ADCS

Back when I went to A&M, there would be constant talk in message boards about how "Old Army" was much better--stories of dorm rooms with no air conditioning even into the late 1990s, having food fights in the dining hall instead of the Chick-fil-a Express in the basement, and the like.

 

The whole "urban core" idea that "Abandon the Pierce" promote is based on what San Francisco or New York City is like. Even the whole "Pierce Skypark" idea is cribbed straight from the High Line!

Uh... wouldn't the people who want Houston to stay car-centric and suburban be the Old Army in this case?

ADCS - The Port of Houston does not have a specific timeline on widening or increasing the depth of the Ship Channel, in this location, at the moment.  But, widening is part of the long term plan.  The Ship Channel is generally quite narrow and relatively treacherous.   But, I believe that you are correct about New Panamax Traffic.  There is expected to be a very large increase in Container traffic in the port and, in turn, on the roads.  This bridge does serve as a direct link to I-10 West from Barbours Cut and Bayport Container Terminals.  For heavy traffic, and trucks, the bridge does seem to be less than optimal. 

I can't imagine they'll put a container port inland of Barbours Cut/Bayport, but I can easily imagine larger petroleum tankers going to the West Coast that would take advantage of a wider and deeper channel.

Actually, I am not trolling. Houston isn't as cool as it was in the 80s. There's more to do, and more restaurants, but it's not quirky and cool. Tearing down the Pierce would contribute to a greater loss of cool. If I wanted urban core stuff, I would move to somewhere that grew that way.

There are plenty of wonderful suburbs for you to move to if that's what you like, along with suburban-style areas in the inner loop. Please stop getting in the way of those of us who like urban environments and want to develop some of that in Houston. There's enough space for both styles of development.

I heard that the reason why the bridge is being replaced isn't neccessarily that its past its life, but that it limits the flow of ship channel traffic to between the bridge pillons.

IDK if that's completely. However, when you consider the potential catastophree of a significant ship hitting them (considering the ship AND car traffic) there is no reason to keep this bridge in service IMO.

A suspension bridge is a far better dresign from a safety aspect. It should be a far better design from a traffic flow aspect as well when you consider the increased lanes AND what should be a less steep grade.

Lots of congestion is created at the current bridge becasue the climb is so steep and traffic slows down considerably because of that.

I'm guessing this has to do with New Panamax traffic. Are there any Ship Channel dredging projects in the near future?

can we get it built with Carnegie Steel this time? The Eads bridge was built in 1874, carried at least one elephant and is still in use today.

They tended to overengineer bridges quite a bit in those days, for a variety of reasons - labor was much cheaper, math was still done on paper, material strength coefficients weren't well known, etc.

Thirty years ago, engineering would have been done to a fairly precise estimation of loads. That's what leads me to believe that there's structural degradation - otherwise, what's the point of spending that much more on a double replacement?

I wonder if the interior of the box girders is starting to degrade, given the relatively harsh environment surrounding the bridge.

"US 59" just means that it is US highway 59, which doesn't have a design standard - a US highway can just be a two lane road, especially in rural areas.  What I think is more interesting is the I-45 designation on those surface streets, even though they were definitely not up to Interstate standards.  Probably has to do with the fact that the Gulf freeway predates the Interstate highway system, but was added to it for I-45.

 

Where US 59 was before it was turned into a freeway all the way through Houston means that they probably put it where it is to bypass the core of downtown - I mean this map of downtown doesn't even show where US 59 is now

That's not where 59 was originally, though - its western branch came in through downtown on Main, and followed Main and Fannin all the way to the intersection with the 59 eastern branch and 90A at OST, then followed 90A's current route to Rosenberg.

https://1968d90e831cd27d2017897e0c81e9a12852eb10.googledrive.com/host/0B4gwdXQk1LyieHZHSTBqd0VJSnc/old-highway-maps/1950_humble_houston_large.jpg

The route here was adopted to direct traffic to the Southwest Freeway via what is now Spur 527.

http://keranews.org/post/opponents-call-more-transparency-dallas-houston-bullet-train

Saw this on Swamplot this morning. A few things to note:

1. “We had gone from nobody knowing anything about the high-speed rail project between Dallas and Houston to the entire state budget being held up over it,” said Kyle Workman, the group’s president. “So from our standpoint, it was much different than a failure. There was no such thing as a failure in our case.”

Workman admits to being a troll.

2. The opposition's strategy seems to be attempting to evoke empathy with plainly self-centered desires where fearmongering does not work:

“If it was your house that you built that was going to be your retirement home; plans have been made your entire life to be here; or it’s land that’s been in your family for many generations; and it's suddenly fixing to be taken away, I would be curious if they had the same opinion,” said Gary Bennett, an Ennis lawyer and landowner.

https://www.reddit.com/r/houston/comments/3ltib2/interested_in_learning_about_the_highspeed_rail/

Looks like they're starting a media blitz.

I'm voting to not do anything, leave it as it is, unless someone can explain why what is there already is not sustainable. I've lived here long enough to dread these major highway projects that drag on for years. They've been working on the 610-290 interchange for what seems like an eternity. There are definitely benefits here, but they are far outweighed by the cost and headaches it will cause. 

You can say that about any project. This opinion seems valid until a bridge collapses and dozens are dead.

What ever is decided trenching the freeway is a potential disaster during heavy rains or tropical cyclones.  Below grade freeways always flood in Houston. Just see 288 May 2015, Southwest freeway June 2001, I-10 March 1992 Just to name a few. People must always come first.

And? That's keeping water out of neighborhoods.

http://navasotanews.com/2015/09/17/texas-central-responds-to-feds-decision/

 

 

 

So like we've been saying for awhile, this rail will heavily invest in these rural counties, and it looks like there's a station option in Grimes county as well? Is this the "College Station" stop they're talking about?

Yes. Shiro is in the center of Grimes County.

Media coverage outside the DMN seems to be slanted against the project. Any reason why that might be?

   

Which is perfect for Houston. Houston is dynamic and always changing. Routes need to be dynamic as well. Unless we enact zoning and start doing some major city central planning, BRT is the best compromise.

A lack of zoning actually helps heavy rail - the line is fixed, but the use of the surrounding property is not. That will lead to more development more quickly that takes advantage of the heavy rail line.

An elitist that rides the bus and train? LOL Do you even know what the word means?

 

I'm not anti-homeless. If I was I wouldn't live in downtown. I get bummed everyday. If it bothered me I would move. What part of town do you live in?

 

Are you really surprised that well off people generally do not want to ride our light rail for more than a few stations if at all? Seriously? are you really surprised?

 

I get that yall want trains because trains are cool and other cool cities have them. I get that you want Houston to be elite like those other cities "world class" even.

 

But I instead care about people and want a system that moves the most amount of people, safely, cleanly, and efficiently. Buses are the best option for a city like Houston.

 

I get angry watching an almost empty green line train that cost millions while I see people wait in the heat or rain waiting on the #50 bus. It's the elite who don't actually use public transportation who live out in the burbs that try to divert precious public dollars onto trains when the people that rely on buses are getting less and less reliable bus service. It's not right. It's not fair. Come live in the city and see what I'm talking about.

Houston has plenty of buses. Frequent access to ridership has just increased by leaps and bounds. If there's anything Metro can't be criticized for at this time, it's ignoring the nuts-and-bolts in favor of glamour projects.

To a certain extent yes. The smithland riders commuted using their cars. They would have parked a lot closer in or near the front of their hospital if they could but they can't.

 

It's like in the old days of the Astrodome, where you would park your car and then one of those long golf carts would pick you up and give you a ride to the front entrance. It's not like they went there looking to ride the long golf cart. It's more like sorry there's no more parking up front, but don't worry we will give you a ride to the front...

I'm sorry, but that's absurd. That's like saying we shouldn't count pedestrian traffic on the train, because they wouldn't have taken the train if work weren't so far away. It's like saying we shouldn't over inflate auto traffic counts, because people walk from their cars to their desks, so really, they walked to work.

Each one of these examples involves a mode shift because of reduced accessibility in the other mode. Adapting mode usage to maximize accessibility and usability is the very essence of modern transportation.

If you're talking about riders from the Smithlands station to the TMC, that's exactly my point. They ride for a station or two and get off. It's a park and ride. There are park and riders and homeless people on the light rail. Of course there are exceptions but that's the bulk.  If they could they would park in their respective hospital but they can't so they park in the surface lot across from smithlands and ride for a station or two.

 

I almost feel like ridership numbers for our light rail should eliminate the numbers from the smithlands station. That station must inflate numbers by the thousands. The only reason they ride is because parking is limited in the TMC and their companies subsidize the parking and Qcards.

 

That's not a total knock on our light rail. It is popular as a park and ride for upper middle class riders from the med center. Which is to say people like their cars but hate expensive parking. A HSR station in the NW mall parking lot makes a lot of sense from a business perspective.

Ridership is inflated because people are using the line?

We should eliminate the numbers because too many people are using a particular segment of the line?

I am not necessarily against rail, but putting rail down Washington removes capacity from a major thoroughfare with few alternates. Center might work as a path for rail, but buses would be a lot cheaper and far more flexible.

I don't think we really need more rail, at least not as implemented by Metro. I also think you are overestimating the popularity of light rail with business travelers. They tend to prefer cars or taxis, so they don't have to mix with the rabble.

Washington has both I-10 and Memorial Drive within a half mile for moving high-speed arterial traffic. Washington is one of the few arterials in Houston where there actually is sufficient redundancy to reduce capacity.

Look, I understand - you don't like rail. That's fine. But specious arguments don't get any of us anywhere.

That's not going to happen either, as there's no good way to get light rail out there. There aren't many streets wide enough for light rail between Downtown and Northwest Mall. So, buses it is.

Um, Washington to Old Katy to N. Post Oak? Something that's been a rail corridor since the 1890s?

If people spent as much time and energy solving problems as coming up with them, I'm pretty sure we'd have teleporters by now 

I have so much to say in regards to MaxConcretes incendiary grenade of a comment, but I'm still trying to get over just how mind boggling narrow minded it is. It makes MaxConcrete sound like someone who has never been outside the state of Texas or even Harris County for that matter.

 

To your point ADCS:

 

More disappointing are all these suburbanites who didn't even want the train in the first place saying.....IT HAS TO BE IN THE NW MALL SITE....because we in the suburbs are more important and should get EVERYTHING! It just comes across as selfish. Sure it hasn't been stated as such, but lets not kid ourselves people that's exactly whats going on.

 

But before I even comment further. Whoever else works in the architecture field in this forum knows all to well the nature of the design process once you start factoring in the user base and getting their feedback. All I can say is that feedback both good or bad is an incredible resource, but should be used as a guide and nothing more. Taken with a grain of salt, and not the ingredients used in the final product. A point of departure to start a process, but not part of the overall sum once you get beyond concept phase. *I'M LOOKING AT YOU SURGE HOMES O.O* Just in my short time as an Architecture Intern I have seen this first hand where its clear some people in the room who are not decision makers try to stuff the project with whatever they want who clearly have an agenda and just want their slice of the pie. Then there are the derailers. The people who have no decision in the project or on anything for that matter, and because of that it is their mission in life to either make it difficult or have a if I can't say anything then no one can. TCR more than anything has to stick with their main goal which they have said in countless meetings and that is get the train from Downtown to Downtown! Its all going to come down to money in the end anyway, but from what TCR have said previously they are looking long term with this project and aren't going to let short term road blocks prevent them reaching their goals. Sure Downtown looks like an expensive and dubious option now, but we have to project this project 10-15 years into the future. The trend for Downtown is going up...wayyyyyy up. Not only that, but the area around it is growing by leaps and bounds. I just had my younger brother who moved into the Heights the other day and even he has been looking into TCR of late, because the prospect of it going to downtown is very intriguing. If Downtown was a total wasteland or the trend was going down then I might side with just putting the station in the suburbs. But come on people pull your head out of your butts! The trend is obvious. Yes the city is still growing outwards, but the people in the rings deeper in the city that are being left behind by the people moving outwards are now moving even further into the city!

 

One more thing...lets not get into bs about "the real center of Houston". By some of y'alls definition of real center of Houston would be Southwest Houston which technically has the highest density in the whole city. Lets cut the technicalities! Downtown is downtown for a reason and thats because it is the true center of town no matter how far to the left or right, north or south the city goes.

Appreciate the response. A few things:

1. Let's not diminish MaxConcrete on account of his preference toward highway-oriented development. He has performed an invaluable service for those of us who appreciate infrastructure in the compilation of both Houston Freeways and Dallas-Fort Worth Freeways, at considerable personal cost. We wouldn't have half of what we know about the Texas freeway system as easily available if he hadn't undertaken those projects.

His priorities are different than yours or mine, but they're genuine, I assure you. Part of why I want TCR to succeed is that we have someone in a couple of generations writing a masterwork on the railroad with as much passion as he did about our freeways.

2. We also shouldn't box in the opposition to the downtown site that narrowly. The noisiest opponents to the downtown site in Greater Houston haven't been suburbanites - they've been residents of Rice Military who either have an unshakable belief that the line will disrupt everything they enjoy about the neighborhood (I don't exactly have a high opinion of these folks), or a more reasonable concern about property value effects (unwarranted, in my estimation, but understandable in a neighborhood of $750k townhouses).

3. TCR's biggest problem so far in Houston is that no one has seen exactly what we'd be getting. I realize that they don't want to overpromise and underdeliver, but some artist's impressions of the urban elevated sections' neighborhood impact, and what a "Grand Central Station" design could contribute to the Downtown skyline, would greatly contribute toward public awareness and the relaxation of public concerns.

When you and I imagine urban HSR in Houston, we see dreams. Others see nightmares. Let's get rid of both, and see reality.

It's a bit disappointing to see how reactive and bogged down in personal politics the station site selection process seems to be. It might help if TCR/TCP presented a vision of what any station site may look like.

Now that I understand it better, I like it a bit more, but not enough to convince me it's worth doing. 

 

I'm all about reclamation of public space from freeways, and downtown not being totally wrapped by elevated freeways. But as Samagon mentions, if it's just going to be about  opening those parcels to developers, I'm not impressed. 

Developers = buildings = more urban integration. Sounds like a win to me.

If I understand the video correctly, 45 would merge with I-10 and run north of downtown, then merge with 59 and run east of downtown before separating and going nicely on its way. 

 

The Pierce elevated goes away and is partially replaced on the west side with a parkway (at level or below ground) that runs to downtown destinations. 

 

Where the elevated exists today between downtown and midtown would be replaced with a park or something.

 

So if I'm stating that correctly, and I'm not saying I am, is it as simple as replacing the signs on I-10 to I-10/I-45, and similar with 59, and tear down the rest, or is there freeway expansion required to accommodate the additional traffic flow?

 

Also, I see a similar complaint arising in the future against the Eastex Freeway dividing Downtown from the East side, but now you have all 59 and 45 traffic running through it. 

They're to build a new set of roadways alongside the 59/69 roadways to accommodate 45 traffic. You can find schematics here. Note that these have been modified since they were published, though no new maps have been produced yet.

The whole structure will be depressed with the intention of capping it later on, in order to anticipate the complaints you mention.

It would probably follow the median in which case I'd assume it would just be the usual column design. I wonder if TXDOT will require them to use the same aesthetic for that sector as they do on the new highway construction.

That's just it - there is no median. It's nothing but a concrete divider. There isn't really space for pylons anywhere except for the sloping embankments on either side of the freeway.

I wonder how they'd design the structure over I-10 if they go that way. It would likely require quite a bit of engineering, so perhaps we'd end up getting a "signature" structure out of it.

Could be a real opportunity.