DNAguy

^I actually wasn't clear on what you were trying to say either.

 

And there comes a time where "progress," as measured by moving dirt, and pouring concrete (or even just restriping a freeways lanes), doesn't actually equal progress.  What happens when I-45 is backed up by a major wreck and all southbound (or northbound) lanes are stopped?  What then?  Will we re-route to I-69?  Nope.  Because those lanes ONLY run in the opposite direction.  And you really don't want to send 8,000 cars through "Lower Washington" or by BBVA Stadium on a game night - adding to already poor traffic conditions.

 

I think we're looking at a zero sum game for any proposal of redoing I-45.  The only difference between what is still on the table, and the tunnel option -is the tunnel option provided aesthetic and urban planning improvements to re-connect a portion of the city long controlled by the shadow of an elevated freeway.  By moving that underground we gain open/public space at the expense of an ugly roadway being moved to out of sight.  That's the plus.

I completely agree. However, you might get a synergistic (if only for a short while) effect on mobility by the re-configuring of the exchanges btwn 45 and I10 & also I45 and 59. So many of the people are going to stay on 45 and don't need to exit. Forcing half of the lanes for a road to exit causes lane switching and slower speeds. It looked great in the 60's or 80's (whenever they made the P elevated), but its not how the traffic actually flows.

I think that most of the congestion in the downtown loop is due more to the exchanges btwn freeways than the # of lanes. That's why I thought the round about idea was never a serious proposal. The problem w/ that option is that you've boxed everyone who's not in the outermost lane in. This would make the outermost two lanes (of the 4 or five that would exist) the most desirable. Ppl would jockey for position and we'd have even more traffic.

Has TxDOT done studies on where people using these roads are going? What % of those on the Pierce take it to 288? 59? Continue down 45? I think these questions need to have clear answers b/f any project is completed. Is there a true need to have on/off ramps at Allen Parkway? The 'Dallas street dip' of 45 w/ the on ramp from Houston st / frontage road on the east side + the on ramp from allen parkway to the west is a clear bottle neck. The fact that all three happen within 100 ft was just bad engineering. Eliminated non-needed on/off ramps would be boon for this stretch regardless of total # of lanes. Any 'tunnel related' speed reduction would be compensated by the limited access.

If we're after true mobility, having less freeway access downtown is not counterproductive. The downtown street grid is underutilized while the freeways are over utilized in this area. 

Removing off duty cops from letting one car out of a parking garage at the expense of the timed lights and 100 cars waiting would also help utilize our downtown grid.

Yes, some would see marginal increases in commute time. But as a region, we'd see a larger benefit in overall speed and mobility for these downtown freeways.

I think we're getting the cart b/f the horse on the whole 'self driving car' thing.

The technology that will give us self driving cars will actually be utilized in mass transit 1st. Why? B/c it reduces the need for drivers, thereby reducing the cost of providing the mass transit service. It will provide a more consistent and safer product. So cheaper, faster, better bus and rail.

A Transtar-like command center will eventually run the bus / rail systems in addition to what it provides now. This technology could possibly unleash the advantage that buses posses over rail: being able to stray from a fixed route if need be (within reason of course). This has the possibility of eliminating the 'bus stigma'. A true game changer for sunbelt cities that grew up after the automobile.

Only until this is perfected will the technology disseminate to the masses and only after this does the 'on demand' driverless car thing take place.

But that's, like, my opinion; man

In addition to the Pierce Elevated, I think some of the other tunnel alternatives thrown out there were a tunnel parallel with Jefferson, and one that basically followed the route of the downtown split down to 59.  

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Nope, you're right:

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs/Universe_of_Alts_Seg_3.pdf

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs/Universe_of_Alternatives_Seg_2&3_aerial_1.pdf

Here's the main site TxDOT set up for the whole project

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/

TxDOT wants to do it cheap, so they can make more money 20 years later by performing another patch job. 

 

A tunnel option is as viable as any other option, many cities throughout the world tunnel their freeways.  Sure it's expensive, but sometimes you gotta do it right, not cheap. 

I agree TxDOT wants to do this on the cheap. Making money off another patch job though? I really don't think so.

IF you mean that it's about maximizing and securing a revenue stream for maintenance or other projects, then you may be right. Why is there so much emphasis on HOT or multi use lanes? Because TxDOT wants a steady stream of $. If you under engineer the 'free lanes' (which is what they're doing here) you assure that ppl will use the tolled option. Then, TxDOT can get more $ to leverage more projects. Without toll roads TxDOT can't function now. 

Our years of bad tax policy is coming to roost by having TxDOT produce this drivel. 

It may also me even less sinister and more about overall incompetence. Does TxDOT have anyone that can accurately vet the tunnel options? What expertise do they even have here? The contractors that they use for a majority of their projects probably are less than qualified too. 

I imagine this is/was the thinking here:

Tunnel? UHhHHHhhhhh. Do you mean elevated concrete freeway with more lanes? No? I think you mean elevated freeway. You keep pronouncing elevated freeway incorrectly when you say tunnel.

Sounds like a plan.

Metro has a long way to go, but this is at least a start.

^Don't expect them to give you any insightful moments either.

 

What I'm confused about - from your post DNAguy - is that there really aren't any shoulders on the Pierce Elevated now.  So there again, that idea from TxDot gets tossed out the window.

Exactly. There isn't really a difference btwn an elevated freeway, a trenched freeway, or a tunnel without shoulders. 

I was waiting for Mr Perez to follow his argument w/ the repeated refrain "it rains too much in Houston to have a tunnel' that I always hear when I talk about tunneling 45 in downtown. The ineptitude is staggering.

And I actually just spoke w/ a mayoral representative. We'll see if it makes any difference. At least I tried.

I called the mayor's office.

We need the weight of the city of Houston b/c obviously TxDOT could care less of what we the people think.

This is pathetic. From the chron article:

‘TxDOT spokesman Danny Perez said the tunnel was taken off the list of reasonable alternatives because of engineering challenges.

“There would be no available space for roadway shoulders within a tunnel,” Perez said. “This creates a safety hazard in the event of an accident and greatly reduces access for emergency vehicles.”

Vehicles also would face slower speeds in a tunnel, Perez said, defeating part of the purpose of the widening and its ability to handle the growing traffic demand planners predict.’

Like others said b/f, why was TxDOT proposing alternatives that aren't feasible? Why have public comment periods if they aren't going to listen?

I've got two major issues w/ the TxDOT hack's statement:

A.) All tunnels aren't the same size so the argument that there is not shoulder room for emergency vehicles is just a BS lie.

B.) What are they comparing the speed of the tunnels to? An at grade freeway of the same size? Ok, well I10 goes pretty darn slow. An elevated freeway? Well 59 has more lanes than 45 downtown and it goes pretty slow.

Mr Perez, don't insult my intelligence w/ your half baked, lazy excuses. TxDOT wants to just keep doing what it always does. Buy up more ROW and add more lanes. 

Yes they do.  One of the board members had the idea of the city fronting the cost for the streets/utilities with METRO only having to pay for the actual rail infrastructure.  This would have allowed METRO to begin construction on the University line a lot sooner.  Of course everyone hated this idea. 

Yet when Wal-Mart in the 'Heights' was built, all the 'improvements' to the street were credited back to the company in tax forgiveness.

What about 380 agreements with Metro? The city can give back some of their amount of that 1% sales tax they now get for the next 20 years or so in exchange for street improvement. To ask METRO to carry the whole burden is not fair in my opinion. Oh well. Reasonable solutions rarely get enacted.

I'm curious, does METRO pay for all the cost to repave the whole street, put in sidewalks, upgrade intersections to comply with the ADA, and bury utility lines when putting in the rail lines?

There was an effort in the 70's to put 225 right through the east side but that effort was squashed by a very passionate neighborhood protest, and that plan is dead forever.

 

Freeways destroy neighborhoods and it's good at least one stood up to an expansion and won.

I'm not arguing for 225 to go through any neighborhood. I'm well aware that neighborhood opposition killed the Harrisburg freeway.

What I called for is direct I45 to 225 connectors along the stretch of 610 east much like what 290 to I10 will have along 610 west (after the construction that's going on now is completed). Check out the my290 website animations to get a better understanding of what I'm talking about:

http://www.my290.com/animations.html

Arguing the pt of whether the i45 S to 610 east ramp is direct connector or not is probably not worth the energy we've put forth.

However, I would like TxDOT to resigned the whole I45, 610 east, 225 exchange in something like how they're handling 290, 610, I10 on the west side. 

The amount that 225 backs up in the morning and afternoon is crazy. If they would add a direct 225 to I45 connector (thereby bypassing the merging and jockeying for position on 610), the backups could definitely be reduced. ROW might have to be purchased, but it should be relatively cheap on the east side of 610 east (those apartments look pretty shady). 

With as much as this is very industrial (or at least road usage-wise), I'm surprised that this hasn't happened sooner -- as we all know, politicians listen to $ and there's lots of oil / petrochem $ in that area. Plus the neighborhoods that might object do not have that much $ and the little organization that does exist is busy fighting the Keystone pipeline (good luck w/ that :-P).

@ clark

The exit you're referencing doesn't put you on 610 east's feeder. It directly drops you off on 610 east's mainlains.

It is a direct connector.

hey Lockmat, i just found some interesting/exciting information in a PDF type file Urbannizer linked in another page for another reason..

about a quarter of the way down it starts talking about Southern Downtown, and the need for more "urban green space" in that area, and even has a few parks (only single block at the most though) in the area, including one on the plot i had proposed, 2 blocks south of the Toyota Center Garage. it looks like another park designated area is in fact the Days Inn site, as someone mentioned.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54482015/CHI%20Breakfast%20Presentation%20for%20publication.pdf

I'm curious, are the 'schemes' discussed in regards to I45 in downtown being taken seriously by TxDOT. The idea of tunneling 45 south and re-routing 45 N along 59 would be a great for downtown. 

@Navi

Thanks for the info!

I'm confused.

The master plan published 6 years or so shows that the hotel is to be demolished.....

http://www.fly2houston.com/hou-Master-Plan

Is the old master plan now invalid? I understand things have changed do to the recession and now w/ SWA opening an international terminal at Hobby.

Why would the city sink all this money into the hotel?