I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[samagon]

20 hours ago, hindesky said:

My wild guess is that they want to remove the barrier between downtown and Midtown and possibly sell the properties to developers.

I hate to have this conversation again.

so in midtown, even if the freeway were trenched as @nolaboy suggests, it would still be a barrier between downtown and midtown.

however, doing double wide in east end, that's just fine!

I hate this argument and wish people would come up with something better, for example "the rich people don't like the freeway cutting through land they want to use" seems a lot more accurate.

[mattyt36]

20 hours ago, nolaboy said:

Why isn't there an option to trench/cap the Pierce, and leave I-45 in its current path of the west side of downtown? Considering that nearly half of I-45 will still remain in place on that side for the the downtown connector and the ROW is already there. The cap would still allow downtown/midtown to be integrated, as opposed to a much wider cap on the east side.

 

11 minutes ago, samagon said:

I hate to have this conversation again.

so in midtown, even if the freeway were trenched as @nolaboy suggests, it would still be a barrier between downtown and midtown.

however, doing double wide in east end, that's just fine!

I hate this argument and wish people would come up with something better, for example "the rich people don't like the freeway cutting through land they want to use" seems a lot more accurate.

I know conspiracy theories are cool and all, but I think if you take 15 seconds and think about constructability, the answer is wildly obvious.

[Houston19514]

21 hours ago, hindesky said:

Saw this crew of core drillers on St. Emanuel St. at Polk St., asked if they knew what it's for they said for storm sewers and drainage. I had to tell what it's going to be, the new feeder road for the IH 45 realignment.

 

 

 

What the crew is working on has little to do with St. Emanuel St's future as a feeder road for the freeways.  What they are working on is Package #1 of Segment 3B, the first project to kick NHHIP construction. Package #1 will install a 12' x 12' box culvert beneath St. Emanuel Street, along with a pump station, drainage outfall to Buffalo Bayou and a detention pond; followed by the reconstruction of St. Emanuel Street.

[Big E]

8 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

I know conspiracy theories are cool and all, but I think if you take 15 seconds and think about constructability, the answer is wildly obvious.

Seriously. Fact of the matter is, there is limited space to actually work with due the Pierce Elevated being sandwiched between major development. It would be a nightmare to work in the current corridor, not even getting to the issue that because the street network is still very much intact underneath the Pierce Elevated, they would have to workaround not messing with traffic on the both the highway and the cross streets while they work on it, or the difficulties they would face trying to rebuild the interchange with I-69/TX-288. There was a lack of development in the East End, making land acquisition, clearance, and construction easier, and the street network was already broken due to the presence of the Toyota Center and the Convention Center, meaning not as many cross streets to worry about, and rebuilding the interchange would be easier.

[samagon]

23 hours ago, Big E said:

Seriously. Fact of the matter is, there is limited space to actually work with due the Pierce Elevated being sandwiched between major development. It would be a nightmare to work in the current corridor, not even getting to the issue that because the street network is still very much intact underneath the Pierce Elevated, they would have to workaround not messing with traffic on the both the highway and the cross streets while they work on it, or the difficulties they would face trying to rebuild the interchange with I-69/TX-288. There was a lack of development in the East End, making land acquisition, clearance, and construction easier, and the street network was already broken due to the presence of the Toyota Center and the Convention Center, meaning not as many cross streets to worry about, and rebuilding the interchange would be easier.

this is going to be a nightmare, and no less a nightmare because of the side of town on which they have chosen to realign the freeway. and this is a non-starter of an argument anyway, whenever anyone brings up how much of a nightmare this will be for people living near the freeway, it's brought up how short of a timeframe 10 years really is for the bliss that will happen after. so again, it comes back to the riches vs the poors and making someone else live with more of the nightmare than you.

yes, it's true, the city in particular has dumped on connectivity from the east end, which created the lack of development you speak of. so yeah, that's a perfect argument, the cities already destroyed the area by removing connectivity, may as well just add to it by removing more connectivity, and then point to the pretty park someone might make which does absolutely nothing for connectivity. developers look for people, that's how they decide where to build things. the more people there are in, or around a place the more likely development is to happen. when you remove the people by removing the connectivity, that's what drives non-development. I'm sure you played simcity at some point, this should have been made pretty clear through that.

as far as room, there is room in the current corridor, the only reason there isn't room to add enough lanes is because TXDoT has said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "we don't wanna". no double decker (they don't want to add height to any freeways, yet look at what's going to happen on the I-10 side), no trenching with a cantilevered Pierce street over the top of it. any solution that could be done to retain the current corridor was not up for consideration. so yeah, you're very right, they couldn't fit in the current corridor, but it's not because the options weren't there.

Let's not bring up other users like that. - mods

[august948]

7 hours ago, samagon said:

this is going to be a nightmare, and no less a nightmare because of the side of town on which they have chosen to realign the freeway. and this is a non-starter of an argument anyway, whenever anyone brings up how much of a nightmare this will be for people living near the freeway, it's brought up how short of a timeframe 10 years really is for the bliss that will happen after. so again, it comes back to the riches vs the poors and making someone else live with more of the nightmare than you.

yes, it's true, the city in particular has dumped on connectivity from the east end, which created the lack of development you speak of. so yeah, that's a perfect argument, the cities already destroyed the area by removing connectivity, may as well just add to it by removing more connectivity, and then point to the pretty park someone might make which does absolutely nothing for connectivity. developers look for people, that's how they decide where to build things. the more people there are in, or around a place the more likely development is to happen. when you remove the people by removing the connectivity, that's what drives non-development. I'm sure you played simcity at some point, this should have been made pretty clear through that.

as far as room, there is room in the current corridor, the only reason there isn't room to add enough lanes is because TXDoT has said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "we don't wanna". no double decker (they don't want to add height to any freeways, yet look at what's going to happen on the I-10 side), no trenching with a cantilevered Pierce street over the top of it. any solution that could be done to retain the current corridor was not up for consideration. so yeah, you're very right, they couldn't fit in the current corridor, but it's not because the options weren't there.

Let's not bring up other users like that. -Marc

Correct me if I'm wrong here but this is an expansion of existing roadways, is it not?  Something that happens along all freeway corridors at some point?  They aren't tearing up existing neighborhoods to create brand new roadways like was done when the highway system was established in the 50's. 

The Katy Freeway expansion project tore things up for years and, get this, runs through some of the wealthiest zip codes in town.  Could the difference be that this one affects east-enders more?

[samagon]

3 hours ago, august948 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong here but this is an expansion of existing roadways, is it not?  Something that happens along all freeway corridors at some point?  They aren't tearing up existing neighborhoods to create brand new roadways like was done when the highway system was established in the 50's. 

The Katy Freeway expansion project tore things up for years and, get this, runs through some of the wealthiest zip codes in town.  Could the difference be that this one affects east-enders more?

you can find plenty of commentary from people who live in the east end in this thread (and not just me) about how this will affect connectivity, no need to get in and rehash all of that now.

to compare this realignment/expansion (whatever you want to call it), it differs from the Katy project in that all existing methods of getting from one side of the freeway that existed prior to that project, still exist today (aka, local connectivity). Post Oak, Silber, Antoine, etc. the through streets were there before the expansion, and they are there today. connectivity was not lost, and in some instances, it was made even better.

this is not the case for segment 3 realignment through downtown. not just a problem for the east end. 3rd ward, 5th ward, near northside, all negatively impacted from a connectivity perspective. again, you can skim the thread for the details on how connectivity is being broken further by this project, and why it matters for all of the communities around downtown, no need to re-submit.

I'll grant, I haven't looked at the recently updated drawings to see how they've updated for the better, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised when I dig in, but I doubt I will.

Edited December 13, 2023 by samagon

[Houston19514]

15 minutes ago, samagon said:

you can find plenty of commentary from people who live in the east end in this thread (and not just me) about how this will affect connectivity, no need to get in and rehash all of that now.

to compare this realignment/expansion (whatever you want to call it), it differs from the Katy project in that all existing methods of getting from one side of the freeway that existed prior to that project, still exist today (aka, local connectivity). Post Oak, Silber, Antoine, etc. the through streets were there before the expansion, and they are there today. connectivity was not lost, and in some instances, it was made even better.

this is not the case for segment 3 realignment through downtown. not just a problem for the east end. 3rd ward, 5th ward, near northside, all negatively impacted from a connectivity perspective. again, you can skim the thread for the details on how connectivity is being broken further by this project, and why it matters for all of the communities around downtown, no need to re-submit.

I'll grant, I haven't looked at the recently updated drawings to see how they've updated for the better, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised when I dig in, but I doubt I will.

 

[Triton]

3 hours ago, samagon said:

this is not the case for segment 3 realignment through downtown. not just a problem for the east end. 3rd ward, 5th ward, near northside, all negatively impacted from a connectivity perspective. again, you can skim the thread for the details on how connectivity is being broken further by this project, and why it matters for all of the communities around downtown, no need to re-submit.

Yup, we are losing connection on the Northside. The main route my son will need to take to get to his elementary school on the other side of the highway is being taken away. With that gone, I just hope we remain zoned to that school.

[august948]

33 minutes ago, Triton said:

Yup, we are losing connection on the Northside. The main route my son will need to take to get to his elementary school on the other side of the highway is being taken away. With that gone, I just hope we remain zoned to that school.

If they rezone you, talk to the district admin.  We had that happen when my oldest was in kindergarten and they grandfathered us in as long as we didn't need bus service (which we didn't).

[Big E]

On 12/13/2023 at 8:19 AM, samagon said:

this is going to be a nightmare, and no less a nightmare because of the side of town on which they have chosen to realign the freeway.

Its going to be a nightmare either way because there will be years of construction. Using the expanded footprint in the East End just lowers the amount of disruption to local traffic and streets.

 

On 12/13/2023 at 8:19 AM, samagon said:

yes, it's true, the city in particular has dumped on connectivity from the east end, which created the lack of development you speak of. so yeah, that's a perfect argument, the cities already destroyed the area by removing connectivity, may as well just add to it by removing more connectivity, and then point to the pretty park someone might make which does absolutely nothing for connectivity.

Connectivity in the East End will not be negatively effected; all currently existing cross streets will remain after the realignment and sinking of the freeway. The lack of connectivity doesn't come from the existence of the current highway, but from the existence of the convention center and Toyota Center. They aren't going anywhere, hence, the lack of connectivity isn't going anywhere, no matter what TxDOT does.

 

On 12/13/2023 at 8:19 AM, samagon said:

as far as room, there is room in the current corridor, the only reason there isn't room to add enough lanes is because TXDoT has said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "we don't wanna". no double decker (they don't want to add height to any freeways, yet look at what's going to happen on the I-10 side), no trenching with a cantilevered Pierce street over the top of it.

Have you considered the fact that it would cost more to double decker the freeway? Or the fact that they would have to tear down the Pierce elevated and completely rebuild it regardless because its at the end of its service life, adding even more to the cost? Have you considered the added cost and difficulty to bury the freeway in place without disrupting the existing freeway and road traffic above? I'm sure TxDOT have actually considered all of those options. There is a reason they are going with the option they going with now.

[JClark54]

11 hours ago, Big E said:

Its going to be a nightmare either way because there will be years of construction. Using the expanded footprint in the East End just lowers the amount of disruption to local traffic and streets.

 

Connectivity in the East End will not be negatively effected; all currently existing cross streets will remain after the realignment and sinking of the freeway. The lack of connectivity doesn't come from the existence of the current highway, but from the existence of the convention center and Toyota Center. They aren't going anywhere, hence, the lack of connectivity isn't going anywhere, no matter what TxDOT does.

That's not true at all. I don't typically find value in entering this commentary, as this project is happening so bickering is pointless. But you're disregarding facts you clearly know as you've engaged in discourse about them above.

Polk, one of only three east end connector streets to downtown with a rail separation, will be closed to auto traffic. Traffic will be pushed to Leeland and ultimately hit an at-grade crossing for a rail line that is subject to up to 75 trains daily. That means it's blocked for half the day in the optimal scenario in which trains clear the intersection in 10 minutes or so, common on the west side. That's not the case on the east side, so more than half the day this crossing is blocked with by trains, whether moving or stopped completely. 

Edited December 15, 2023 by JClark54

[Houston19514]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:05 PM, Triton said:

Yup, we are losing connection on the Northside. The main route my son will need to take to get to his elementary school on the other side of the highway is being taken away. With that gone, I just hope we remain zoned to that school.

I presume you are referring to North Street.  Per the most recent updates from TXDoT, they are evaluating a potential pedestrian bridge over North St.

[Triton]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I presume you are referring to North Street.  Per the most recent updates from TXDoT, they are evaluating a potential pedestrian bridge over North St.

Yup, I've shared that with the Northside groups (most didn't even attend!) and the response has been overwhelmingly positive if TXDOT does agree to do it. I spoke with one of the TXDOT representatives at the Monday night townhall and he told it to me straight that this bridge is presenting considerable design challenges, especially since this will have to be around 34ft in the air, probably one of the higher pedestrian bridges in the Houston area. And because it will be that tall, they have to build long ramps leading up to the bridge for ADA compliance (although smaller staggered ramps are a possibility too). That's the key reason they decided to scrap it in the first place and instead build a path under the I-45 bridge along Little White Oak Bayou. However, after community engagement, TXDOT realizes that that path is not direct enough between the Northside and Germantown.

So because it's still in design, there's no guarantee they are going to implement this bridge but fingers crossed! 

[Big E]

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

That's not true at all. I don't typically find value in entering this commentary, as this project is happening so bickering is pointless. But you're disregarding facts you clearly know as you've engaged in discourse about them above.

Polk, one of only three east end connector streets to downtown with a rail separation, will be closed to auto traffic. Traffic will be pushed to Leeland and ultimately hit an at-grade crossing for a rail line that is subject to up to 75 trains daily. That means it's blocked for half the day in the optimal scenario in which trains clear the intersection in 10 minutes or so, common on the west side. That's not the case on the east side, so more than half the day this crossing is blocked with by trains, whether moving or stopped completely. 

Polk and Leland are literally only a few blocks from each other. The rail crossings are like half a mile's worth of blocks away from downtown. Traffic can still take Polk under the tracks, then cross to Leland at any of the other cross streets.

[JClark54]

51 minutes ago, Big E said:

Polk and Leland are literally only a few blocks from each other. The rail crossings are like half a mile's worth of blocks away from downtown. Traffic can still take Polk under the tracks, then cross to Leland at any of the other cross streets.

So your comment confirms there is a street closure, making of your prior claim erroneous. If you think drivers unfamiliar with the area are going to know to make the jag, you’re kidding yourself.

Edited December 16, 2023 by JClark54

[Big E]

19 hours ago, JClark54 said:

So your comment confirms there is a street closure, making of your prior claim erroneous. If you think drivers unfamiliar with the area are going to know to make the jag, you’re kidding yourself.

I did not dispute the fact that Polk would be closed in my follow up statement, and in fact, I didn't even address your claim that Polk would be closed because I did not actually check the design plans to see if your claim about Polk being closed was even true. What I did address was your actually erroneous claim that traffic would be forced to use the rail crossing at Leland instead of crossing under at Polk, which just isn't true.

And why wouldn't non-local traffic make the jaunt from Polk to Leland or vice versa? Nothing is stopping them from doing so, just like nothing is stopping them now. Its literally a difference of a few blocks.

[JClark54]

 

20 hours ago, Big E said:

I did not dispute the fact that Polk would be closed in my follow up statement, and in fact, I didn't even address your claim that Polk would be closed because I did not actually check the design plans to see if your claim about Polk being closed was even true. What I did address was your actually erroneous claim that traffic would be forced to use the rail crossing at Leland instead of crossing under at Polk, which just isn't true.

And why wouldn't non-local traffic make the jaunt from Polk to Leland or vice versa? Nothing is stopping them from doing so, just like nothing is stopping them now. Its literally a difference of a few blocks.

If you aren't aware of what's closed or not, why bother telling the other commenter there were no closures? Do you just jump into threads and make claims despite, as you write, "I did not actually check the design plans to see if your claim about Polk being closed was even true."

Surprised to read you're ignorant about the closure, as you've engaged in discussion about this exact segment and it on this thread for quite some time.

What exactly about my claim is erroneous? Please tell me. Traffic will be directed onto Leeland, as you confirmed above. If drivers aren't aware of the need to jag, they will continue straight. That's natural. It already happens now, and will worsen when Polk closes. 

There are currently years-long impacts to significant thoroughfares in greater Montrose, Heights, yet drivers still take and complain about those impacts on this forum, ND, and social media. Those areas also have comprehensive street grids, with access to a parallel major street from the impacted one just a few blocks away. Those projects even have signage warning drivers of imminent delays or stoppages many blocks in advance, yet they still proceed forward. Why would you expect any different in the east end? 

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by JClark54

[Big E]

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

If you aren't aware of what's closed or not, why bother telling the other commenter there were no closures? Do you just jump into threads and make claims despite, as you write, "I did not actually check the design plans to see if your claim about Polk being closed was even true."

The only thing I said is that I didn't bother to double check your claim. Since you bothered to dispute the point, I considered that you were responding in good faith, so if I was going to clap back on it, I would have brought up the schematics and either conceded the point, or pointed out you were wrong, Simple as. Since I didn't have time to confirm one or another, I didn't concede or dispute the point. Don't get your panties in a twist.

 

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Surprised to read you're ignorant about the closure, as you've engaged in discussion about this exact segment and it on this thread for quite some time.

 Been a long time since I looked at the plans. Assuming you're correct, its possible I simply forgot or overlooked the fact that Polk was closed. Oh gosh, I missed that a single street will be closed out to the 15 cross streets that cross under I-69 between the bayou and the interchange with I-45. Sue me.

 

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

What exactly about my claim is erroneous? Please tell me. Traffic will be directed onto Leeland, as you confirmed above. If drivers aren't aware of the need to jag, they will continue straight. That's natural. It already happens now, and will worsen when Polk closes. 

You claimed that traffic would be pushed onto Leland with the closure of Polk's crossover at I-69, necessitating them dealing with the rail crossing. This is simply not true. For local traffic, nothing functionally changes regarding whether or not they can take Leland or Polk due to the train tracks.

The exact same configuration that currently exists there will continue to exist. The only change will be that you can't take Polk itself between downtown and EaDo, which would require a minor detour at best. Local traffic is already aware of the crossings in the area, and if they really want or need to detour down Polk, they will still be able to do so effortlessly. Non-local traffic will most like use a Map app, like Google maps, navigate. If a train is idling or holding up traffic on Leland, their app will redirect them to Polk. Otherwise, they might very well simply default to Polk.

Either way, there's literally no material difference for either local or non-local traffic in regards to the streets, outside the loss of the crossover. They are the same either way, and the same problem of non-local traffic getting caught by a train at Leland persists regardless. The real answer to this issue would be to put an underpass at Leland similar to the one at Polk. Not even sure if that's doable.

 

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

There are currently years-long impacts to significant thoroughfares in greater Montrose, Heights, yet drivers still take and complain about those impacts on this forum, ND, and social media. Those areas also have comprehensive street grids, with access to a parallel major street from the impacted one just a few blocks away. Those projects even have signage warning drivers of imminent delays or stoppages many blocks in advance, yet they still proceed forward. Why would you expect any different in the east end?

If these problems already exists and persist, then the loss of the crossover at Polk won't matter much either way; the problem is already a known and persistent one, and will be a known and persistent problem whether or not the crossover at Polk is removed. Either way, its the loss of one street out of the many that crossover, assuming it is in fact removed by the project.

[JClark54]

2 hours ago, Big E said:

The only thing I said is that I didn't bother to double check your claim. Since you bothered to dispute the point, I considered that you were responding in good faith, so if I was going to clap back on it, I would have brought up the schematics and either conceded the point, or pointed out you were wrong, Simple as. Since I didn't have time to confirm one or another, I didn't concede or dispute the point. Don't get your panties in a twist.

 Been a long time since I looked at the plans. Assuming you're correct, its possible I simply forgot or overlooked the fact that Polk was closed. Oh gosh, I missed that a single street will be closed out to the 15 cross streets that cross under I-69 between the bayou and the interchange with I-45. Sue me.

Cool! So you now agree Polk will be closed. Took a long time to reach this moment. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by JClark54

[004n063]

11 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Cool! So you now agree Polk will be closed. Took a long time to reach this moment. 

It's also ten cross streets, not 15.

And from the perspective of someone whose "car" is a bicycle, closing Polk is significant.

[Brooklyn173]

Similar situation

https://www.hcn.org/issues/55.12/communities-north-denvers-green-space-paradoxx

[Big E]

5 hours ago, 004n063 said:

It's also ten cross streets, not 15.

And from the perspective of someone whose "car" is a bicycle, closing Polk is significant.

St. Joseph Parkway

Jefferson Street

Pease Street

Leland Street

Bell Street/Westbound portion of Leland

Polk Street

Rusk Street

Capital Street

Texas Avenue

Preston Street

Congress Street

Franklin Street

Commerce Street

Ruiz Street

Runnels Street

 

That's 15 cross streets. Not 10.

 

16 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Cool! So you now agree Polk will be closed. Took a long time to reach this moment. 

I said "Assuming your correct", genius. I didn't concede anything. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Big E

[JClark54]

31 minutes ago, Big E said:

St. Joseph Parkway

Jefferson Street

Pease Street

Leland Street

Bell Street

Polk Street

Rusk Street

Capital Street

Texas Avenue

Preston Street

Congress Street

Franklin Street

Commerce Street

Ruiz Street

Runnels Street

 

That's 15 cross streets. Not 10.

 

I said "Assuming your correct", genius. I didn't concede anything. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

So you don't concede to Polk's closure to auto traffic in the current design? You must have looked at the schematics when compiling the list of cross streets for the other poster, right? 

Edited December 18, 2023 by JClark54

[Big E]

13 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

You must have looked at the schematics when compiling the list of cross streets for the other poster, right? 

I looked at a map. No I haven't actually checked the most recent schematics.

[samagon]

19 hours ago, Big E said:

 Been a long time since I looked at the plans. Assuming you're correct, its possible I simply forgot or overlooked the fact that Polk was closed. Oh gosh, I missed that a single street will be closed out to the 15 cross streets that cross under I-69 between the bayou and the interchange with I-45. Sue me.

the fact that you happily point out that there are 15 crossings shows just how little you know of the actual value of those crossings to the people who commute locally.

for example, of the 15 crossings, there is a crossing at Preston is literally the most useless feature of this project. it dead ends into the baseball stadium a block west of the new freeway, and it ceases to be a road 3 blocks east of the new freeway because of the railroad.

furthermore, in addition to Polk going away, the Leeland crossing which currently allows WB traffic to drop onto Bell street goes away as well. yes, the schematics show you can still cross the freeway going WB, but the ability to continue west on Bell goes away. so someone who is WB on Polk, now has to jog over 3 blocks to Leeland, then jog over another block to Pease street. then to get back over to Polk, it's another 4 blocks. that's 1/2 mile difference in overall travel distance, never mind how many added stop lights, and sitting at stop signs for cross traffic. in a car, not a huge deal, but for any other form of transportation?

at the end of the day, this project is going to happen, it's going to suck for everyone during construction, and it will continue to suck for a lot of people who have to live with the impacts to their community. you can keep arguing about it, or you can acknowledge that there are people who might be more in tune with the area in which they live than you are.

Edited December 18, 2023 by samagon

[Big E]

Ok, so, instead of scouring the internet for the schematics, I decided to go back and take a look at the 3D presentation of the NHHIP that TxDOT posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUFK6KcBbGA

Its six years old at this point, but I don't think any drastic changes have been made to the project since to render it obsolete in regards to the portion of the project we are talking about.

Going by that video, yes the crossover at Polk is being removed. Also being removed are the crossovers at Ruiz and Runnels. But, according to that schematic, new crossovers are being added at the streets that run between Polk and Rusk (Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker). This will be achieved by extending Hamilton around the back of the convention center and cantilevering it over the freeway, thus reconnecting the two disconnected portions of that road and creating one long continuous frontage road, and the new crossovers will tie into that road, with the freeway cap being built between the crossovers. So, for the connectivity that is lost, new connectivity is gained.

@JClark54 One thing that bothers me about your claims regarding Polk, however. You claim that the loss of this road will negatively effect traffic. But Polk is a one-way street going westbound when it runs downtown beyond Avenida. So anyone trying to go Eastbound, back into EaDo will have to take Leland regardless, unless they specifically come down Avenida. Most of the traffic probably already defaults to Leland for that reason alone. The only people who will be possibly inconvenienced will be those who crossing from EaDo to downtown, but by the time they have to make the decision, the train tracks are a non-factor.

36 minutes ago, samagon said:

the fact that you happily point out that there are 15 crossings shows just how little you know of the actual value of those crossings to the people who commute daily.

for example, that there is a crossing at Preston is literally the most useless feature of this project.

furthermore, in addition to Polk going away, the Leeland crossing which currently allows WB traffic to drop onto Bell street goes away as well.

at the end of the day, this project is going to happen, it's going to suck for everyone during construction, and it will continue to suck for a lot of people who have to live with the impacts to their community. you can keep arguing about it, or you can acknowledge that there are people who might be more in tune with the area in which they live than you are.

Firstly, you appear to be correct that the Leland-Bell connection is removed, but this may be mitigated if the new Leland crossing carries traffic in both directions; the only thing that would be lost would be a direct connection to Bell. And regardless if it doesn't, it's further mitigated by the fact that the Pease Street crossing remains, allowing one to still crossover into downtown, while a new connection is added at Dallas, allowing traffic to crossover and come back down to Bell or Polk.

Second, whether you personally consider the Preston connection "useless" is irrelevant. It is a connection between Downtown and EaDo and it will remain after construction is finished.

Third, I doubt you are more "in tune" with the effects of this project anymore than anyone else here, regardless of whether or not you even live close to the area. Anyone can look at what's added, what's lost, and come to their own conclusions about this project.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Big E

[JClark54]

53 minutes ago, Big E said:

Ok, so, instead of scouring the internet for the schematics, I decided to go back and take a look at the 3D presentation of the NHHIP that TxDOT posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUFK6KcBbGA

Its six years old at this point, but I don't think any drastic changes have been made to the project since to render it obsolete in regards to the portion of the project we are talking about.

Going by that video, yes the crossover at Polk is being removed. Also being removed are the crossovers at Ruiz and Runnels. But, according to that schematic, new crossovers are being added at the streets that run between Polk and Rusk (Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker). This will be achieved by extending Hamilton around the back of the convention center and cantilevering it over the freeway, thus reconnecting the two disconnected portions of that road and creating one long continuous frontage road, and the new crossovers will tie into that road, with the freeway cap being built between the crossovers. So, for the connectivity that is lost, new connectivity is gained.

@JClark54 One thing that bothers me about your claims regarding Polk, however. You claim that the loss of this road will negatively effect traffic. But Polk is a one-way street going westbound when it runs downtown beyond Avenida. So anyone trying to go Eastbound, back into EaDo will have to take Leland regardless, unless they specifically come down Avenida. Most of the traffic probably already defaults to Leland for that reason alone. The only people who will be possibly inconvenienced will be those who crossing from EaDo to downtown, but by the time they have to make the decision, the train tracks are a non-factor.

Firstly, you appear to be correct that the Leland-Bell connection is removed, but this may be mitigated if the new Leland crossing carries traffic in both directions; the only thing that would be lost would be a direct connection to Bell. And regardless if it doesn't, it's further mitigated by the fact that the Pease Street crossing remains, allowing one to still crossover into downtown, while a new connection is added at Dallas, allowing traffic to crossover and come back down to Bell or Polk.

Second, whether you personally consider the Preston connection "useless" is irrelevant. It is a connection between Downtown and EaDo and it will remain after construction is finished.

Third, I doubt you are more "in tune" with the effects of this project anymore than anyone else here, regardless of whether or not you even live close to the area. Anyone can look at what's added, what's lost, and come to their own conclusions about this project.

You're rationalizing the Polk crossing elimination on the grounds it transitions from two-way to one-way traffic beyond Avenida and the Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker connections? Those streets will not proceed beyond the GRB. 

I guess I'll say I doubt you are more "in tune" with the effects of this project any more than anyone else here, regardless of whether or not you even live close to the area. Anyone can look at what's added and what's lost and come to their own conclusions about this project.

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

Dovetailing off the will-or-won't-Polk-close-I-can't-be-bothered-to-look debate, I find it interesting certain regular posters here go to great lengths to write losing the Polk connection won't noticeably burden transit around freight rail without ever providing evidence to support their claims. 

Representatives from Chicago, an oft-discussed city on this forum, recently testified before the FRA that stopped miles-long freight trains have caused what they deemed as untenable transit harm. The remedy proposed was regulating freight train traffic in the city or compelling railroads to fund separations to alleviate those issues, if they planned to continue parking on public streets.

The tagline atop the PowerPoint presentation used during the public comment? "Could Chicago become the next Houston?" The speakers then stated Houston east end vehicular-pedestrian transit is a "catastrophe," especially when multiple lines are blocked simultaneously. Houston was used as a worst-case scenario that the FRA would be behooved to help Chicago avoid, not mirror. 

If planners at Chicago say Houston's freight rail-traffic infrastructure is catastrophically subpar and the FRA has ranked the Houston complex as the nation's most congested two years in a row, I'm going to value their opinion over someone who comments without familiarizing themself with the situation. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by JClark54

[Big E]

First of all, before I address JClark's post directly, some corrections and clarifications. I did in fact locate the NHHIP website and, via said website, the most up to date schematics. Based on those schematics:

1. The Leland crossover has in fact been turned into a two way crossover, vs. the one way it currently is. The second crossing leading into Bell Street has been removed, but the reason for that is...

2. There is now a freeway offramp leading off of I-69 that directly connects to Bell Street, thus giving direct freeway access to downtown. This is the real reason that one can no longer go from Leland directly to Bell.

3. I was mistaken and there is no crossover as Dallas. However, instead of that, the crossover at Lamar has a dedicated U-Turn lane, so traffic coming down Polk can easily U-turn at the Lamar crossover and continue on to Polk without having to sit at an additional light (assuming there is no light at the Dallas junction, which there shouldn't be since Dallas only meets on one side). Thus, connectivity between Polk on both sides is preserved.

2 hours ago, JClark54 said:

You're rationalizing the Polk crossing elimination on the grounds it transitions from two-way to one-way traffic beyond Avenida and the Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker connections? Those streets will not proceed beyond the GRB. 

What I'm telling you is that there is no Eastbound traffic on Polk past Avenida. Most eastbound traffic heading into EaDo already defaults to Leland unless its specifically coming down Avenida, based on downtown street patters. So, for Eastbound traffic in most of downtown, nothing really changes. Traffic coming down Avenida can just take Jackson down to Leland, which is only three blocks. Westbound traffic can use the new crossover at Lamar to reach Polk with minimal difficulty. In other words, the actual inconvenience to local traffic is minimal.

 

1 hour ago, JClark54 said:

Dovetailing off the will-or-won't-Polk-close-I-can't-be-bothered-to-look debate, I find it interesting certain regular posters here go to great lengths to write losing the Polk connection won't noticeably burden transit around freight rail without ever providing evidence to support their claims. 

Representatives from Chicago, an oft-discussed city on this forum, recently testified before the FRA that stopped miles-long freight trains have caused what they deemed as untenable transit harm. The remedy proposed was regulating freight train traffic in the city or compelling railroads to fund separations to alleviate those issues, if they planned to continue parking on public streets.

The tagline atop the PowerPoint presentation used during the public comment? "Could Chicago become the next Houston?" The speakers then stated Houston east end vehicular-pedestrian transit is a "catastrophe," especially when multiple lines are blocked simultaneously. Houston was used as a worst-case scenario that the FRA would be behooved to help Chicago avoid, not mirror. 

If planners at Chicago say Houston's freight rail-traffic infrastructure is catastrophically subpar and the FRA has ranked the Houston complex as the nation's most congested two years in a row, I'm going to value their opinion over someone who comments without familiarizing themself with the situation. 

This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Big E