9862e8758855f9aa007f5&topic=3624.0

Current page:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=41e6b1fae1b9862e8758855f9aa007f5&topic=3624.725

There needs to be a study of the downtown highway systems and where cars go, which will help bring understanding on the highways, including how necessary (or not) the Pierce really is.

I would hope that TxDOT did this b/f coming up with their 'solutions'. Although, I wouldn't be surprised otherwise.

I wonder what it would take for them to publicize it. Maybe if we all start to badger our public officials and TxDOT, we can get an answer.

This brings me to another question... with a project so big like the I45 overhaul from the Woodlands to Downtown, why doesn't TxDOT crowd source the solution.. or at least hold some kind of contest. Architectural schools hold these kind of competitions all the time, why not do the same for this project?

 

It is when used in context, and you can tell when someone is using it as a slur or not. The name of this thread is "The Pierce Elevated Redesign Thread", not the Pierce Elevated Removal Thread, and any "misinformation" was mostly referring to other threads. The point is, the Pierce carries way too much traffic as it is and the other freeways aren't exactly empty, so tearing it down isn't a good idea especially when the alternatives could get rather messy (10 and 59) and expanding them probably isn't the best decision either.

 

The best "freeway removal candidate" in Houston would probably be the spur to U of H, not the Pierce.

 

Secondly, despite what anti-freeway activists may like to think, there's not a real example to work from, so there's not an easy solution.

 

"What about in Portland and Milwaukee?" Well, those, as KHH explains, those were old pre-Interstate highways that were proved redundant when newer highways took their place, and were stripped out. This caused the first interest in "freeway removal" even back in the '80s, even though it wasn't.

 

"OK, what about San Francisco?" They were spurs that were never completed after a master plan failed. As a result, it was more cost-effective after an earthquake compromised them to never carry the same capacity, so they became wide boulevards instead.

 

"Well, the Seattle Alaskan Viaduct is being replaced with a tunnel, and it was dividing the city!" Again, the AWV actually was filled out (no spurs) and it was actually compromised.

 

"OK, then Seoul is removing another freeway!"

 

And there you go, the Seoul examples are used the most often in the whole "Why we should tear down the Pierce" argument and it's the thing we know the least amount. We have no idea how the traffic moves around in the city, and it mentions something that I always suspected: some seriously compromised, cheap, fast construction.

 

Short of leaving it where it is, it would either benefit from an additional tunnel or something, but to really do something about it would be a part of a much more massive downtown plan to circulate traffic better. 

Well, one could argue that removal is a 'redesign'. I redesigned my house buy removing walls.... maybe we could all agree to call this 'Redesign of I45's downtown section'. Then we can talk about removing the pierce? 

Would that work?

What does the Pierce elevated really do? I think we should all ask us that question. How much of the traffic is passing through downtown? Is it mostly a connection from I 45 to 59/288? Is it an outlet for west downtown? Once we understand what it is, we can then find a solution.

We can all agree that its an eyesore and reduces property values in its immediate proximity. The sigh lines are poor, it has terrible on / off ramps, and connections to 59/288 are terrible. Houston deserves better than the Pierce. What that is exactly, IDK. 

What happened to this thread? I'm pretty sure this is where someone should drop a 'you mad bro? ' gif. No one is actively lying. And being an Aggie isn't a dig.

Jeez.

I really think that if there was anywhere in houston that can accommodate a freeway removal, it's here. There is an extensive grid network AND multiple freeways to absorb the excess. New bottle necks might be exposed but those could be upgraded.

That's not me actively lying and no one can refute my theory bc I leave the possibility of adding capacity on other roads.

TxDot has said tunneling isn't an option, but if they really wanted to provide better neighborhood connectivity why wouldn't they consider cut-and-cover? Cut-and-cover the Spur under Bagby/Brazos/Smith and do the same for the 45 main lanes under Pierce/St Joseph/Jefferson. All in all wouldn't be that much of a pain during construction with the many parallel options downtown/midtown provide for local traffic. Freeway traffic would maintain the status quo until the new tunnels are completed. If the "lack of space for shoulders" is the issue as TxDot has said in the past, why not just build two levels of tunnel and just split the traffic? That might even be better to separate local and thru traffic. Austin has a split and so does San Antonio. And don't tell me you can't tunnel in Houston because it would flood. All tunnels require pumping stations, Houston would do the same. Both Midtown and Downtown would see big benefits with a Spur extension and below grade freeways. TxDot could even sell of the valuable land the Elevated currently occupies after they are done dismantling it.

I would entertain a split northbound and southbound I 45 if the pierce elevated is replaced w/ a trenched southbound 45... The cut and cover would be a nice bonus too.

I really think that this might be enough of a compromise to actually work... but I'm not holding my breath

Remember politicians (most at least  ) are also human beings capable of doing distinguished things. Is the Johnson Space Center named for the former senator and president because he was able to finagle that important facility for Texas or because he championed many other social programs for people throughout the nation? BTW, notable achievements for his nation or not, what does Ronald Reagan have to do with a stretch of U. S Highway 290?

290 runs through a solid suburban voting block that is hardcore repulbican..... most of whom are republican b/c of the 'Reagan revolution'. Without Reagan, the suburban white voting block of the republican party may not exist.

Forgive the roughness of the sketch, but this is sort of what I was talking about.

I don't have time to go into more detail about how the Gulf freeway piece ties in, but you get my drift.

More parkway madness. One of the proposals from TxDOT regarding the Pierce Elevated is to tear it down and replace it with a 10-12 lane at grade parkway. Looks a lot like an arterial boulevard to me.

http://offcite.org/2014/07/28/the-rebuilding-of-i-45-a-once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-improve-houston

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. 

They said it's a once in a lifetime opportunity to "re-connect the neighborhoods". Yet every option in that link show everything BUT connecting the surrounding neighborhoods. I don't get the parkway idea either. It will go from an elevated freeway to a ground freeway with trees? Or will it become connected to the street with traffic lights?

Luminare, please use your Illuminati/Freemason abilities to stop this atrocity. Surely they can stop the funneling of money from the FEMA coffins for a month and help this dire situation out.

I'm only halfway kidding, I've wanted to use an Illuminati conspiracy joke on you since day one. But I am not kidding about the options they show for re-design.

The parkway idea as they drew it up leaves more questions than answers.

What I dont understand is the need for a parkway on the southside of downtown. The only area that would need something like a parkway is the west side of downtown. You can repurpose the 45 row on the west side of downtown as the parkway and then tie into the existing street grid. The St Joseph parkway is of sufficient width to handle the traffic. Then you sell / repurpose the ROW to recover some of the great costs that this is going to take.

Total agreement.  And I definitely think The Woodlands needs to upgrade a couple of arterials to parkways, starting with Woodlands Parkway.

 

The one I've wondered about for a long time in Houston would be Hillcroft/Voss between 59/Westpark and 10 (maybe even extend it up Bingle to 290).  I think it would be a manageable upgrade (sunken below cross streets, same as Allen Parkway) and a great reliever for the West Loop.  But even if Houston wanted to do it, I think Hunters Creek Village would quash it.

 

Another great upgrade would be Braeswood as a pipeline from the southwest into the medical center, to take load off of 59.

 

Thoughts?

A.) There doesn't seem to be any strategy or metric that would necessitate the upgrade of a surface road to a semi-highway / expressway status. Maybe a new designation needs to be concocted to address the need for grade-separated, but not limited access roads. When OST, Memorial Drive, Heights Blvd, Lyons avenue, and Upper Lake Dr (in Atascocita) all have the same COH road designation (Major Thoroughfare), you realize there is a problem. Until streets like Lyons avenue and Memorial have different designations, there is no hope.

B.) Upgrading a surface street to handle more expressway traffic is to concede that the 'just-build-more-lanes' philosophy of TxDOT is incorrect. TxDOT already has the answer to your problem. It's to build more lanes. What's the question? Doesn't matter. 

Putting the name aside for a second, what about Braeswood / McGregor?  Same basic format no?

I'm pretty sure the home owners that have driveways that line the street(s) will object. By getting rid of lights, you'd increase the average speed on the roads.

Those houses are worth some $ so their objects will be heard and addressed. McGregor has a better shot (due to the fact that Riverside / 3rd ward has been slower to gentrify), but it really doesn't address any real traffic need.

Lets not forget  the short "Way"...(ex.) S. MacGregor Way. 

 

Another Houston habit is its ending of a street and then continuation of the same name/ street further along the same alignment. Recipe for much confusion before the days of online map searches.

Never forget.

FYI

http://offcite.org/2014/07/28/the-rebuilding-of-i-45-a-once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity-to-improve-houston

I'm still hoping for a large scale development w/ the HSR + bus + LR megastation and a white oak bayou promenade that extends to a new mix use development on the post office site and a buffalo bayou river walk.

One can dream right?