MaxConcrete

Actually, the Gulf Freeway south of downtown to Calhoun is a double deck freeway. It opened in 1988.

This is a $4.4 million job to add an auxiliary lane for smoother traffic merging from the on-ramp at Fountainview. It is not related to the plans to improve the US 59/IH 610 interchange. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2012/harris.htm#002713205

HCTRA recently posted its annual report for FY 2012 (ended February 29). https://www.hctra.org/file_download/182/TollRoad_FY2012.pdf Some highlights: * Toll revenue was $519 million, a 7.9% increase over FY 2011. Total revenue was $566 million, an increase 13.9% over FY 2011. * All toll facilities saw increased traffic except Hardy Toll Road South (down 0.4%) The Katy Freeway Toll lane traffic increased 13%. * The HCTRA section of the Fort Bend Parkway halted its four year traffic decline with a 2% increase over FY 2011. Traffic remains 13% below the 2008 peak. The Fort Bend Parkway appears to be the only HCTRA project which qualifies as an underperformer. * The busiest segment was the Sam Houston Tollway North, at 71,226,681, or about 195,000 vehicles per day. The second busiest was the Sam Houston South (US 59 to IH 10) at 69,947,937 followed by Sam Houston Central (IH 10 to US 290) at 57,501,489 followed by Westpark Tollway at 41,234,056. * $120 million was transferred out of HCTRA to finance county road projects. Another $13.2 million was allocated to an unspecified non-toll bridge project. * Total outstanding bond principal is $2.605 billion with total debt service (including interest) at $4.396 billion with scheduled payments through 2050. * Services and fees, which is probably mostly engineering consultants, was $77,813,626 Overall, the financial position of HCTRA looks good and allows HCTRA to finance its upcoming projects, including $400 million for the US 290 toll lanes. I still don't like the diversions to road projects - I would rather see the funds used to pay down debt.

Can you provide some evidence that the Pierce Elevated corridor was "vibrant" in the early 1960s before the Pierce Elevated was built in the mid-1960s? Unfortunately I don't have photos readily available, but my recollection from photos is that it was mostly parking lots and lower tier commerical establishments. If any part of downtown was vibrant it was the core of downtown along Main Street where retail still existed. Freedmans Town was cleared out by Allen Parkway Village long before the freeway came through. If freeways are so destructive, can you explain how Midtown has boomed and flourished as little as one block from the freeway? Can you explain why apartments are being built directly adjacent to the freeway near Dallas Street? Your response is typical of anti-freeway interests - always make freeways the scapegoat for urban problems, always claim freeways destroy (or in your case "ripped apart"), even if the facts are otherwise.

More lanes are needed, and express lanes are certainly one way to get those lanes. One problem is the placement of the columns to support the elevated express lanes. The lack of an interior shoulder on the Pierce Elevated rules out that option, so the elevated structure would basically need to span the entire Pierce Elevated. A likely bigger problem would be objections from anti-freeway interests to a taller elevated structure. If opposition could be overcome, an upper deck with elevated express lanes is likely the least expensive and surely the least disruptive option to add capacity.

Once the idea of a downtown "roundabout" is studied it will be dismissed very quickly. First, it makes no sense to send one direction of Interstate 10 traffic around downtown. Interstate 10 will need to remain 2-way. Second, you are introducing a substantially longer distance to travel for many vehicles, which in itself translates to more traffic. The shortest path is normally more efficient. If the Pierce Elevated and US 59 Chartres Elevated are one way, the north side of the loop (Interstate 10) will need to be made much wider, at least double its current number of lanes, to handle the US 59 and IH 45 traffic. This would be costly - I'm not sure if it is feasible. The cost of reconfiguring the interchanges, particularly at US 59/IH45 will be high. Since that interchange is old and will near the end of its life in 10-20 years, that may not be an issue. But the US 59/IH 10 interchange will also need major work and that interchange is about 9 years old. Also, keep in mind that the main benefit of one-way streets (such as downtown streets) is to make turning movements much more efficient (no cycle time for left turns) and eliminate crossing traffic. These benefits don't exist for a freeway since freeways are already limited-access. If political leaders want to solve the problem they're going to have to widen the two biggest bottlenecks downtown: the Pierce Elevated and US 59 between Spur 527 and SH 288, and ensure proper lane balance for the new lanes. I think it is feasible to widen the Pierce Elevated - the 1960s-era 2016 Main and St. Josephs building could be acquired for a feasible cost. It will take some political leadership to move any improvments forward, and I see lack of leadership as more of a problem than the cost of property acquisition.

I'm surprised that traffic on the BW8 ship channel bridge can warrant the new span. It definitely would be nice to have a roomier highway instead of the clausterphobic existing span. I'm disappointed to see nothing planned on the Westpark Tollway. Since Metro has no plans to use their right-of-way strip west of the Hillcroft transit center, I was envisioning the possibility of widening the tollway between SH6 and BW8 and adding better connections at BW8.

I don't think the Hempstead Tollway was ever considered for a PPP, and with HCTRA participation in the main freeway project it is definitely less likely since there is limited demand for pricely toll service. My first impression is that the Hempstead Tollway would not be highly attractive to private interests. However, I would prefer to see a more conventional funding approach to highway improvement. With the PPPs, the private entity collects tolls for the next 50 years - which for most people reading this will be longer than the rest of their lives. Tolls will be high and remain so forever, with little or no public influence in the tolling policy. I kind of see PPPs as a desperate last resort. DFW is desperate due the sheer number of multi-$billion freeway projects that need to be done. However, I can see more regions becoming desperate - such as Atlanta after the transportation tax was crushed by voters last week.

Patronage of the Fort Bend Parkway is very low and well below its 2008 peak, according to data in the HCTRA FY 2011 annual report. (Although FY 2012 ended in February, the 2012 report is not yet online.) https://www.hctra.org/file_download/171/TollRoad_FY2011.pdf See pages 43 and 47. The 3,121,672 transactions in FY 2011 is about 8500 vehicles per day. There were 3,645,128 transactions in FY 2008 and patronage declined each year afterward. For comparison, the busiest section of toll road in the HCTRA system (Sam Houston North) had 68,303,640 transactions, or about 187,000 vehicles per day. Obviously the Fort Bend Parkway is not doing much to relieve traffic on the southwest side. I don't know the latest status of the connection between US 90A and the West Loop, but my understanding is that it is indefinitely deferred but not dead. There are no plans to move forward with it anytime soon. As for the general traffic situation on the southwest side, there's really nothing in the works to provide relief or added capacity. Improvements to the US 59 south/Loop 610 interchange are under study, other than that I'm not aware of anything else in the pipeline. Of course the existing section of the Grand Parkway is being upgraded with tolled overpasses and the southwest section (US 59 to SH 288) will probably move forward eventually. But that's it. For the next 10 years most available funds will go to the US 290 Northwest Freeway. The toll road system expansion will be on the Grand Parkway from US 290 to US 59 N, extending SH 249 as a toll road, and likely the Hardy Toll Road downtown connector. There will be a few smaller jobs, like the Gulf Freeway expansion at Clear Lake City. And that's it for the next 10 years. So the situation is looking grim right now for highway infrastructure keeping up with population and economic growth. There will need to be some changes in political priorities for the grim funding situation to change. Dallas-Fort Worth is using public-private partnerships to fund many of its highway expansions (all new lanes privately funded and heavily tolled). There are really only two, maybe three, opportunities for that in Houston: Grand Parkway F and G (which is in the PPP proposal phase), North Freeway between downtown and Beltway 8 (still in preliminary study, not imminent), and (maybe) the SH 288 toll lanes. So I don't see PPPs coming to the rescue.

No, it is not the wave of the future. There may be a few freeway removals in the future that will be hyped by anti-freeway interests, but the removals will remain rare events. Anti-freeway interests over-publicized the very few freeway removals which have occurred in the United States and always neglect to mention that ALL existing removals were due to special circumstances and ALL were dead-end freeways (making them non-critical from a transportation perspective). Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco: a dead-end freeway, damaged by 1989 earthquake Central Freeway in San Francisco: a dead-end freeway, damaged by 1989 earthquake, very short section removed West Side Freeway in New York City: a dead end freeway, was crumbling and needed rebuilding or demolition (removed in 1970s) Park East Freeway in Milwaukee: a 1-mile-long dead end freeway due to the cancelation of its connecting segment. Removed in 2003 Harbor Drive Freeway in Portland: a dead-end freeway, became obsolete when nearby interstates were completed, closed 1974 That averages out to about 1 freeway removal every decade. We will probably see something similar in the following decades, or we could see less. This is not a wave of the future, it is just a consequence of natural disasters, plans gone awry and facility obsolescence.

That map you point to was made about 12 years ago, so it is out of date. The "Bay City Freeway" is now mostly built as the Fort Bend Parkway and the missing section could be built by HCTRA. However, traffic on the Fort Bend Parkway is very low (see https://www.hctra.org/file_download/171/TollRoad_FY2011.pdf) so I don't see it as a pressing need. The Harrisburg Freeway is permanently dead, and attemping to resurrect it would not make sense since there are much larger problems elsewhere and the Harrisburg corridor cannot justify the resources. I believe Fairmont Parkway was studied by HCTRA and rejected as non-feasible via toll funding. I think the Red Bluff tollway could still be built if it becomes financially feasible via tolls. As for SH 35 south of BW 8, I don't know its latest status but it could be built as a toll road if feasible. Here's what is feasible and needs to be done 1. Complete the US 290 Northwest Freeway expansion. This is partially under construction and only partially funded right now. Funding needs to be found for the complete project. 2. Expand IH 45 North Freeway from downtown to BW 8. This is under study. Will cost a couple billion and will likely be a public-private partnership. 3. Proceed with sections F and G of the Grand Parkway as planned, although it will not fix any problems in Houston. 4. Proceed with the Hardy Toll Road downtown extension, a project which has been in the planning phase for a very long time. 5. Proceed with the planned SH 288 South Freeway toll lanes 6. Major widenings of other freeways in Houston are probably not feasible due to lack of right-of-way, and insufficient and declining funding. So the next best step is bottleneck elimination a. Add lanes to downtown freeways to eliminate bottlenecks, especially US 59 south of downtown and the Pierce elevated. Redesign connections where feasible, for example US 59 northbound to IH 45 southbound. b. Rebuild the interchange at U59 Southwest Freeway and Loop 610. Currently under study by TxDOT. c. Add lanes to freeways where feasible and needed. Possible locations: South Loop, West Loop through Bellaire, North Loop between US 290 and IH 45 Due to lack of funding for conventional (non-tolled) freeway improvements, the objective will be maximum bang for the buck, which makes bottleneck elimination the likely wave of the future.

Bell connectors would normally refer to connections on a trumpet-style interchange, which is rarely used in Texas and not normally used in urban areas. See the link below and find the word "bell". http://dot.state.il.us/desenv/BDE%20Manual/BDE/pdf/Chapter%2037%20Interchanges.pdf But I don't see how a trumpet interchange will fit in the space available without right-of-way acquisition and displacements. I'm guessing eastbound traffic on IH 610 would have the smooth curving transition to northbound Cambridge. Southbound Cambridge to eastbound IH 610 would probably not have a connection.

If you look at a document posted for the June 22 Transportation Policy Council meeting, the text "At Texas Medical Center via MacGregor Way" has been striked out and replaced with text "SH 288 To Texas Medical Center" http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2012/06-jun/docs/ITEM%2006%20--%20Attachment%20A1.Candidate%20Projects%20for%20$2Billion%20-%206-20-12.pdf So it appears the MacGregor alignment is moribund or dead, but it is unclear what the "plan B" may be. The project appears to be alive and well since the Texas Transportation Commission officially authorized $18 million in funding on June 28 for SH 288 "Connector to Texas Medical Center". Curiously, the from-to limits are blank. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf The Commission also funded an overpass for Cambridge Street over Loop 610: "Extend Cambridge Street over IH 610 with bell connectors", $21.9 million

This item from the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission provides a summary http://www.txdot.gov...rs/apr26/4b.pdf So, it will be official that the toll lanes will be on US 290. The Hempstead Tollway is deferred and could be built in a future phase.. It is unclear to me if Harris County is going to receive the revenue from the toll collection on the toll lanes, or just collect the tolls. Since Harris County is contributing $400 million, it seems likely that Harris County will retain the revenue.

The reports I have read say the the DFW hub will remain substantially or totally intact, whatever happens. In the case of a merger with US Airways, the report I read stated that the DFW hub remains and the headquarters would be in DFW (technically Fort Worth, I believe, where AMR is currently officed.) When AA presented its original restructuring plan, it called for long-term growth at their hubs by up to 20%. In the short term there could be some shrinkage. In the case of a US Airways merger, there would be some optimization with the Phoenix hub. But changes in volume would likely be minimal either way. So, press reports suggest that the impact on the DFW hub will be minimal, which means the impact on IAH will be negligible.

First of all, if you want to take away Houston's general mobility funds derived from the 1-cent Metro sales tax, you need to say which taxes should be increased to make up for the shortfall or which government services should be cut. These would be substantial tax increases or service cuts. Second, the idea that the general mobility funds actually go toward new road construction or repair is mostly false. What happens is that the general mobility funds do go into a road construction/maintenance account, but the general revenue which previously funded road construction is diverted elsewhere. So in effect, the mobility money is diverted to law enforcment or other fixed costs (like pensions), so the net increase to roads is typically low. I remember reading an article about this practice many years ago and unfortunately I can't recover it. Other cities receiving general mobilty funds do the same thing. If general mobility funds go away, taxes must be raised or law enforcment must be cut. Third, the condition of Houston's streets is generally horrible. Sure, you can find some decent or newly-rebuilt streets, but in southwest Houston the condition is an embarrasment. We need more street maintenance and reconstruction, not less. Fourth, .75 cent going to transit is a substantial tax and a substantial river of money. Looking out for the interests of taxpayers, I think Metro has nothing to complain about with that revenue stream.

No, that's not what I suggested. The plans which are posted on the web site (http://my290.com/) show no HOV or toll lanes on US 290. The toll lanes are on the proposed Hempstead Tollway. My interpretation of the speaker's comments is that two of the planned new free lanes on US 290 will be converted to HOV/Toll lanes and the Hempstead Tollway is canceled. That means the net gain of free, general-purpose main lanes on US 290 is generally one in each direction rather than two. So there would typically be four free lanes in each direction. You can view his comments on the video and make your own conclusions.

I just viewed the online video of today's Texas Transportation Commission meeting. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/media/mar29.htm At 42 minutes a status update is provided for the US 290 project and a pending Memorandum of Understanding between TxDOT and Harris County. The speaker talks about a 2-to-3 lane reversible toll facility for US 290 and adding one untolled lane in each direction from Loop 610 to SH 99 (Grand Parkway). My interpretation of his statement is that the Hempstead Tollway is cancelled and instead two lanes previously planned to be free lanes on US 290 will be converted into tolled/HOV lanes. Has anyone heard about this, or can anyone confirm this? The speaker also talked about the SH 288 toll lanes and speaks about a two-lane reversible facility. Previous recommendation was for a four-lane tolled facility with two lanes each way. So it sounds like the project has been downsized.

An airport station makes no sense for high speed service between Houston and Dallas because both Houston and DFW are major airline hubs. After all, who wants to take a train to DFW when you can get a non-stop to virtually all the same locations from Bush or Hobby? Same logic holds true for DFW dwellers. Now, the situation is totally different for a high-speed track along the Interstate 35 corridor serving San Antonio, Austin, Waco and the other cities (San Marcos, Temple, New Braunfels). Neither Austin nor San Antonio are hubs, and a large percentage of travelers from those cities are already connecting through Bush or DFW. A fast train straight into DFW would be very attractive to those folks. Any true high-speed rail is unlikely to actually happen anywhere and Houston-Austin or Houston-San Antonio is most unlikely, so I don't think there's any point in contemplating high-speed service from Austin or San Antonio into Bush.

I say there should be zero stops between Houston and Dallas. The stops will increase the trip time, and it will be critical to make the trip as short as possible (ie top speed all the way) to attract riders. Also, there is no city between Houston and Dallas that would have decent patronage. Huntsville seems like the only possibility. Forget about suburban south Dallas - it's not a market either. The recommended alignment may follow US 290 to the northwest and in that case Bryan/College Station could be on the path. So the stops would be: central Houston, one suburban north Houston stop (maybe Woodlands) and central Dallas. Of course, due to cost and ridership issues they will probably recommend using existing tracks with much lower speeds. In that case the train will be serving a different market (not the premium and business markets) and more stops could be accommodated.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/profserv/notice/83-2SDP5002.htm This is burning up money allocated by the federal government for high speed rail. It looks like a comprehensive study and we can expect to see public meetings in the next couple years. I don't think high speed rail can come anywhere close to being economically viable, but I will be interested to see the recommended alignment and cost estimates. The minimum top speed of 150mph will surely necessitate new track, most likely on new alignments (rather than exclusively following existing corridors.) That will drive up the cost - I'm guessing a minimum of $10 billion.

I believe it is looking northwest along Bellaire Boulevard just west of intersection with US 59. The roadway in the photo is the original westbound lanes of Bellaire. Bellaire had a wide median before it was expanded in the early 1980s, and the design of the road and the median crossover is consistent with a city street (not the US 59 feeder roads). That photo is from the Houston Chronicle archives, so if JR Gonzales does a report on Sharpstown Mall it will almost certainly include the image.

Actually, the Trinity Waterway barge canal to DFW was still very much alive in the late 1960s. The beginning of the end for the barge canal was March 1973 when Dallas County voters rejected a property tax increase to pay for their $150 million share of the estimated $1.6 billion project. Of course, it would have cost far more than $1.6 billion. The project was on life support but not dead after 1973. In March 1977 the Army Corps of Engineers recommended killing the project. There were still some politicians who tried to keep it alive, but it was basically dead in 1977. What's interesting is the 75-foot clearance of the original 1955 I-10 bridge. The plan to extend the canal to DFW received a Corps recommendation in 1962. In the DFW area, bridges built prior to 1962 were not built to accommodate the canal. The only high-clearance and long-span bridges over the Trinity (anticipating the barge canal) were built in the early 1970s. Those bridges have a 52-foot vertical clearance. So I'm wondering what was actually envisioned for that section of the Trinity in the early 1950s when the I-10 bridge was built. Obviously a canal, but I'm wondering how far upstream it went and why it had a 75-foot clearance.

Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. It's certainly an interesting question, and I'm curious to know the policy.

The usual reason for the omission of ramps is that the traffic movements are low-volume and can't justify the ramps. Funding limitations could also be a reason. The good news is that plans are in the works to add the missing connection ramps. http://dot.state.tx.us/project_information.../ih45_ih610.htm