ig2ba

As this section of the Grand Parkway opens, keep in mind what we've been told.  Nobody will use it... nobody lives out there... nobody works out there... nobody will use it as an alternative to 290.  ;-)

I'll probably drive it before 2013 ends and then less than once per year thereafter, but I'm not the average driver. I could see people using it more now than under TxDOT's projections since 290 is under construction and will be under construction for the next decade - this would especially be the case for the outlet mall visitors and those going from SW and West Houston to College Station.

Who really knows what the ridership will be... The more data the better. We shall see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-gzNi6MRwI

http://blog.chron.com/carsandtrucks/2013/12/corvette-hits-200-mph-on-texas-tollway/

What a way to christen this new highway! Since Segment E and the North Line extension are opening on or around the same day, it almost seems like a competition. Some people might even see it as a rail vs. road competition of sorts. I wonder what Metro could do to match the publicity and the cool factor of this.

http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/28300-camp-strake-development/?p=426868

 

interestingly enough, there have been at least three people who do not know one another with the same or similar information. i do not intend to suggest that chevron would cancel the tower.  i do believe there are other chevron companies that could be behind the rumors.  at minimum, a chevron company most likely placed a bid on the camp strake property and as of yet, a large portion of the plans for the property have not yet been announced by the new owner.  essentially, everyone may be right, at least a little bit.

 

i'm positive the tower is a done deal.  also, based on my source (who sounds a lot like ferz source), an energy company could be in the works for the development at camp strake in conjunction with the new owners.

Chevron also owns a six-story building on the southeast corner of Briarpark and Westpark. It houses a significant contingent of Chevron Energy Technology Company (ETC) (internal consultants, researchers, some PhD types) and research activities of Chevron Technology Ventures, who are looking into alternative energy and other things which require laboratory space. This laboratory space will NEVER be moved downtown because of fire safety concerns, corporate espionage concerns, chemical inventories required, and high square footage requirements for their experiments (it's cheaper in the burbs). The Briarpark building also houses a training center including the now defunct Drilling Training Center which was a joint venture with BP. (I think we can all understand why they went their separate ways, especially on something pertaining to drilling.) 

Last I heard, Chevron employees visiting for training were parking at nearby businesses, which leads me to believe that they are already space-limited at the Briarpark building, but I have no way to confirm this is the reason for off-site parking. It would make sense since some California ETC people have relocated from here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.911166,+-122.355341&hl=en&sll=30.770159,-100.101929&sspn=3.737711,4.916382&t=m&z=17) to the Briarpark building.

If space is a constraint for research and for training, it might make sense to swap Briarpark for Camp Strake, but not downtown for Camp Strake.

If true, this would be news to the executives at chevron. You are also forgetting that that they purchased the parking garage next to the current tower on Louisiana in the last 24 months for future expansion. And of course that is to say nothing of the announcement to all employees about the tower. Moving north would go against absolutely every action chevron has taken in the past. That said, if some guy in Conroe said they are moving there, it is probably happening. . . .

I.

You're right. As tl;dr as my list was, I forgot that they also purchased this.

Do you guys realize how improbable it is that Chevron would cancel this tower and move all of their Houston employees to Conroe?

A few things to keep in mind:

• This tower is the culmination of a long trend of consolidation into Downtown. Not only downtown, but all on contiguous blocks. Since the ChevronTexaco became Chevron, here are some of the moves:

All employees from 11111 Wilcrest were moved downtown.

All employees from a building in Sugar Land (forget the address) were moved downtown.

All employees from the Texaco building, a namesake of the company were moved to their current location.

All employees from the Chevron building, the namesake of the company were moved to their current location.

Some employees from Bellaire now work in downtown.

Some functions from their Covington, LA office were reassigned to employees in downtown Houston.

There have been at least two sets of moves involving San Ramon and Richmond, CA employees moving to downtown Houston.

Contrast that with Exxon, which was scattered all over the city to begin with, and needed a consolidated campus.

• Chevron bought the YMCA property.
• Chevron already got the tax rebates for building.
• Chevron supervised the demolition of the YMCA. There are Chevron employees who told me he always felt like he was "in a fishbowl" because other Chevron employees could do "Safety Observations" at any time on the demolition work.
• Chevron employees have talked about the plans for supervising the construction.
• We all knew - all HAIFers, all Chevron employees, all architecture nuts outside Houston, etc. - that Chevron was going to build something at that site LONG before they announced it on July 3, 2013. For them to finallly announce it publicly and then cancel it a few months later, and 6 months from the start of construction ... that doesn't really make sense. Chevron and most large energy companies are very afraid of negative publicity, which a cancellation would cause. Internally even, I think this would piss off a lot of employees who recently bought a house somewhere other than Huntsville or Conroe, and for no other reason than because they could (and not out of necessity like Exxon).
• Chevron is not exactly the best in the industry at project execution in terms of being on time in schedule. PMI information on projects backs this up. A year-long delay is not that rare. The Escravos GTL, IIRC, was delayed more than 5 years.
• Most large public energy companies have requirements for capital projects to consider project alternatives which are sufficiently unique but also doable. The fact that some other location was considered at one point in time does not mean it is a serious alternative now, or that it ever really was.

While not impossible for Chevron to cancel, it seems very unlikely.

if the parkway plan is implemented 45 will be rerouted along 59 and 10 so no, 100,000+ cars will not be using the parkway each day.

It's probably a safe assumption that 40-50,000 vehicles per day would use a parkway in this location, depending on # of lanes, # of intersections, and how feeder streets connect to it. For a comparison, Memorial Drive sees around 40k/day, and Allen Parkway sees about 30k/day.

I also doubt the 60-80 mph hour mentioned earlier. I can't think of any parkway that sees traffic with these average speeds.  If designed as a parkway, 50 mph is probably a safe assumption. Memorial Drive normally moves at 50-60 mph (speed limit is 50 mph), and Allen Parkway moves at 40-50 mph (speed limit is 40 mph). If it were made more "street-like", it would probably move just as fast. (South Main, where it is 5 lanes each way, has a speed limit of 40 mph).

Now, 45,000 vpd and 50 mph. Does that still sound more pedestrian friendly to anyone compared to the current Pierce Street? Does it sound driver-friendly to have to wait 45 seconds for the pedestrian walk signal?

The more accurate question is "Does 45 have enough traffic to justify this?" I say yes. The Pierce Elevated is always backed up, Pearland Parkway is often crowded and needs a freeway at least going to Interstate 45 for a more direct route to Houston, and 288 is getting pretty packed as well. Getting 35 up to downtown Houston would also give a more direct route to Corpus Christi.

It gives ANOTHER route to Corpus Christi, but not a quicker or more direct one. Plus, the traffic on 59 can't even justify a freeway west of Rosenberg, so I don't see how a freeway even further east would be necessary for this purpose. And, I-69 will be built as a freeway on 59 in the coming years, further reducing the need for a freeway alternative to Corpus.

There may be a lot of good reasons to build the Alvin Freeway, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

It won't move at 60-80 mph if it has to keep stopping for lights.

 

Does 35 have the traffic justify this? Even so, the idea of the Alvin Freeway died a long time ago.

Do you have a link showing that it was cancelled? I'm just curious. TxDOT hosted a public meeting about it in 2007 for the long-term plan. I clearly remember one alternative was to follow Spur 5 south along Mykawa crossing 610, and meeting with 35 north of Pearland. Another alternative was to widen 288 more, widen BW 8 between 288 and FM 865 (Cullen), and then a freeway would go south from there and join TX 35 south of Pearland. So depending on what you consider a long time ago...

From what I heard, it was just put to the back of the project queue, as in not starting construction until at least 2025. Which makes sense. There are a dozen more pressing transportation issues than the Alvin Freeway. A cancellation is a different matter though. Even the freeway extension of South Post Oak has been delayed indefinitely, but not yet cancelled.

Allen Parkway has a light at Taft. Also Memorial eventually has a lot of lights once you pass Waugh westward.

So ... no examples then (there is no crosswalk at Taft). It was more of a rhetorical question anyway, since we already know there are no parkways with a 40-45 second pedestrian signal, but thanks for playing! 

If you are given enough time to cross I don't think it's that big of an issue.

40 seconds at each crosswalk? I don't know of anything that could be called a parkway which regularly stops traffic for 40-45 seconds.

Please let us know if you have such an example.

Part of the problem, I think is the the fact that the Pierce Elevated has too much traffic. The traffic, especially in rush times, undoubtedly causes more noise and traffic. My solution is to keep the Pierce Elevated but remove the traffic. Basically, in tamdem with actually building out TX-35 (Spur 5) to its full potential, is to extend it over Interstate 45 and up to the US-59 interchange, abandoning and replacing the railroad ROW east of EaDo. There will be new ramps connecting Interstate 45 to the highway (where 45 and 10 exit the part where they run parallel to each other). Signage directs through traffic to take the new 35 ramps and bypass downtown entirely. You'll still use the Pierce Elevated to access Allen Pkwy. and 288.

Putting aside the costs of building an entirely new (elevated?) freeway in the city core, this plan assumes that the railroad ROW would be easy to obtain. I can attest that this is a heavily used rail corridor, and without adequate rail infrastructure in place near burgeoning West Texas, Eagle Ford, and North Dakota oil fields, and with the upcoming Panama Canal expansion, it is very likely to see even more freight rail traffic in the future.

That and the ROW is about 90 feet wide for half of this segment. That would get you a 2x2 freeway, like Westpark.

Not that I wouldn't want to see a traffic simulation for your proposal, but it's far cheaper to use existing ROW or just widen it slightly than to acquire an entirely new area.

intereesting, the last proposals i saw showed a 6 lane parkway for Pierce Street, and the stretch of 59 past GRB being tunneled, at least through Commerce Street. do you have a link to the new proposals?

Sorry, I don't. I saw these at the November 19th meeting held by TxDOT. The 5 lanes each way did not appear to be turn lanes. But who really knows until the design is finalized and ready for construction.

I was commenting on a 10 lane configuration of the parkway, but in my mind, a 6-lane parkway would still be less pedestrian friendly than the current state, though not as bad as a ten-laner.

i wouldnt mind downtown and midtown being seamlessly connected either. in fact, id prefer it. hopefully that is what will happen when TXDot makes up their minds about how to reroute traffic around downtown (assuming they go with the rerouting 45 along 59 and 10 idea) and turn pierce elevated into a much narrower, ground level blvd. (would that scenario be to just widen Pierce Street where it is now, not having the blvd following under the old 45 path? if so that would allow for development along the half block lots that will be left over when pierce elevated is gone)

Where it matters to pedestrians - you know, at ground level - the parkway along Pierce would be 10 lanes instead of the current 5 lane Pierce Street. So wider, not narrower.

This is according to TxDOT's latest drawings.

Much of this discussion is now even more theoretical than it was before. TxDOT has narrowed the 12 alternatives to 3. Only one of the alternatives involves removing the Pierce Elevated. To me, this alternative looks worse than all the others for:

• Drivers on freeways - Removal of 6 freeway lanes for an already lane-imbalanced downtown freeway system
• EaDo residents - U.S. 59 would be significantly widened, about 600 feet wide near Jefferson, and at least 300 feet wide everywhere else. To people who refuse to walk under elevated thingies, this would clearly be bad. At any rate, it makes the barrier larger between Downtown and a growing area.
• EaDo business owners - several businesses will be destroyed through eminent domain including one of the last remnants of the old Chinatown - Kim Son. The project alternative of adding 1 more lane (each way) to the Pierce Elevated requires no demolition of businesses or residences.
• Drivers driving between Midtown and Downtown - It appears that they would close down a few of the north streets. Not sure which ones yet, but maybe Travis/Milam and east of San Jacinto. It would disrupt the grid system - which is important in every major city to distribute traffic of all modes.
• Pedestrians between Midtown and Downtown - Instead of a 5 lane street to traverse, the 'Pierce Parkway' that will replace I-45 is 10 lanes, and the average speed of cars there would likely be higher than on other downtown streets. I frequently walk throughout downtown and under the Pierce either day or night. The one-way 5 lane streets are not intimidating to me, but I have to say that the thought of crossing a South Main street or a 10 lane Memorial Drive might just convince me to go elsewhere for lunch. It certainly would be more of a barrier than the current Pierce Street.
• Bicyclists between Midtown and Downtown - Because of the street closures (see above), bicyclists would have to use busier streets, busier than even now, since motorists have been redirected to these streets. Currently, it is a much easier and safer bike ride from Downtown to the Museum District using a street like LaBranch instead of Fannin. Not only would bikers lose the ability to use some of the quieter North-South streets, they'd have to cross a 10-lane high speed Pierce Parkway instead of the current 5-lane 30 mph road.

Most commonly, gentrification happens in older residential areas. Less commonly, it’s former industrial areas without any Superfund sites, though there are examples of this throughout Houston.

But, I’m curious why the new light rail line is being expected to gentrify an area currently used as an industrial area, and which was cleared of most of the old residences more than a decade ago. This expectation is absurd since the most successful section of Houston’s light rail system (both current and future) is (and will continue to be) the current Red Line, and this has failed to spur redevelopment more than a few blocks on either side.

Plus, with the exception of St. Arnold’s, there are no attractions whatsoever to anchor redevelopment. Oh, plus there are tank farms. Those should attract yuppies to the area to buy townhomes like moths to a flame.

...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.

Off? Yes, but it'd be great if Allen Parkway wasn't a left exit.

On? Yes, but only in the I-45 NB direction. The NB entrance is much better because it's essentially onto a feeder road.

The on-ramp to I-45 SB, OTOH, is the most dangerous freeway entrance in the Houston area, more than even the one on Spur 527. I'm not sure how many people go from EB Allen Parkway to the Gulf Freeway, but there can't be too many.

The Dallas Street on-ramp could be improved with a longer merge lane at relatively small cost. It does service the west side of downtown where most skyscrapers are, so it's not like it's unused. With the on-ramp from Allen Parkway closed, I'm sure it would be safer.

TXDOT is talking about making a rail from San Antonio to Monterrey but who knows how serious that is

I would LOVE to see the ridership numbers on this. Do they expect more riders than a Dallas-Houston line (since fewer Mexicans have cars), or would it be abysmally low because of border delays, terrorism fears, smaller cities, etc.?

I would think that it could just be a Monterrey to Laredo or Monterrey to McAllen line since so much trade is done on the border.

I will admit, this is getting worse. However, if they want to shove highway expansion down our throats, why not just throw, say a rail line as well a la BART? Why does it have to be roads and nothing else? That's the issue.

The alternative of adding one lane each way to I-45 in downtown seems the least costly way to get people past downtown than any of the others presented. It boggles my mind that the vast majority of traffic on the Pierce Elevated is not originating from downtown, but apparently there are tons of people going from Pasadena to the Memorial Villages or League City to the Heights or Galveston to Greenspoint, or wherever the heck they go. Regardless, these are just the facts - that most people aren't going to the same place.

Rail needs its own funding source at the state level. I don't know how that's going to happen, but I don't see another way. TxDOT is already underfunded because of the low gas tax, and I think very few people will agree to increase the gas tax or transfer some of this money to transit.

^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.

From my previous post: "The first three factors are paramount [cost, performance, safety], as they should be, and that is why a majority of public comments favoring one project alternative holds little weight."

I'm not sure who you're replying to about the all SB I-45 and all NB 59. I never stated that I was in favor of that. In fact, I stated that I wasn't in favor of it. Hope it was someone else.

Regarding your belief about "zero sum game", I think it's very defeatist to think that NO benefit can come from adding one lane each way (to take just one of the alternative for the sake of example).

We have to be realistic: there will still be slow traffic at rush hour every workday, though a shorter daily congestion period would be great. What I hope it solves is the traffic jams essentially every Saturday at 10am or 1pm or 3 pm on SB I-45. Or the 10:30pm traffic I experienced last week going from 288 NB to I-45. Lanes going to both the NB and SB I-45 were stopped, and without any accident anywhere nearby.

So what do you say when the majority of the comments favor an option and it's still removed, like the tunnel option here? Does the people's voice not matter then, because TXDOT is living in an alternate, antiquated reality? Sorry that's unacceptable to me.

Did I not make that clear earlier? For the reasons I listed earlier, public comment is not the sole factor in selecting a project alternative, nor should it be.

If you want to change this, stage a coup, install your own Congress, Supremes, make yourself the Prez, and rewrite the Constitution.

Good thing Jane Jacobs didn't listen to you, otherwise we would have two freeways plowing through lower Manhattan. People have power if they are organized enough. The east end blocked 225 from going to downtown.

It would be better if you could pause before your pre-packaged rants and read the posts, specifically:

"...More often, certain project alternatives are removed (as opposed to chosen as the preferred alternative) as a result of public comments. One example is the recent TxDOT plan to only take ROW at major intersections for widening I-45 between I-10 and I-610. ..."

What if 51% of Houstonians voted "Yes" on a referendum to put every freeway in a tunnel, while preserving the same number of lanes, but didn't provide for any funding mechanism for the project like an increase in taxes. Should that be implemented? Is it even possible?

Or on the rail side, what if voters approved the construction of 20 different subway lines in Houston to be built within the next 5 years? Is that feasible or possible? Wouldn't it also have effects on the community?

I've been thinking...  The best solution is to just not do anything with the existing Pierce.  Leave it be.  Saves money, and the Dot can build new lanes on 59/69 and I-10 that can act as Hot Lanes or something else to mitigate the nightmare that will be replacing Pierce with anything.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Just because a congestion problem won't disappear doesn't mean there shouldn't be projects to improve mobility - this goes for any mode of transportation, not just roads.

Traffic is going to ALWAYS be bad in a city with 6 million people.  Houston's downtown loops will ALWAYS have a lot of cars on them.  There is never going to be a 100% solution to end that congestion.  Placing 8 lane single route freeways around town will not change that.  People will still cause bottlenecks and worse trying to merge from the far left lane to the far right lane to make it onto 59/69 etc.

That's one reason I had hoped they wouldn't make 45 and 59 one-way. That, and one accident snarls even a wide freeway more than it does 2 smaller freeways.

A freeway is not always in need of upgrades.  Working on the surface streets around would have been a solution a long time ago, but that's probably out of the question now?

I personally use the surface streets more than the freeways (miles and days per year) and would love to see them upgraded, but as I understand it, the vast majority of streets are COH's responsibility and not TxDOT's. Separate budgets.

There seems to be a belief among some here we live in a direct democracy and not a representative republic. In our system, the executive branch is responsible for various agencies which carry out the will of the people, as interpreted by the executive, in line with certain laws. These laws lay out the boundaries of authority for each agency, the process for implementing a project, and the aspects which much be considered for each project. TxDOT, which will receive federal money for any large they do, must evaluate impacts including:

-cost (since it is taxpayer money being used)

-performance (like Level Of Service for road projects)

-safety

-environment

-accessibility

-public comments

-etc.

The first three factors are paramount, as they should be, and that is why a majority of public comments favoring one project alternative holds little weight. More often, certain project alternatives are removed (as opposed to chosen as the preferred alternative) as a result of public comments. One example is the recent TxDOT plan to only take ROW at major intersections for widening I-45 between I-10 and I-610. However, it isn't and shouldn't be the main factor in picking the final alternative.

Who said anything about narrowing them down to 3 lanes? Beside the boulevard idea. They would obviously have to expand the ROW along 59 and 10 to accommodate for the i45 thru lanes.

There have been proposals to shift the row of i10 further north through the wider/straighter path of the Hardy Yards site. That could take care of the 10 portion. As I stated earlier 59 is already submerged at the southern end of downtown so no work is needed besides additional lanes. They may have to remove Chartres street to expand 59/45 row, or tunnel under/along Chartres too.

I do agree it would create traffic while being constructed but the thru traffic can be diverted around 610, and IMO the temporary traffic headaches would be worth it.

Yes, the dead-end to a boulevard at downtown is a terrible idea. Terrible.

However, I'm also skeptical about putting all of the extra traffic on I-10 and 59. Just to keep what we already have, in terms of lane count, we would need to make 59 past downtown 7 lanes each way, plus probably a lane for exits/entrances in each direction. Minimum, you'd need 230 feet of ROW to meet current design standards. Short of completely eliminating Chartes AND taking 30 feet of private property from at least Polk to Ruiz, including the newish apartment buildings between Texas and Capitol, you couldn't submerge this many lanes. This would force all Astros or Dynamo traffic onto what is currently a 2-lane street. And some regular commuters as well.

Sure, you could in theory put Chartes on top of the submerged 59, but this would increase the cost for any highway. The costs would increase that much more for an uninterrupted span of 7 lanes plus shoulders.

Plus, keep in mind that one large freeway is much more likely to be affected by congeston than several smaller ones.

As I've mentioned before, I think that it's a nice idea, I'm just not sure that I would put it high enough to justify the required funding.  For example, I'd prefer to see funding provide to complete the Buffalo Bayou Master Plan and to complete the proposed network of hike/bike trails along the bayous instead.  I think that both of those projects would have a much bigger positive impact on the quality of life around the city than burying the Pierce elevated.

I too think that the Pierce could (should) be put underground, but when I see the state's transportation funding shortfall, I think that we wouldn't get around to this until well after 2030. (And that's if it is a reasonable proposal (turning it into a dead-end boulevard in downtown, as was mentioned earlier does not count as a serious proposal)). Most of us will be dead or retired in a different city by then.