ADCS

They're putting up milemarkers now. There were reference markers before that looked like milemarkers, but they were inconsistent and were in the 500 mile range. These new markers are only in the 100s. This reflects "mile 0" being in Victoria, where it'll branch into I-69E to Corpus and Brownsville, and I-69W to Laredo (intersects with I-69C in George West).

I saw these yesterday. Wonder if they'll start numbering exits soon.

Anticipating this to be a very nasty zoning fight. Some neighborhoods that have been in the KHS zone for a while will need to be moved out, and with the KHS rebuild, they'll have no desire to do so.

It was incredibly shortsighted to put HS #5 on the backburner simply because of KHS's political pull.

I get the point of freeways, I really do. I just don't understand the pride one gets from seeing a highway cut across an untouched landscape that will soon fill up with the same boring, cookie-cutter, suburban hellacape that it will inevitably become. The fact that our flat city only exacerbates this issue makes me more frustrated.

I don't want to speak for him, but having read his previous thoughts on the subject, he does make a fairly compelling argument about this - the suburban hellscape, while awful and alienating for many, represents comfort and opportunity on several orders of magnitude greater than where many, if not most, of the newcomers to Houston come from.

If you're privileged to come from a relatively stable society, where your environment is generally trustworthy, and you can count on greater complexity leading to greater opportunities for personal development, then yes, suburbia is oppressively banal. If, on the other hand, your previous life experiences are of a relatively chaotic environment, where institutions cannot be trusted and you're stuck in a small, cramped, dangerous living environment, those suburbs represent space, safety, stability and the opportunity to realize dreams that were impossible where you grew up.

There's something to be said for that point.

Wow!  Can't wait for 2 on each side!  Being in my 70s & remembering here to Dallas 2 lanes, this is a "big thing: .  Hope I don't sound dumb, but if you could explain the difference between soft & hard lanes, I'd be most appreciative.  Thank you for sharing your information.  Let's enjoy the extra lanes!

Sorry, I meant one lane for each side, two total.

Soft HOV lanes simply have a double line separating them from local traffic - there is no physical barrier. Hard HOV or express lanes usually have concrete Jersey barriers or metal barriers separating them from local traffic.

It appears that they're going to convert the current emergency lanes on each side to the HOV lanes, and then construct a permanent barrier in the middle.

Going North on I-45 today past the HOV/EXPRESS exit, I noticed the concrete wall has been removed in last few days on inside/fast lane.  Is the HOV/Express lane being extended in near future?  Hope so!  But where will Woodlands exit be located?  I know 242 was mentioned in past as the extension point, but seems there would be exit @ Woodlands Parkway.  That would make more traffic congestion:(.  Anyone in the know?

There will be two soft HOV lanes added to each side, rather than a hard single reversible lane in the middle.

Could be discussed in the Charette? 

Mods, please move there if appropriate. I started this one because the charrette isn't in the Trains forum, and has been dormant for some time.

Rail?! Rail in general tends to be a bad cost-benefit proposition, but why would you ever consider building one when one *already exists* a mile to the west perfectly connecting the Med Center and Downtown?  There *might* be a good argument for extending the existing line south (although I doubt it), but there's no universe where it makes sense to build a parallel line!

While I tend to disagree with Mr. Gattis over the desirability of rail in general, I've got to agree here. The only thing advantageous about this corridor as far as rail goes is the relative ease of construction. The location poses significant barriers to pedestrian traffic, and exists on the periphery of Pearland's development, limiting its usefulness as a commuter route. After all, if you're already driving to 288 to get on the train, and the express lanes are a similar price, why wouldn't you do the familiar thing and just take the express lanes?

Any sort of heavy rail in Houston would do best by serving dense, central corridors that are already relatively underserved by the freeway system.

Was just thinking that it might be useful to have a thread where seemingly "crazy" ideas can be discussed.

For example, this thought occurred to me - why don't they outright replace Mykawa Rd with a commuter rail line into Houston? It's currently underused, and there are several substantial benefits to this route:

1. Provides for a rail link between Downtown, Pearland and Hobby Airport (using a rail or shuttle link from that station)

2. Provides a high-speed connection between UH/TSU and Downtown/Pearland/Hobby. This could be particularly useful in attracting out-of-state students to these universities

3. Minimizes new infrastructure for cross streets, as it has already been built for the adjacent rail line

4. Minimizes the amount of cross-usage needed with the freight lines.

Your thoughts?

I suspect it's the drainage that would be the big problem.  I spoke to some foundation companies a couple of years ago and they told me that bedrock here (at least under my house) is about 22 feet down.  Above that the soil moves.  You'd have to go down that far plus however much the tunnel is plus some to build without having to worry about the soil conditions.  Seems like it would be cheaper short and long term just to elevate. 

 

Who knows...if they decide to elevate part of the hsr maybe that will inspire some elevated commuter/light rail.

 

22 feet isn't that far down, though - there are lines running well over 100 ft beneath London, for example.

Doing a little research, though, it appears that the bedrock varies quite a bit in Houston - between 100 and 600 ft in places. That would cause a substantial, though not insurmountable tunneling problem. Would likely demand cut-and-cover for any construction.

Maybe Zydeco is smarter than we think.

They could just be playing an elaborate game of "good cop/bad cop" to pull the old okie doke on the nimbys.

>Be Zydeco

>Know Nimbys will never approve of 700' foot tower

>Release rendering of ugliest tower you can draw up

>Nimbys raise a ruckus

>Release the real rendering, one of the most beautiful, luxurious and classy towers ever seen

>Nimbys fall in love with the 700' tower and decide "ahh what the heck, BUILD IT!"

>??????

>Profit

I was actually thinking just this. However, I would be thinking more 400 ft.

It's been a gradual thing, but on WN it seems like the equipment went to consistently full regardless of the destination or time of day about 5 or so years ago.

Guessing that the addition of post-9/11 security, as you mentioned, made the benefit of 30 or 15 minute headways much less apparent. What's the point when you're necessarily going to spend 45-90 minutes at the airport before your flight, anyway?

My father says that when they proposed an HSR in the early 1990s, they determined to be profitable they would have to get everyone off of I-45 from Houston or Dallas (all of them would have to be riding the train), and is convinced that the whole thing is a lot of noise about nothing. Now, there's more population in Texas now, but also ROW is more expensive overall. Remind me again, who's proposing the railroad again?

IT, there's been a lot that has changed since 1990. For example, let's take the population changes since then:

DFW MSA (1990):         3,989,294

Houston MSA (1990):    3,321,926

Total (1990):                  7,311,220

DFW MSA (2015):         6,954,330

Houston MSA (2015):    6,490,180

Total (2015):                 13,444,510 (83.9% increase)

It's not implausible at all to think that today, you'd be able to find the equivalent ridership of a significant percentage of the 1990 I-45 traffic. The population growth alone since that time would allow for this. Likewise, it's primarily regional air traffic that would switch to this mode of transportation.

I could see where it could work for Fry rd or Huffmeister in those examples, however, I still don't see how it would be possible for Telge, West, or Eldridge, but I'd gladly stand corrected if they can make it feasible. In regards to that aspect, my only concern is that they connect across still, so if they can manage that anyway possible then it will be acceptable for those communities.

 

As for the latter point, I'm well aware TCR could give a flying f*ck about commuter rail for Cypress or what the impacts of not having it might be long-term, that's why I'm trying to point it out. I currently live in town, but grew up in Cypress and have a lot of family and friends there, and I just don't want to see them get screwed in the name of progress for the city as a whole. Potentially cutting off even some of these arterial roadways and possibly preventing future ones or commuter rail from being built will have a very tangible long-term negative effect on traffic in an area of town that is quickly becoming too populated already. I fear city and county officials are also going to be willing to screw over a few bedroom communities along 290 (if necessary for the project's completion) in order to better provide for the city as a whole.

It may feel noble, but that's just displaced NIMBYism, you realize.

There's no reason to be scared of a bridge based by age alone. An old, but well-maintained bridge is safer than a new but shoddily built bridge

Looking at it a little more closely, it's more of a capacity issue than anything. The current bridge is 48 feet wide, which means you'd only be able to fit in three 12 foot lanes with six foot shoulders for one-way traffic. The new bridges will be 70 feet wide, meeting interstate standards with 12 foot travel lanes and 10 foot shoulders.

Not a great example, but the main idea I was thinking was "unpretentious".

However, the use of rhetoric like "car-centric" says all I need to know about where you stand on issues like this.

Are you saying that Houston's development scheme since World War II has not been primarily oriented toward automobile access?

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?

What about forcing commitment to going onto the spur sooner, with pylons separating the lanes instead of the solid white line?  Or would that just end up with a lot of broken pylons?

I think if you got rid of part of the reversible lane on 527, converting it to inbound traffic only inbound from the current outbound entrance/inbound exit point in the trench, and then had the two lanes of 527 exit the mainlanes of 59 there, you'd see much traffic improvement, provided that the 527 lanes and 59 lanes were separated by a concrete barrier.

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.

Instead of the three-lane HOT option, I'd take a lane from the mainlanes along with a feeder lane on each side, and convert the HOV to a true 2x2 express lane configuration. Perhaps something like the LBJ express lanes, if we have the money to do so.

"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.

Maybe I'm wrong, but in my mind an elevated freeway half a block wide is more palatable than a trench 1 and 1/2 blocks wide, no matter how many surface parking lots there are already in downtown, and how many empty crumbling buildings there are, this would make it decidedly worse on that side of town.

 

I'm assuming that the money to put a grass cover on top of this thing isn't going to happen. It's not in the budget for the re-alignment which means the city has to come forward with the money to put a cap on it. If I remember reading correctly it's a $200,000,000 estimate. Where is this money going to come from? Downtown, and/or EaDo TIRZ? Harris County Sports Authority? Convention Authority? Philanthropy? Bond referendum? Have I missed reading somewhere that the money has already been earmarked? Why is everyone here assuming this part is a done deal?

I don't think anyone's assuming it's a done deal. I personally don't think the cap will be constructed until 5-10 years after construction is complete. However, that's fine by me - the trench will be an incremental improvement, and once the cap is easier to visualize, funding for construction will be easier to acquire.