ig2ba

Nice strawman argument. People also have a right to troll. And others have a right to disregard their opinions.

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.

I'm interested why you think no city needs a 10 lane freeway. Do some cities need 8-lane freeways? Or do you think 6 lanes is the minimum? Or 4? Or a "super two"? Where is the desired cutoff width for you, and why? What about a 10 lane road (like South Main)? Is that needed? If not, what's your maximum? Is your cutoff for # of lanes different for freeways than for freeways? More than 30 metro areas in the United States have some freeways or portions of a freeway that are 10 lanes wide. Do you think every single one of them has made a mistake? Including even transit-friendly cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and New York?

How does that induced demand theory work in Detroit? Or Buffalo? Or even in this fair city? The Fort Bend Parkway Parkway, opened a decade ago, is the second-emptiest freeway in the Houston area, with less than 10,000 vehicles per day. Segment I-2 of the Grand Parkway opened 5 years ago. It is still the emptiest freeway in Houston, with no sign of any traffic in the near- or mid-term. By the induced demand theory, these roads should be experiencing much more traffic, with subdivisions and strip malls being built. But we don't. There are others, even in this growing city, that have not seen/will not see daily traffic in their first two decades of existence.- Crosby Freeway, Hardy Toll Road, FM 1764. What's the theory on them? Induced demand is already understood by everybody except car-haters to mean "pent-up demand", where the expansion was needed for years, and only after it is constructed do you see an increase in veh/day.

Zero chance of this happening in Dallas. Zero.

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?

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. 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. 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.

This is just an inexpensive way to get attention by proposing something wild but completely impractical - a "troll idea" if you will, much like someone HAIF does over and over again.

I know people who have that same feeling when they come to Houston. Especially those from other countries. They've never seen freeways anything like ours before.

Interesting idea. If the Jack in the Box were to be kept, I think it would have to have only one exit and one entrance, which it currently does not have.

The Washington-Westcott rotary always struck me as too small for optimum function. There's only about a car length between some entrances to the next exit (1. SB Westcott to Arnot, 2. NB Westcott to Washington, 3. WB Washington to NB Westcott), so there's obviously no room for cars to weave and change places - cars instead just have to wait on the outside of the rotary, and this is not the intent of a rotary. They also seem a lot smaller than I'm used to seeing. I took a look at about 25 rotaries in the Boston area. With the exception of one which ends in on street parking at the beach (in Revere), every single one of them that I looked at had an inner radius of 175-200+ feet, and an outer radius of 275+ feet. Most were larger than that, and very few were town squares or similar, but just rotary islands. The larger size gives cars more time to maneuver in and out. Think of it as the difference between short merge lanes on the freeway (e.g., https://maps.google.com/?ll=29.758807,-95.374585&spn=0.000005,0.002401&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=29.758807,-95.374585&panoid=4IKpqYWzmQ1L3B1DBldqOw&cbp=12,187.89,,0,18.6) vs. modern, longer ones (https://maps.google.com/?ll=29.987864,-95.423384&spn=0.000019,0.009602&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=29.988005,-95.423425&panoid=Zj0FRdC3TV8nsO52Bk-zOw&cbp=12,12.31,,0,16.09) The Washington-Westcott rotary is only 120 feet inner, 180 feet outer radius. And this is the best-functioning roundabout in Houston. The ones on Benignus are little more than glorified speed bumps; that's okay with me though, and my car's suspension is also thankful. If we build any more in Houston and expect to get any benefits other than aesthetic or glorified speedbumps, let's do it right next time. I started out writing, not even looking at your Heights example, but now that I look at it, I question whether it would work effectively without taking through eminent domain. It would be even smaller than the W/W one, and I don't see how it would work, especially since all 5 streets are busy vs. only 4 in the W/W rotary. Edit: It seems like perimeter of the rotary might be a more important measure than it's radius, since merging distance is the important factor. So, it doesn't have to be a perfect circle, and oblong ones might be more effective.

They also have human waste and waste from cows all over the city. Seriously, it's not relevant to the WEST HOUSTON MONORAIL. Try to stay on topic.

As preparation for the Panama Canal expansion, there is a plan to enable Texas's ports to better handle increased cargo movement. I forget the name of the commission, but they released a study of some kind which is somewhere out there on the internets. IIRC, it involved dredging, some changes to the Intracoastal Canal, and widening some roads to/from the ports. Something is planned for all of Texas's ports (BPA, Houston, Galveston, Freeport, Corpus, Isabel), but the focus is mostly on Freeport and Houston. Widening and improving TX Hwy 36 is part of that. Now that I look at a map, it looks like this could tie in nicely with TX 36 south of Rosenberg. Maybe this is what they had in mind.

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.

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.

For some reason, I first thought of this:

So what's the plan for the resulting traffic? Before the intersection of I-10 and I-45 (north, west of downtown), there are a combined nine lanes of traffic. Through downtown, those two freeways carry only 6 lanes of traffic. It's already very lane-imbalanced, and anyone who travels EB on I-10 into downtown knows that it can come to a standstill at almost any time of day, including the weekends. And you are proposing to make it much worse? Instead of 9 down to 6 lanes, you think that 9 down to 3 lanes is really a workable solution? I think most drivers would sooner drive past downtown smelling like the Ship Channel and every available surface spray-painted with gangland graffiti than to contend with the unbelievable cluster of hourS-long traffic jams that this configuration would cause.

One shouldn't assume that all we have to do is a standard cut and cover tunnel and then we'll be able to build 30+ story buildings over the submerged freeway. In all likelihood, unless we don't mind if the project gets extraordinarily expensive, you probably couldn't put anything but a park there - no buildings. So it doesn't really matter if the property values would soar, since no one could extract that much value from it (I'm speaking monetarily - I would love another park in downtown).

So on the flip side, since they spent all of that money upfront, they now have a revenue source, even if it's only $1000/day/HOT lane (http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/1341957105-Commuters-Could-Dodge-Heavy-Houston-Traffic-With-HOT-Lanes.html).

I guess that's what I'm getting at. I wonder what Metro exactly had to chip in for. It it was just the ramps to the P&R lots (like this: https://maps.google.com/?ll=29.974393,-95.421353&spn=0.001743,0.002401&t=h&z=19), but not the ramps to/from the HOV lanes (like this https://maps.google.com/?ll=29.729187,-95.433568&spn=0.001747,0.002401&t=h&z=19 or this https://maps.google.com/?ll=30.01381,-95.428281&spn=0.003502,0.004801&t=h&z=18 or this https://maps.google.com/?ll=29.775227,-95.369053&spn=0.007022,0.009602&t=h&z=17), that figure seems high to me. If Metro had to pay for a large portion of the HOV lanes and other elaborate connections like the downtown HOV lane monster, I believe the figure you cite, but wonder if Metro is effectively subsidizing drivers, albeit HOV drivers.

That strikes me as pretty high. I was under the impression that they mostly leveraged existing HOV lanes and that the parking lots were fairly cheap. Did Metro have to pay a portion of those T ramps from the HOV to the P&R lots? Do you have a source for this figure?

Constuction costs would have been proportionally much lower then. That's for sure. But try not to forget the over-investment and misplaced investments during that oil boom. If the City of Houston had been left holding the bag in 1986, it's quite possible that we would have a half-constructed subway system that eventually would have been abandoned. And on top of that, Houston would have been broke. That's why it's so important to look at cost/benefits of any project - public or private.

Oh, absolutely. It's usually about saving time for me on my commute, but not always. Car might be in the shop. Might want to focus before a big morning meeting. And the time spent is usually more predictable. Or you might want to have a beer or 2 or 3 or 6 after work, and not have to worry about commuting home by car. I don't think it would. Let's say that a person lives at Grand Parkway in Cinco Ranch. It'll take 40 minutes each way to go from your driveway to get to an office on Smith Street plus 2-3 minutes coming from the parking garage. (Apparently it takes 28 minutes from B Cypress to downtown, so I'm conservatively estimating another 12 minutes to go the last 8 miles.) Total: 43 minutes. What would it take for the same trip by rail? Well, you'd have to drive 5 minutes to get to the first train station, park, and walk to the platform and then wait for let's say 1 minute. Once downtown, you'd have to either transfer to light rail or a bus or walk to your office. I think the best case scenario would be 10 minutes or so. (from the Post Office (which was proposed to a major rail station at one point) and walking briskly 10 blocks). So that leaves 27 minutes in between to travel about 27 miles. Each stop would be at least 30 seconds. Let's say 30 seconds. So that leaves 21 minutes in between. So you'd have to AVERAGE 77 miles per hour between the 10 stops (21/60)*27. Taking into account acceleration and deceleration, you'd need to exceed 100 mph. I don't think that's realistic. And that's just to meet the speed of commuting by car. If you think my assumptions are wrong, let me know.

OTOH, 610 is the primary route used by many trucks (shipping Hazardous Materials past downtown is not allowed), on the east side at least, it's the primary connection to the port which has a multi-state impact. But yeah, it's a less of an obvious candidate for federal funding than I-10. I'm thinking more of light rail and also spur routes which don't connect multiple states like 288, the proposed Spur 5/TX 35 freeway, TX 249, etc. I think that if a city wants to build 30 freeways and their citizens want it, and they don't make species go extinct during the process, the onus should be on them to fund it. The feds shouldn't be able to veto that. The same is true for a city which wants 30 rail lines.