DNAguy

Because that's not what they're built for and would require a lot of work to section off the "HOV" lane into a standalone lane somewhere in the middle of the right-of-way, as well as figuring out a way to keep one-person cars and carpooling cars separate at the toll gates. This is not a good solution nor does it make any sense as this is not the purpose of toll roads.

 

Not what they're built for? Would require a lot of work?

 

It's no harder than taking a current lane and making it as HOV and administering it as they do the Katy HOT.

 

The purpose of a toll road is to reduce congestion and provide a way of getting from A to B.

 

It's not there to make $ or collect tolls. Collecting tolls is a way to PAY the bonds of said road or PAY for the maintenance. 

 

The powers at be can decide to incentivize more carpooling by making use of all area toll roads free for those w/ 2 or 3+ ppl inside. They may have to increase the price individual cars pay to make up for it. I never said that they couldn't.

 

But if we are asking the question on how we can utilize the lanes we have now w/ limited capital and reduce congestion, then we need to discuss having 'free' HOV lanes on all area tollways.

 

This isn't rocket science.

 

The answer isn't always to purchase ROW, tear down businesses, and build more lanes. 

As the article notes, the meeting in question was about short term fixes, and commuter rail is more about the long term.

 

Still, it really doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.  Heaven knows we've got plenty of population to support whatever goes in on the southwest corridor.

 

What about 'free' HOV use of ALL tollroads. Easy fix. Incentives carpooling. Reduces congestion.

 

[crickets]

 

That's what I thought. They're not serious.

It looks kinda cool, but I've been spoiled by the Kyle Field construction. 

 

Every other stadium I've seen recently seems more like a overbudgeted high school stadium. 

 

Kyle field...

 

 

Kyle field should have been wiped off the map and rebuilt.

 

Look at this:

 

 

 

In the haste to 'beat' the longhorns and build bigger, I guess the aggies forgot that a stadium was supposed to look nice on the inside AND outside. Are they going to fix that tunnel / gap thingy?

 

If Kyle field was a car, it would look like this:

 

So... where are the letters of protest? How can we stop this? Who approved this?

 

No one is protesting it.

 

TxDOT's outreach has already concluded like 4 years ago:

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/elysian.html

 

 

HCTRA is building this and TXDot is rebuilding the Elysian Viaduct as the downtown drop off for the Hardy.

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Hardy-Toll-Road-years-away-but-already-under-4854990.php#/0

 

https://www.hctra.org/about_construction/hardy-downtown-connector

 

http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2012/06/hardy-toll-road-downtown-connector-making-progress/

 

http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2011/08/see-the-hardy-downtown-conenctor-and-other-project-plans/

Even LA wants to cover their freeway with a park.

http://m.la.curbed.com/archives/2014/08/work_begins_to_put_huge_park_on_top_of_the_101_in_hollywood.php

The music in the video seems like it's from an old Hollywood cop show.

 

 

Not just Dallas and/or LA:

 

 

http://gizmodo.com/five-cities-turning-ugly-overpasses-into-vibrant-parks-1259568561

According to Houston Freeways, the Hardy Toll Road didn't reach self-sufficiency until 2002. One of the big changes of how it started turning a profit was the airport connector in 2000.

 

Not to de-rail the convo, but this would be a perfect reason why I feel the TX-35 tollway would be successful.

 

288 + I 45 daily commuter overflow + if its built w/ a Hobby connector, airport traffic flow. And that's only going to go up when the new international terminal goes in.

 

Lord knows I'd never use the Hardy except for Friday afternoon trips to Dallas (maybe once per year) if they didn't have the Airport connector. I use the Hardy to get to airport if there is even a hint of traffic on 59 or 45. 

Admittedly, the book was written over a decade ago, so the bit about funding may have been compromised. Never the less, the Grand Parkway was planned years in advance for the sprawl that would eventually reach out to that point, and it has. Sure, some people benefitted off of it, but couldn't that be said about every project?

 

Yeah, it was planned WAY back. Back when highways were considered the greatest thing since sliced bread, gas was $0.31 / gallon, the US was manufacturing everything in the world, and the Texas state government used tax money to fund public works.

 

I'm pretty sure since all of those things are the same, that the Grand Parkway is still the same great idea.

 

/friendly sarcasm

Uh, no. I have to laugh at your assertions about feeder roads and highways, since apparently all the studied experience you have with freeways is anti-freeway/pro-rail literature. As much as you'd like to think that the Grand Parkway was an evil plan created by Rick Perry, Tom DeLay, Bob Lanier, and John Culberson, the Grand Parkway has been in the planning books since the mid-1960s (and named as such) but was axed in the 1970s due to funding concerns. The modern Grand Parkway was indeed re-created by developers with donated land but the state caught on and forced the people in real estate interest off of the "Grand Parkway Association", which was pushing the Grand Parkway to be built and be back on the map. And that was in 1986. It took nearly another decade to get just the first segment built.

It is worth noting that the Grand Parkway was never designed with frontage roads to reduce the commercial clutter, as without it, there would've been wide arterials with strip malls and stoplights (like FM 1960), and that despite being tolled, it is being done with local funds, by way of HCTRA doing the duty rather than TxDOT. (source: Houston Freeways, which has its own citations)

Meanwhile, the reason why 288 doesn't have rail, and we've discussed this before, is that METRO doesn't extend into Pearland and due to tax laws, even if Pearland wanted it, they can't give the METRO tax that it needs, and frankly, using METRO funds to build rail to Pearland might get some resistance in the more urban areas, where METRO is having trouble enough in the Loop as it is.

 

Wrong. HCTRA hasn't funded the Grand Parkway. All Grand parkway $ has been TXDOT or FBTRA $. 

Then you'd be wrong because 45, 290, and 10 are parking lots during rush hour as well as Beltway 8. This is providing a relief for those who are simply traveling down those 3 freeways then to beltway 8.

Like I said before frontage roads are not a viable option for moving traffic. Think of a regular boulevard street. When it comes up on another street there are stop lights. Cars back up and have to sit through the light and more cars back up. Now imagine a freeway where the only stop you have to make is when you exit the freeway. Frontage roads are not a priority because they are not as important in mobility as a highway.

Like it or by but the Grand Parkway is not frivolous spending. As much as Houston is expanding there will be significant use of it in the very near future. Sure when it opens the next 4-6 months won't see that much traffic but to say that no one will use it between I-10 to I-45 is being ignorant of the needs of the Houston driver. Driving is our one way of getting around this massive Metro and opening another vital artery near a population of almost 1 million (Woodlands) to an exploding area like Cypress and Katy is necessary.

I don't really understand your frustration here honestly. TXDOT isn't closing the regular 288 lanes and turning them into tolls, they're simply adding toll lanes that you can use IF you don't feel like sitting in traffic. Toll roads are not as evil as a lot of people think. We are not entitled to free highways and with toll roads they eventually pay for themselves as well as pay for future expansion and maintenance. The fact of the matter is, Houston needs these highways, TXDOT has no money, and the only way to maintain addequate traffic flow is to go with a toll road route. But because these are simply an addition and not a total takeover, you can still use the main lanes and sit in traffic. I, however, will gladly pay at most a few bucks toget home 30-45 minutes faster.

 

I'm not against tollways. I think its a better way to speed up road development in places that would probably have to wait 20 years to secure funding. I am against it being used a way to get around a ridiculous anti-tax ideology that ignores the fact that taxes are needed for public works. I'm against it's use when an a project that would normally be non-tolled is developed as a toll so TxDot can use can secure a revenue stream. i'm against an incoherent tolling strategy where for no rhyme or reason, one highway gets tolled expressways and others don't. I'm against building a tollway in the middle of nowhere so that 100 people that happen to live in Katy and work in the Woodlands can get to work in a straight shot.

 

Beltway 8 isn't full b/c Katy drivers are trying to get to the woodlands, its full b/c of all the infill that happened after the Sam Houston's been around for 20+ years and the resulting sprawl. The same will happen to the Grand parkway and in 25 years, TXDOT will be building the Godzilla parkway that connects Rosenberg to Fulshear to Sealy to Prarie View to Magnolia to Conroe b/c company 'x' moved its headquarters there and people need to be able to commute from half way across Texas on a single road to get there.

Yes it does. People driving to Kary from the Woodlands currently have to use 45 then the beltway to get there. This provides a vital like between the growing energy sector in the Woodlands to the Energy corridor. The purpose of the GP is to allow commuters in the car-centered city of Houston another option of getting to their destination.

TXDOT is not "in the business of making money", they are in the business of getting Texans from Point A to Point B by whatever means possible and as it just so happens in 2014, the only possible means is through toll roads. Frontage roads definitely do not provide better mobility than toll roads. There's stops and slower speed limits and cause more congestion. A toll road provides a continuous service that allows someone to get on and off and sit through way fewer stop lights than feeder roads.

The reason toll roads are being built on 288 rather than frontage roads is because of the sheer amount of traffic congestion on these roads. If people are willing to pay a premium to get to their destination faster then why stop then? They pay to use it and eventually the road pays for itself. It makes more sense to let people pay a toll for a continuous highway than it is to build frontage roads which don't solve congestion.

 

I doubt there is anything close to significant Katy to Woodlands daily commuting. At least not now. Building a toll road between suburbs is a self fulfilling prophecy when people find they can make that commute in 45 minutes to the Woodlands from Katy, they move out to Katy to work in the Woodlands.... at least for now. In 10 years, people will complain about the traffic on the GP.

 

I understand that a tollway gets you from A to B faster. My argument is that its not the best use of limited resources. To me, its hard to argue that this highway is such a vital link when it doesn't even warrant the need of full frontage roads (in our current Houston highway model -- I understand that not all highways are designed like this and when in a city center it makes less sense. I'm only talking Houston and in the suburbs). How much of 288's traffic is caused by people who 'have' to enter the highway and couldn't get to their location by frontage?

 

Unlike the Katy freeway, this is TXDOT borrowed $ going to build a tollway instead of something else. TXDOT $ didn't go to build the toll roads on I 10. HCTRA $ did. And it was necessary to get the HCTRA $ to speed up the overall construction. The toll road was a TXDot concession. AND it was built for a duel use of HOV which existed there b/f - a HCTRA concession. No HOV lane exists on 288. No concession has been given that commuters could use these lanes for 'free' while single occupancy cars pay a toll. Now how is that the best way to get people from point a to point b the fasted?

 

I don't mind that HOV lanes can be used a toll lane when they're underutilized. I mind when instead of building HOV lanes or frontage lanes, you build a toll road b/c you're broke, you're spending the little $ you do have on frivolous things (grand parkway), and this is the only means of getting funding to address a legitimate (288 traffic) issue.

There's no money to build free frontage roads though. And the GP segments actually are beneficial as it provides a vital link from the ever-growing Woodlands to 290 and Katy.

Tollanes come before frontage roads because over time they pay themselves off. Just because we've had free highways in the past doesn't mean we're entitled to them. Toll lanes are a business and like any business there are no free handouts. It may suck but that's just the reality of the situation we live in, and because TXDOT won't get adequate funding anytime soon, toll roads aren't going away soon either.

 

The grand parkway is not vital for the area's mobility. What's vital about Katy to Woodlands traffic? It's a luxury for suburbanites and incentives businesses relocating to the suburbs. It doesn't relieve any real congestion. An argument can be made that its helps keep housing prices lower by opening up more and more land for development, but is that really the business of TXDot when their funding is so tight?

 

I have a real problem w/ our transportation department being in 'business to make $' as well. They aren't there to make $. They're there to provide a service. Frontage roads make more mobility sense for far less $ on 288. 

They're so adamant at building tollways because it's the only way they can build freeways now with how underfunded they are. There's simply no way for TXDOT to fund highway building in this massive state without the aid of tollways. It sucks but it's the truth. At least we're not London where they have to pay a toll just to go into the city...not yet at least.

 

TXDot is underfunded. There is no doubt there. The fact that bonds have to be sold to fund ANY additional road project is sickening. One would think that TXDot would try and build frontage roads along 288 b/f they build a 100 million dollar + tollway in the middle of it. Nope. Any additional lanes HAVE to be funded by bonds b/c there's nothing in the coffers. That means toll lanes b/f frontage lanes. 

 

What kind of sick and twisted logic is that?!

 

However, the funding that they do have is used for crap projects like the Grand Parkway sections to nowhere. We need $ spent on a Porter to mont belvieu direct highway....why?

 

TX-35 tollway addresses two problems: 288 traffic AND 45 traffic. That in my book makes it a great candidate for a entity that's strapped for cash. It should be a tollway b/c there are two 'free' alternatives already. It can have a Hobby connector which brings in lots cars / use... not to mention a new international terminal going up now.

 

The more I think of it, the more I just get pissed off.

 

sorry for the rant.

Rail is a debatable investment in general, but it certainly makes absolutely no sense for the 288 median - there is already a parallel Main Street line right to the west.  They will eventually continue that south and possibly take it out to Sugar Land.

 

Couldn't you say the same thing about the 288 express lanes?

 

Here:

Rail  288 express lanes is are a debatable investment in general, but it certainly makes absolutely no sense for the 288 median - there is already a parallel Main Street line288 freeway right to the west on either side of it .

 

If TXDot is is so adamant on building a tollway (which they are and why I think they deserve a name change: Texas Department of Tollways), why aren't they building TX-35?  

 

Not only would that help relieve traffic on 288, but it could also attract people from 45 which is crazy congested as well. Dare I say two birds w/ one stone? You could even put a Hobby connector much like the Hardy connector @ IAH.

Kinda sucks there won't be room for rail, but that was never part of the plan (same with I-10, wishful thinking).

I wonder if they're leaving space (potential) for building a five stack with Beltway 8 eventually.

 

TXDot Kinda sucks there won't be room for rail, but that was never part of the plan (same with I-10, wishful thinking).

I wonder if they're leaving space (potential) for building a five stack with Beltway 8 eventually.

 

fify

What can we do to get someone to buy that Wells Fargo @ Kipling & Kirby and re-development THAT? Ugh.

I'm going to show my ignorance on trains in general, but how can I look at the greater Houston area's freight track-age and understand the flow? I can look at a map of roads and understand the flow of cars. 

 

Is there a quick read that can bring me up to speed?

If you look at the Google aerial view of the interchange, you'll see that you really can't "demolish most of the stack" because it will become impossible for local traffic to make connections due to the minimal frontage roads at the interchange. For example, on southbound 610 there is no frontage road, so there would be no way to connect into the area. Also, going eastbound on 225 from Lawndale, there would be no way to connect to northbound 610. Same is true for eastbound 610 to westbound 225 - there is no way to connect with frontage roads, so that ramp is needed. Only one connection, EB 225 to WB 610 can be made on frontage roads.

 

The ramps are surely be a big convenience to nearby businesses and residents, making it much easier to get on and off the freeway. Take them away and you could be subjecting those folks to a big daily hassle.

 

Demolition also costs money and disrupts traffic. You might as well leave it alone as long as there is no negative impact.

 

That being said, I expect the ramps connecting to the stub to eventually be removed when they reach the end of their usable life. That may be in the not-too-distant future (maybe 15-30 years). When the entire interchange is rebuilt, I would expect the frontage roads of both freeways to be brought through the interchange, providing connections to the stub frontage roads.

 

The idea of creating a design on 610 similar to the design between Interstate 10 West and US 290 (Northwest Freeway) is an interesting idea. I don't know if traffic counts can justify it, and it would require a big right-of-way clearance. SH 225 was studied for future improvements a few years ago, and the recommended improvements were minimal. So I don't see a project of that scope in the future.

 

As for Dexter Jones, I interviewed him for the Houston Freeways book and he also supplied some photos for the book (on topics other than SH 225). I think the cancellation of SH 225 was the biggest disappointment of his career since he was heavily involved in that project. As others have noted, lack of funding probably was the biggest reason for the cancellation. But as I note in the book I think it would have remained alive and dormant in the 1970s (and possibly moved forward eventually) if there was no community opposition and there was instead strong support from the City of Houston and business interests. But the support was not there.

 

And the final irony is that the opposition thought the freeway cancellation would revitalize the area. Well, that certainly did not happen - the area is still blighted and distressed, maybe worse than ever. No renaissance at all.  But who knows, with the light rail and expanding urban revitalization, the area may actually start improving some day.

 

 

Blighted, maybe more gritty...distressed, that's a little over the top...worse than ever, whatever. The area is already improving. In the last five years that I've lived in Second Ward, I've seen a good number of improvements and renovations to homes taking place in the area, especially accelerating this past year. For example, our 100 year old house was once the only restored home on the block. Now two others have been restored this year alone. Many would be west side inner loop renters who are rapidly being priced out, have been moving into this area too. EaDo, Eastwood and Idylwood can hardly be called distressed with homes ranging from $250k-$500k. Fact is, the cancellation of the Harrisburg Freeway did help the East End to revitalize, if not decades later. If built, it would have destroyed the community, cutting it in half, making it undesirable and most definitely making it even more "blighted" and "distressed" than you claim it to already be.

 

Intercity's point is spot on.

 

I would agree that the East end is far from blighted. If you want to see blight, I'd look in some areas of Denver Harbor, Sunnysdie, or 3rd ward west of UH. Now there is some real blight. 

 

The east end is 'gritty', lower on the socioeconomic ladder, and has lacked development for all these years. Not sending 225 through the neighborhood didn't set off a Renaissance..... but what freeway cancellation has EVER set off some sort of neighborhood revitalization. Maybe a freeway removal, but I can't think of any neighborhood that ignited right after a freeway was canceled. Remember, most urban freeways were (are) planned in majority minority neighborhoods that tend to be lower on the economic ladder anyway. 

 

I would argue that the fact that the east end's proximity to the ship channel, a refinery, chemical plants, and rail yards is the real reason it never took off in the same way as say, midtown. Now that economics are right, those factors are not seen as much of a hindrance.

 

Intercity is right and I agree that had 225 been routed to downtown, we wouldn't see any of this development in the east end. It would have surely become blighted and probably would have stayed that way. No one wants to live close to a freeway (or multiple ones for that matter), a chemical plant / refinery, the ship channel, and a rail yard unless they absolutely have to and have no other option. 

 

Case in point: the neighborhood of Manchester. That place has no chance of ever succeeding. The COH and industry would do all those residents a favor by buying them out. Even w/ increased EPA required monitoring for carcinogenic hydrocarbons, the particulate matter in the air alone is going to give everyone increased rates of asthma and most likely cancer. And that's already after a lot of local emissions have been reduced over the last 10 years.

 

 

The Eastside is far from blighted and certainly not worse than ever. Stick to what you know...

 

 

Ok, now. I don't think MaxC was trying to offend. Play nice.

Update: The crane has turned to the other side. Yes I went to two consecutive Astro games, what about it? They were free. Fight me.

image.jpg

 

'No free lunch'.....

 

 

Sun, Aug 10

• vs
•  
• Texas

• L
• 6-2

49-69 Martinez (2-8) Keuchel (10-8) 19,239 Mon, Aug 11

• vs
•  
• Minnesota

• L
• 4-2

49-70 Duensing (3-2) Fields (2-5) Perkins (29) 15,569

The Allen Parkway ramp needs to be closed, first and foremost. I can't emphasize this enough. It does far from fixing the congestion and the other old ramps, but it will be a good start.

 

I can't agree more.

 

People would just have to realize that to get to 45 north from west of downtown, you take Allen parkway... to get to 45 south, you take memorial. Simple and safety / congestion is improved.

I drive by this area almost every day due to work. 

This whole 45 / 610 / 225 confluence needs a major overhaul. It should really be looked at as one big interchange and not two separate one. I know that originally 225 was supposed to go all the way downtown, but now that it's not the traffic can get really bad during the week. I'm surprised frankly that more wrecks and chemical spills don't happen here.

 

There needs to be I45 to 225 direct connectors. It should resemble how the 290/610 interchange will allow for direct I10 to 290 access. 

 

After (or in concurrence with) the direct connectors, the exit for 45 north for the 610 southbound traffic should be moved back (farther north and b/f the 225 interchange) so as the traffic from 225 getting onto 610 isn't fighting the exiting traffic of 610.

 

I've included a map of the area for those not familiar:

The Scott onramp is so bad that I avoid it sometimes by taking the feeder road to where it turns into Pease, turn left onto Hamilton, and take the ramp from Hamilton onto 59 SB.

 

Me too. I purposely didn't write about it though b/c I don't want to give up one of 'my' good / semi-secret traffic work-arounds. 

 

That sounds like a good idea, similar to what they're doing at the 610/290 interchange to allow drivers access to from 290 to I-10 without weaving across 610. Now, as for those who would still need to access 59 from Scott, I would propose a ramp from the feeder road just west of Scott to the Spur section that would connect to 59. That way, they'd still be able to access 59 without all of that weaving that backs up the mainlanes. I would also eliminate all of those antiquated left lane entrances and exits like the ramp from 288 NB to I-45 NB and I-45 SB to US 59 NB. Those left lane exits and entrances screw up the flow of traffic by putting slower traffic into what is supposed to be a passing lane.

 

The scott on-ramp causes serious traffic issues. It should either be closed off or a concrete divider should be extended from the 59&288 south / 45& 59N split so that people can't cross 4 lanes of traffic to get to 59S.

 

In all actuality this wouldn't reduce freeway access in the area either. If you're at UH, take the spur to get onto 45 then take the exit as normal. If you're in EaDo and need to get to 59 south, then take the 45 feeder and follow it just past 59. Then take a left on Hamilton. There is a 59 south on ramp just past the 45/59 exchange. 

Hey HAIFers. So, along HWY 6 from the overpass at I10 all the way to the northern edge of the Addicks Reserve, workers were creating some sort of Hwy divider (don't know what else to call it; but those concrete and steel things to keep us from jumping into the opposite lanes) and had set posts into the road, and began the rebar like frame which, I assume, the concrete will adhere to. Well, they worked like gangbusters for a couple of days to complete maybe a quarter mile of this framing. And then just stopped. That was two weeks ago. Any ideas as to why they would start up at what seemed like exceptional speed and then stop cold turkey?

 

Jersey barriers?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier

How about the Galata Bridge in Istanbul?  I thought you said elsewhere you've been to Istanbul...

 

 

 

I've been to Istanbul and eaten under the bridge.

 

It makes a huge difference that it's on the water. I makes a huge difference that cars aren't driving 70+ miles per hour above you (noise, etc).

 

Tip: Instead of eating under the bridge, get a fish sandwich from a street vendor on the south side of the Golden Horn between the bridge and ferry stop. They're cheap and really good. 

Now, to at least one realistic idea.

 

They should re-arrange the exit ramps from 45 to 59 (northbound lanes) and from 59 to 45 (southbound lanes).

 

There's the exit right after telephone on the northbound section of 45 for the 'downtown exits and scott street' and the entrance from downtown destinations into the SB lanes of 45. these elevated sections were designed to ease the transition into the spur 5 runoff that now goes nowhere (was supposed to be part of the freeway down 35).

 

So, shut down the ramps from 45NB to 59 NB/SB and build them onto that spur section. same for from 59NB/SB onto 45SB. this would at least ease part of the interchange. it would eliminate people waiting until the last possible second from cutting over from 59sb exit back into 45nb traffic (which does cause quite a stir and often wrecks). It also eliminates people entering at scott who are trying to jog over to the other side of the freeway to get to the 59sb ramp. that's a really short distance to do that in and really slows things down as well. people who want to get from scott to 59sb could easily ride up to the entrance at gray street.

 

anyway, it would resolve the part of the problem with the pierce elevated, which is the horrible transitions from 59 to 45sb, and from 45nb to 59. the lanes on that elevated portion of freeway are horrible under utilized at all times of day.

 

I agree 100%. A lot of 45's problems has to do w/ it's terrible exits and on ramps. I'm sorry for not giving credit to the correct person, but i know it's been suggested that the Allen Parkway to 45 south entrance needs to be closed. It's dangerous. 

 

I like the idea of using the Spur 5 sections as 59 on ramps/ exits. It would actually make even more sense if the Pierce was ever eliminated too.