TxDOT Plan For Downtown And I-45: Analysis And Problem List

[Slick Vik]

That would be a misguided move on the part of TxDOT. There's nothing wrong with the Pierce as it is, other than needing some fixes at the merges with other freeways.

People said the same thing about slavery and segregation. Get with the times.

[ADCS]

That would be a misguided move on the part of TxDOT. There's nothing wrong with the Pierce as it is, other than needing some fixes at the merges with other freeways.

 

What are your priorities when it comes to mobility in Houston?

[BigFootsSocks]

People said the same thing about slavery and segregation. Get with the times.

This take is so hot it melted my phone

[Ross]

People said the same thing about slavery and segregation. Get with the times.

Honestly, that is one of the stupidest responses I could imagine. Neither of those issues is in any way related to whether the Pierce should stay or go.

[Ross]

What are your priorities when it comes to mobility in Houston?

I don't think spending upwards of 6 billion dollars to tear out the Pierce and reroute all the traffic around the North and East of Downtown is going to improve mobility noticeably. For that kind of money, we could redo all the streets, and maybe build some useful rail instead of the mediocre crap we have now.

[ADCS]

I don't think spending upwards of 6 billion dollars to tear out the Pierce and reroute all the traffic around the North and East of Downtown is going to improve mobility noticeably. For that kind of money, we could redo all the streets, and maybe build some useful rail instead of the mediocre crap we have now.

 

That money's going to get spent somewhere. Why not reintegrate part of our fractured urban environment?

 

Why do we need a multitude of high-speed through highways in downtown anyway? Why should we design the infrastructure to encourage the sort of traffic flow that simply doesn't fit how Houston is built nowadays?

[IronTiger]

That money's going to get spent somewhere. Why not reintegrate part of our fractured urban environment?

 

Why do we need a multitude of high-speed through highways in downtown anyway? Why should we design the infrastructure to encourage the sort of traffic flow that simply doesn't fit how Houston is built nowadays?

See, this is one of the things that always bothers me when people start complaining about the Pierce, they cite a history that never existed. When the Pierce was built, downtown wasn't like it is now. With some exceptions along Main, all the areas that were demolished for freeways were single family houses that were almost certainly on the decline. East of La Branch and south of Rusk, there weren't the big "downtown" buildings at all. In fact, looking at how I-45 twists and curves, you could see how the Pierce was meant to AVOID downtown (and keep the grid intact).

 

Buildings developed on both sides of the Pierce AFTER the highway was built, so don't start blubbering about how it was always some blight on the urban landscape, because it wasn't.

[BigFootsSocks]

I mean, you also can't equate the tall buildings coming in because of the Pierce. Correlation doesn't always mean causation, etc. the Pierce was put in at a time when those tall buildings were starting to take root.

Idk, it's a really fickle thing to argue either side

[IronTiger]

I mean, you also can't equate the tall buildings coming in because of the Pierce. Correlation doesn't always mean causation, etc. the Pierce was put in at a time when those tall buildings were starting to take root.

Idk, it's a really fickle thing to argue either side

It's not specifically the buildings, it's people building a false mythology, and then using that to push agendas. It would be like how the 1950s are often idealized as being peaceful, happy times and we only got to our jaded-post millennial state after blacks, women, and gays started demanding equal rights, and the only way to fix that is to repeal those laws....or something to that accord.

 

Really what I'm saying is, it's not to say that my rebuke is a reason for the Pierce to stay, it's just that the "false history" is a lousy excuse to removing the Pierce.

[BigFootsSocks]

Agh ok I get it

[mkultra25]

It's not specifically the buildings, it's people building a false mythology, and then using that to push agendas. It would be like how the 1950s are often idealized as being peaceful, happy times and we only got to our jaded-post millennial state after blacks, women, and gays started demanding equal rights, and the only way to fix that is to repeal those laws....or something to that accord.

 

Or attempting to gin up a false moral equivalency to slavery and segregation for any current hot-button issue by drawing parallels between its opponents and slaveowners/segregationists. 

[Slick Vik]

Honestly, that is one of the stupidest responses I could imagine. Neither of those issues is in any way related to whether the Pierce should stay or go.

It is in the sense that hard headed stubborn people didn't want to see any changes and had no vision for the future, because the liked the way things were going because it fit their comfort zone and agenda.

[ADCS]

See, this is one of the things that always bothers me when people start complaining about the Pierce, they cite a history that never existed. When the Pierce was built, downtown wasn't like it is now. With some exceptions along Main, all the areas that were demolished for freeways were single family houses that were almost certainly on the decline. East of La Branch and south of Rusk, there weren't the big "downtown" buildings at all. In fact, looking at how I-45 twists and curves, you could see how the Pierce was meant to AVOID downtown (and keep the grid intact).

 

Buildings developed on both sides of the Pierce AFTER the highway was built, so don't start blubbering about how it was always some blight on the urban landscape, because it wasn't.

 

When they built the Pierce, no one quite understood yet what the effect of urban freeways would be. Nor did I state anything to the effect of it being a blight at the time; please do not put words in my mouth. 

 

It is a blight now. It currently interferes with Houston's urban fabric, which is why relocation would be ideal. In exchange, we will see more lane-miles in downtown (as of the current revision), with less interference with the Downtown-Montrose-Upper Kirby-Uptown corridor, Houston's central spine.

 

The infrastructure has to be rebuilt anyway, which is why TxDOT did the study in the first place. Let's do it right.

[IronTiger]

When they built the Pierce, no one quite understood yet what the effect of urban freeways would be. Nor did I state anything to the effect of it being a blight at the time; please do not put words in my mouth.

I'm sorry for lumping your opinion in with others who did actually say something to that effect.

 

It is a blight now. It currently interferes with Houston's urban fabric, which is why relocation would be ideal. In exchange, we will see more lane-miles in downtown (as of the current revision), with less interference with the Downtown-Montrose-Upper Kirby-Uptown corridor, Houston's central spine.

 

Blighted where? Next to Main, where the bus station is?

The infrastructure has to be rebuilt anyway, which is why TxDOT did the study in the first place. Let's do it right.

Is this fact actually correct, though? Obviously widening is impossible, but that's not to say "infrastructure needs to be rebuilt". I have experienced the Pierce being a bit groovy (literally) but the 1997 re-do was supposed to last decades. If the 1997 re-do was not actually as advertised, then someone needs to call a lawyer.

[cspwal]

It has been decades since the 1997 redo - 18 years by my watch, and more once they actually start construction

[ADCS]

It has been decades since the 1997 redo - 18 years by my watch, and more once they actually start construction

 

I'm speculating, but I'm fairly certain that TxDOT wouldn't have even considered removing the Pierce if there weren't good practical reasons for doing so. The 1997 work was fairly slapdash and substandard, as I understand it.

 

It's sort of funny to think - by the time construction is done and the Pierce is finally demolished, it will have lasted in its current form for 30 years, just like its predecessor. The columns will have lasted 60 years. It's not a particularly wasteful solution from that perspective.

[samagon]

That money's going to get spent somewhere. Why not reintegrate part of our fractured urban environment?

 

Why do we need a multitude of high-speed through highways in downtown anyway? Why should we design the infrastructure to encourage the sort of traffic flow that simply doesn't fit how Houston is built nowadays?

This argument is invalidated by how much the reintegration of one neighborhood further fractures all of the other neighborhoods that are part of this realignment. 

[samagon]

I'm speculating, but I'm fairly certain that TxDOT wouldn't have even considered removing the Pierce if there weren't good practical reasons for doing so.

 

The people who want to develop that land have more money to spend on analysts that say this is a good idea than the people who live in the community that will be destroyed, or the people who will have their small businesses taken away, or the people who will have reduced mobility crossing every freeway part of this realignment except for the removed Pierce. 

[Sparrow]

This argument is invalidated by how much the reintegration of one neighborhood further fractures all of the other neighborhoods that are part of this realignment. 

 

Does the unification of Midtown and Downtown with the removal of the Pierce really fracture the Third Ward and the East End so much? I'd argue that it will protect their community from the inevitable manifest destiny of their houses being torn down for high rise after high rise.

 

The folks in these areas don't have the money to fend off an Ashby Highrise type development. Unifying Midtown and Downtown provides a service to the region in the form of implied de facto zoning. With Houston's lack of zoning what is stopping the next Skyhouse from being built on a few abandoned lots pieced together off of Elgin or Harrisburg? Land is significantly cheaper and more readily available, why not build there? By establishing Downtown/Midtown as the densest, most connected, walkable, urban environment due to physical conditions and economic demand, it just won't make sense for the surrounding neighborhoods to become just like Downtown itself. The neighborhoods can work to maintain their character by keeping their community environment. On the other hand, keeping the status quo, years from now moving along the supply curve, the economics just won't stack up for a high rise Downtown when you can build that very same building in a nearby neighborhood with fewer real estate challenges to overcome and a similar demand curve. Keep the demand curve ever growing for Downtown/Midtown to ensure the supply does not find a better backyard elsewhere.

 

Enlarging the perceived Downtown neighborhood by removing the Pierce is in effect an annexation of Midtown for developers to focus their skyward endeavors. Such should not be thought of as a backhand to the Third Ward and the East End, but rather as a commitment toward helping their communities maintain their identities.

[IronTiger]

Does the unification of Midtown and Downtown with the removal of the Pierce really fracture the Third Ward and the East End so much? I'd argue that it will protect their community from the inevitable manifest destiny of their houses being torn down for high rise after high rise.

 

The folks in these areas don't have the money to fend off an Ashby Highrise type development. Unifying Midtown and Downtown provides a service to the region in the form of implied de facto zoning. With Houston's lack of zoning what is stopping the next Skyhouse from being built on a few abandoned lots pieced together off of Elgin or Harrisburg? Land is significantly cheaper and more readily available, why not build there? By establishing Downtown/Midtown as the densest, most connected, walkable, urban environment due to physical conditions and economic demand, it just won't make sense for the surrounding neighborhoods to become just like Downtown itself. The neighborhoods can work to maintain their character by keeping their community environment. On the other hand, keeping the status quo, years from now moving along the supply curve, the economics just won't stack up for a high rise Downtown when you can build that very same building in a nearby neighborhood with fewer real estate challenges to overcome and a similar demand curve. Keep the demand curve ever growing for Downtown/Midtown to ensure the supply does not find a better backyard elsewhere.

 

Enlarging the perceived Downtown neighborhood by removing the Pierce is in effect an annexation of Midtown for developers to focus their skyward endeavors. Such should not be thought of as a backhand to the Third Ward and the East End, but rather as a commitment toward helping their communities maintain their identities.

So what you're saying is, the US-59/I-45 "canyon" will likely cause land values to plummet in the area, thus reducing demand for high-rises and causing older single family homes to stay where they are. Hmm...decent logic and a PR spin at that. Not bad.

[ADCS]

This argument is invalidated by how much the reintegration of one neighborhood further fractures all of the other neighborhoods that are part of this realignment. 

 

I'm sorry, I'm failing to see how the conversion of an elevated freeway (59 downtown) to a submerged one somehow worsens the fracturing effect, rather than improving it.

 

If we assume that they'll be looking at the Southwest Freeway for design cues, try crossing on Graustark or Dunlavy sometime. If it weren't for the bridges, you could be forgiven for not realizing that one of the busiest freeways in the country was just ahead of you.

 

Other than MaxConcrete's well-reasoned analysis, I truly do not understand the opposition to this project.

[Houston19514]

I don't think spending upwards of 6 billion dollars to tear out the Pierce and reroute all the traffic around the North and East of Downtown is going to improve mobility noticeably. For that kind of money, we could redo all the streets, and maybe build some useful rail instead of the mediocre crap we have now.

 

Hold your horses.  The $6 Billion cost estimate is for the entire I-45 project from Beltway 8 North through downtown.  No one is proposing to spend $6 Billion just to tear out the Pierce and reroute the traffic around the North and East of Downtown.

[BigFootsSocks]

Hold your horses. The $6 Billion cost estimate is for the entire I-45 project from Beltway 8 North through downtown. No one is proposing to spend $6 Billion just to tear out the Pierce and reroute the traffic around the North and East of Downtown.

I didn't even catch this, that's a good point.

[IronTiger]

I'm sorry, I'm failing to see how the conversion of an elevated freeway (59 downtown) to a submerged one somehow worsens the fracturing effect, rather than improving it.

 

If we assume that they'll be looking at the Southwest Freeway for design cues, try crossing on Graustark or Dunlavy sometime. If it weren't for the bridges, you could be forgiven for not realizing that one of the busiest freeways in the country was just ahead of you.

 

Other than MaxConcrete's well-reasoned analysis, I truly do not understand the opposition to this project.

Seriously?? Are you trolling or are you that narrow-minded?

I can at least understand the removal of the Pierce, especially with business leaders pulling the strings (that's definitely my perception) but the proposed "canyon" will be about twice the width of the Southwest Freeway.

On that note, I have heard from at least one person who lives and commutes in the Inner Loop that the submerging of Southwest Freeway felt more like dividing the area rather than a single area with a freeway running through it, so even that's not immune to criticism.

[ADCS]

Seriously?? Are you trolling or are you that narrow-minded?

I can at least understand the removal of the Pierce, especially with business leaders pulling the strings (that's definitely my perception) but the proposed "canyon" will be about twice the width of the Southwest Freeway.

On that note, I have heard from at least one person who lives and commutes in the Inner Loop that the submerging of Southwest Freeway felt more like dividing the area rather than a single area with a freeway running through it, so even that's not immune to criticism.

 

If there were a substantive opposition to this project beyond normal NIMBY and takings concerns, then it would be easier to understand. As it stands right now, the opposition seems more like an ideological aversion to any freeway removal, with the concerns about the 59 expansion being a disingenuous red herring. Did you have similar concerns about the Katy Freeway expansion?

 

I'm not at all surprised that there's at least one person who did not like the trenching of the Southwest Freeway. It's impossible to please everyone.

[IronTiger]

So you're dismissing the opposition as an "ideological aversion to any freeway removal" while promoting a similar type of ideology in removing it?

[ADCS]

So you're dismissing the opposition as an "ideological aversion to any freeway removal" while promoting a similar type of ideology in removing it?

 

Not at all. If it were impractical, I'd be opposed to it. For example, outright removal of I-345 in Dallas is one of those projects that doesn't make sense, even though the ground-level benefits would be nice.

 

My position comes from the experience of having lived numerous places, each with different approaches to freeway construction. Through this, I've seen that what might be a boon to a suburb isn't necessarily the same to a dense, urban area. I'm willing to take a look at decisions made in the 1950s and evaluate which were successes (Beltway 8), insufficient (West Loop, north-south arterial system), and which ones time has passed by (Pierce Elevated). I think Houston risks losing its dynamic character if we insist on keeping certain things the way they are for no other reason than they've always been that way.

[samagon]

I'm sorry, I'm failing to see how the conversion of an elevated freeway (59 downtown) to a submerged one somehow worsens the fracturing effect, rather than improving it.

 

If we assume that they'll be looking at the Southwest Freeway for design cues, try crossing on Graustark or Dunlavy sometime. If it weren't for the bridges, you could be forgiven for not realizing that one of the busiest freeways in the country was just ahead of you.

 

Other than MaxConcrete's well-reasoned analysis, I truly do not understand the opposition to this project.

 

It's not just a 'conversion of an elevated freeway'. 

 

They are taking an entire block of real estate from the east side of 59. This includes land being used by businesses (mostly small), housing, and an entire community in one case.

They are reducing mobility from one side of the freeway to the other (I did the count earlier in this thread of the number of streets that cross today and what will cross in the future, and it's down, even considering the crossings added that take you to the back side of the convention center, who is going to need to cross at mckinley, walker or lamar?).

There is no guarantee of a covered grass area where 59/45 will be. So we're potentially going to have the area of downtown that draws most tourists (convention, baseball, basketball, soccer, concerts) blighted by a car canyon.

 

and it seems that most people are focusing on the removal of pierce and the changes to 59, no one seems to care about how this will affect I-10, or the areas around it. straightening it looks like it will be for the best, but it's going to be elevated the whole way. If that area wasn't shut off enough from everything, it sure will be now. I weep for the hardy rail yards project.

 

I live near telephone and 45, own a business near UH main campus, and have a normal 9-5 job that I have just recently found out will probably be relocating to downtown, so I can maybe be called a NIMBY, but I am mainly just confused by the whole thing, outside of making the freeways straighter, I fail to see how this can possibly reduce congestion. It certainly isn't going to increase mobility for anyone using surface streets.

 

I'd rather be confused and angry now, and voice my concerns than to wait till it's done and there be no improvement to mobility. Then when I complain about how the government wasted our money and only managed to make things worse, no one can say 'well why didn't you say anything'. So yeah, I'm saying something now. When this is done, I hope I can't say 'I told you so'.

[Houston19514]

 

and it seems that most people are focusing on the removal of pierce and the changes to 59, no one seems to care about how this will affect I-10, or the areas around it. straightening it looks like it will be for the best, but it's going to be elevated the whole way. If that area wasn't shut off enough from everything, it sure will be now. I weep for the hardy rail yards project.

 

Your concerns for the Hardy Rail Yards project and I-10 corridor ring hollow. 

 

I-10 is currently elevated for about half the stretch and, to use your words," blighted by a car canyon" for the other half.  Further, the plans appear to show at least as many crossing points as there are currently, so your concern about the area being even more shut off  appears to be misplaced. 

Why do you prefer an elevated freeway in midtown and behind the GRB, but the idea of an elevated freeway on the north side of downtown causes you to weep?

[ADCS]

It's not just a 'conversion of an elevated freeway'. 

 

They are taking an entire block of real estate from the east side of 59. This includes land being used by businesses (mostly small), housing, and an entire community in one case.

They are reducing mobility from one side of the freeway to the other (I did the count earlier in this thread of the number of streets that cross today and what will cross in the future, and it's down, even considering the crossings added that take you to the back side of the convention center, who is going to need to cross at mckinley, walker or lamar?).

There is no guarantee of a covered grass area where 59/45 will be. So we're potentially going to have the area of downtown that draws most tourists (convention, baseball, basketball, soccer, concerts) blighted by a car canyon.

 

and it seems that most people are focusing on the removal of pierce and the changes to 59, no one seems to care about how this will affect I-10, or the areas around it. straightening it looks like it will be for the best, but it's going to be elevated the whole way. If that area wasn't shut off enough from everything, it sure will be now. I weep for the hardy rail yards project.

 

I live near telephone and 45, own a business near UH main campus, and have a normal 9-5 job that I have just recently found out will probably be relocating to downtown, so I can maybe be called a NIMBY, but I am mainly just confused by the whole thing, outside of making the freeways straighter, I fail to see how this can possibly reduce congestion. It certainly isn't going to increase mobility for anyone using surface streets.

 

I'd rather be confused and angry now, and voice my concerns than to wait till it's done and there be no improvement to mobility. Then when I complain about how the government wasted our money and only managed to make things worse, no one can say 'well why didn't you say anything'. So yeah, I'm saying something now. When this is done, I hope I can't say 'I told you so'.

 

They're taking one block. For a project of this magnitude, that's fairly impressive. Again, compare this to the takings that went on with the Katy Freeway reconstruction.

 

The reduced crossings may be a blessing in disguise, by creating a clearly delineated set of arterial streets in downtown, reducing traffic on other streets and setting the stage for quality of life improvements such as separated bike lanes and sidewalk expansion/street beautification. There is already considerable overcapacity in downtown surface streets, which means that the land is being used inefficiently.

 

I'm a bit puzzled by the characterization of a "car canyon". There's currently a 1970s-era elevated freeway there. Compare that to, say, the Central Expressway in Dallas. I don't think you'll have too many people preferring the former over the latter. Furthermore, the caps are by their nature a long-term project. It's not necessarily for a better Houston for us, but for our children and grandchildren.

 

I'm also a little confused by an elevated freeway being removed as a problem east of downtown, but one remaining being a problem north of downtown. If it's an issue up there, certainly it's a bigger one down the 59 corridor?

 

Thing is, I'm not sure congestion reduction is the goal here, nor should it be. By the time this is done, there will be 7-8 million in the Houston metro area, and the City of Houston proper will be around 3 million in population. With those numbers, there simply is no feasible long-term congestion reduction strategy, short of implementing road pricing (and even that is temporary). This may be a point we fundamentally disagree on with respect to traffic design, but to me, the goal of our freeway system going forth should be to direct unnecessary trips away from downtown, as opposed to making it easier to get through downtown. This design balances that with practical concerns about current habits.

 

Truth is, as long as Houston continues to grow, traffic will only get worse. We can build out of it to a point, but making it our only priority leaves Houston a city for cars, and cars alone.