I-45 Reconstruction

[Guest Plastic]

I was drivong down I -45 yesteray and thinking why don't they make The North Freeway double-decked.

I would make use of available room by putting highway lanes ontop of the lanes we've got. We could either have the bottom go one way with 4 lanes,3 HOTlanes anr 2 rail tracks(Commuter and high speed rail) going one way. Then have 4 lanes,3 HOTlanes and 2 rail tracks on top going the other way.

Or we could have 2 directions of free lanes on bottom and 6 HOTlanes on top while rail tracks are on top or bottom too.

Which one do you think>?

[kjb434]

Texas has three double decked freeways already. They are ok, but that amount of capcity is not needed and the cost would justify it.

The other double decked freeways:

I-10 on the NW side of downtown San Antonio

I-35 north of Dowtown Austin

I-45 southeast of Downtown Houston

I like the fact they are leaning towards using the Hardy Toll road as a corridor for the HOT lanes

This would mean that most of the construction on I-45 (particularly through the heights), would be more of rebuilb to updated the freeway to current standards.

Also, the depressed sections are for noise reduction, building a level above would defeat that concept.

Also, if the HOT lanes are building whether in the mainlane or on the Hardy Toll Road, the need for rail along the corridor will drop. The HOT lanes will act as a rail component since the park and ride buses will operate there.

Edited October 19, 2005 by kjb434

[Guest Plastic]

Texas has three double decked freeways already. They are ok, but that amount of capcity is not needed and the cost would justify it.

The other double decked freeways:

I-10 on the NW side of downtown San Antonio

I-35 north of Dowtown Austin

I-45 southeast of Downtown Houston

I like the fact they are leaning towards using the Hardy Toll road as a corridor for the HOT lanes

This would mean that most of the construction on I-45 (particularly through the heights), would be more of rebuilb to updated the freeway to current standards.

Also, the depressed sections are for noise reduction, building a level above would defeat that concept.

Also, if the HOT lanes are building whether in the mainlane or on the Hardy Toll Road, the need for rail along the corridor will drop. The HOT lanes will act as a rail component since the park and ride buses will operate there.

Noo we can't use Hardy for HOTlanes. We've taken away so many of Housotn's rail tracks building freeways. We take anymore it's gonna be nearly impossible fortrains to get through Houston. Now the LRT and Hi Speed Rail may be able to use The Hardy.

[Saddleman]

I35 in San Antonio is also double-decked (is that a real word?).

[MaxConcrete]

I like the fact they are leaning towards using the Hardy Toll road as a corridor for the HOT lanes

Is that viable?

My concern is that the Hardy Toll Road carries a decent traffic load in the peak direction at rush hour right now. I don't drive it at that time, but I'm inclined to believe it is busy but still moving well.

The HOT lanes need to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) = C to keep it suitable for transit. I think that the Hardy cannot take much more peak-direction rush hour traffic and still maintain LOS=C. If that's the case, then putting the HOT lanes on the existing Hardy is not going to work.

This all depends on how much more traffic Hardy can carry and still move at 60 mph at rush hour. They may have to jack up the tolls if they pursue the strategy you mention in order to keep the traffic thin.

[kjb434]

^^^

I'm thinking that is what they will consider. I think they are looking towards HCTRA to see if they want to make the Hardy similar to HOT lanes on the Katy.

Also, HCTRA is moving forward with the extension of the Hardy into downtown. It's not under construction, but the shematics are in process.

Truthly we won't know much until we get a hold of the report TxDOT issued or is about to issue on the Hardy option along with the original prefered option.

To me, since a Tolled corridor exists and it currently 6 lanes from the Belt to I-610, I think it can handle the traffic, but that just from my experience from using it every now and then during the afternoon rush our. I sometimes have to head up to the Woodlands after work, once I get trough the I-45 interchange on I-610, the Hardy is smooth sailing. There are a nice volume of cars, but it all moves at aroud 70 mph. The slowest part is when you merge back at I-45 at the county line and that's if the rush hour peak has hit that area.

The extention of the Hardy to Downtown from the loop would help keep traffic from having to exit and head over to US-59 or I-45 to get to downtown.

Plastic,

I don't think they were going to add lanes to the Hardy. From what some guys down at TxDOT that I talk too, they were shooting the concept of converting the Hardy to something similar like the Katy HOT lanes.

I like the Hardy option since it prevent the need for widening I-45 much more than it already is.

[Ashikaga]

Are freeways really "free"? It takes very little to cause a backup and congestion. In those cases, the old narrow two lane highways would have been better.

[Montrose1100]

I35 in San Antonio is also double-decked (is that a real word?).

Its only like that for a little ways, but I bet it helps, because the top ones just go threw all the exits, and the bottom connects to them all.