I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Danny1022]

5 hours ago, Ross said:

That makes more sense than subways. You still have to figure out how to get the commuters to the stations, and where they will park. And, the commute times will not be significantly shorter. Even in London, it's only 15 or so minutes faster to take the train over driving, but there's limited parking that makes the train more attractive. And METRO prob ably still thinks that there has to be a complete light rail system to handle the heavy rail commuters before the heavy rail can be built. I'm not sure Houston has reached the stage where the public will accept rail as a viable alternative.

I thought that subways were heavy rail and isnt the London underground a subway system.?

I've only been to one place with subways (I dont know what subways are anymore) I'll just say similar to London or New York. That was in Mexico and t seemed like t was fast but it was convenient cos there were bus routes to take you anywhere, unlike some areas of here.

Note. I would not think that freeways should be dismantled i just think that they should focus on more trains instead of highways but not abandon highways 

Other thing that could be possible would be make bus routes from far places to the stations. Unfortunately the fundingwould have to be a lot more but.. idk... it'd be pretty cool.

[Ross]

The London Underground is heavy rail. There are two type of tunnels there, cut and cover, which is the Metropolitan, District, and Circle lines. All the rest of the lines are bored tunnels, which disrupted the surface much less than the cut and cover.

 

This article has some pictures https://www.theguardian.com/travel/gallery/2013/jan/09/150-years-london-underground-pictures

 

Some more here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259177/London-Underground-Amazing-images-houses-demolished-Tube-1863.html

 

A few more here http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/metropolitan-line-1860s/

Edited June 19, 2017 by Ross

[ADCS]

21 hours ago, Ross said:

That makes more sense than subways. You still have to figure out how to get the commuters to the stations, and where they will park. And, the commute times will not be significantly shorter. Even in London, it's only 15 or so minutes faster to take the train over driving, but there's limited parking that makes the train more attractive. And METRO prob ably still thinks that there has to be a complete light rail system to handle the heavy rail commuters before the heavy rail can be built. I'm not sure Houston has reached the stage where the public will accept rail as a viable alternative.

 

One thing METRO could do is partner with a taxi or ridesharing service and subsidize fares to/from rail stations, to be (partially) recaptured through the fare box. Even if it is mildly exploited by people not going to the station to use the train, it gets people in the mindset of taking shared modes to transit-oriented nodes.

[samagon]

19 hours ago, Ross said:

The London Underground is heavy rail. There are two type of tunnels there, cut and cover, which is the Metropolitan, District, and Circle lines. All the rest of the lines are bored tunnels, which disrupted the surface much less than the cut and cover.

 

This article has some pictures https://www.theguardian.com/travel/gallery/2013/jan/09/150-years-london-underground-pictures

 

Some more here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259177/London-Underground-Amazing-images-houses-demolished-Tube-1863.html

 

A few more here http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/metropolitan-line-1860s/

 

There's a really cool documentary on netflix, or amazon (unsure which) about the new crosstown line.

[Ross]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

 

There's a really cool documentary on netflix, or amazon (unsure which) about the new crosstown line.

I've seen that. It's very interesting. Cross town travel has been an issue in London for a long time. Construction of surface stations in Central London was banned in 1846 or so, which is why the mainline rail stations are in a circle around the center. It's really difficult to get freight across London.

[Houston19514]

On 6/18/2017 at 0:04 AM, Ross said:

Subways are a bad idea here. Not because of flooding risk, as there are mitigations for that. The biggest impediment is the existence of thousands of old oil wells scattered all over town, and no one knows exactly were they are. There's probably some arcane laws governing the subsurface that make things even worse. We could build cut and cover tunnels under streets, but no one would be happy about the mess and traffic disruptions. London quit building tunnels like that over 100 years ago for that reason.

 

Were there every really that many oil wells drilled inside the Loop? (Realistically, to the extent there is any chance of ever building subways in Houston they will almost certainly be predominantly inside the Loop.)  Regardless, I would imagine any abandoned oil wells could be dealt with fairly easily in the context of a subway construction project.

[cspwal]

I think the bigger issue is just a fundamental problem of funding for a subway more than anything else

[HoustonMidtown]

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/houston-business-owners-wary-of-i-45-expansion-in-eado-9588496

 

 

[Ianbian]

Hi everyone -- I thought the group might be interested in the mini novela of comments I sent to TxDOT (see attachment). My focus is on maintaining and improving local, inner-city connectivity options between the East End, Downtown, and neighborhoods west of Downtown. I don't feel like we can afford to lose any more of our existing east-west roadway options, because we already have so few of them. I would hate for our local east-west roadway connectivity to start looking like Austin's north-south connectivity!

 

Remember, comments are due by July 27, 2017. Feel free to use any of the figures/arguments I've put together if you agree with them -- no need to reinvent the wheel!

IH-45 Comments - FINAL (Sharing).pdf

[samagon]

On 7/22/2017 at 6:41 AM, Ianbian said:

Hi everyone -- I thought the group might be interested in the mini novela of comments I sent to TxDOT (see attachment). My focus is on maintaining and improving local, inner-city connectivity options between the East End, Downtown, and neighborhoods west of Downtown. I don't feel like we can afford to lose any more of our existing east-west roadway options, because we already have so few of them. I would hate for our local east-west roadway connectivity to start looking like Austin's north-south connectivity!

 

Remember, comments are due by July 27, 2017. Feel free to use any of the figures/arguments I've put together if you agree with them -- no need to reinvent the wheel!

IH-45 Comments - FINAL (Sharing).pdf

 

Well thought out and well written. I think you leave a lot on the table when discussing the impact the removal of the pierce elevated will have though.

 

You reference it as a mode of connectivity only for residents along the i45 corridor, you don't consider the use by residents along 59. More residents than the city and txdot is aware of use the pierce instead of 610 to get to the same destinations you reference (west downtown, BBP, Memorial, etc). Removal of the pierce will have the effect of shifting more traffic onto 610 through the galleria area to go to those destinations, since all of those drivers use the pierce as an alternate to 610 through the galleria anyway. Basically, anyone who uses the pierce elevated as an alternative to 610 through the galleria is going to be negatively impacted. considering the amount of traffic at the 59/527, 59/45, and 45/i10 splits, and the amount of traffic choosing each specific exit.

 

An interesting question, somewhat related to your comments regarding using google maps to show best routes, I wonder if txdot has purchased any travel metadata from google? I'm sure google could easily put together a report for txdot of all regional data specific to origin and destination of people using the pierce elevated. In a day and age when this kind of data is available, you really hope they have done something like this. Considering txdot is a government agency, my money is on no, they haven't.

[samagon]

More article about the negative effects:

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/one-year-after-moving-to-eado-search-homeless-services-may-be-forced-out-by-i-45-expansion-9662634

[tigereye]

On 8/4/2014 at 2:56 PM, tigereye said:

Good point. Also portions of I-10 are also below grade too. So why not reroute 45 over a redesigned, completely below-grade I-10, then over a completely below-grade 59/69 as a double-decker highway? 10 & 59 would below grade, existing streets pass through at grade, 45 above grade. This could work without looking too imposing as in this scenario, only 1 overpass above grade would be visible, as currently exists on the East End.

Meanwhile from the 45-10 reroute, you could have 1 exit still trace the existing 45 route offering an exit to Bagby and Pierce for direct access to Midtown (same from south approach, maybe creating a grand boulevard). Coupled with the removal of all of the ramps above Buffalo Bayou, the single 45 Midtown exit ramp could create the opportunity for a signature bridge of some sort over the bayou, as previously envisioned.

 

Nice to see others still envision a signature bridge over Buffalo Bayou. 

 

 

[bobruss]

Its more the old pipelines that run all through the city. There are hundreds.

[samagon]

@MaxConcrete

you had mentioned in a different thread that the i45 project was on hold because of some feedback from a neighborhood? I didn't want to ask more in that thread, but can you fill in some info here?

 

what is the issue? who is pushing? what are the long term implications to the entire project?

[Houston19514]

26 minutes ago, samagon said:

@MaxConcrete

you had mentioned in a different thread that the i45 project was on hold because of some feedback from a neighborhood? I didn't want to ask more in that thread, but can you fill in some info here?

 

what is the issue? who is pushing? what are the long term implications to the entire project?

 

I don't think he said the project is on hold.  I think all he said was that there was "a last-ditch effort by northside interests to derail the entire project." 

[Triton]

55 minutes ago, samagon said:

@MaxConcrete

you had mentioned in a different thread that the i45 project was on hold because of some feedback from a neighborhood? I didn't want to ask more in that thread, but can you fill in some info here?

 

what is the issue? who is pushing? what are the long term implications to the entire project?

Sounded like there was some push back from Independence Heights based on the amount of businesses and apartments affected... that's from a Houston Chron article from today. Not sure if that's what MaxConcrete was talking about though.

[Twitter1]

This is at 45 & 59.  Not sure where the thread is. 

[JLWM8609]

8 hours ago, Twitter1 said:

This is at 45 & 59.  Not sure where the thread is. 

 

 

[HoustonIsHome]

I've said it before and will continue saying it there is no reason for highways to go through the core.

 

I would remove all of them in the loop and stick to boulevards and mass transit in the loop. Even I10 should go. Trucks from Jacksonville heading to LA should not be clogging areas around downtown. 10 can be looped around  610.

 

Trucks should definitely bypass downtown. 

[IronTiger]

2 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

I've said it before and will continue saying it there is no reason for highways to go through the core.

 

I would remove all of them in the loop and stick to boulevards and mass transit in the loop. Even I10 should go. Trucks from Jacksonville heading to LA should not be clogging areas around downtown. 10 can be looped around  610.

 

Trucks should definitely bypass downtown. 

In a historical sense, the highways DID bypass the core. The reason why I-45 is always bad because of the sharp curves in the road, and those were there to AVOID THE CBD. Interstate 10 went clear on the other side of the railroad while US-59 also avoided the core. With the exception of Boston's defunct Central Artery (which pre-dated the Interstate system), the Interstates were largely designed to go AROUND the downtown area. Anyone telling you otherwise either has no idea about history or is trying to push an agenda (usually both). Don't believe me? Fire up Google Earth (I think there's still a desktop version if you don't already have it), go back to 1944 when the freeways didn't exist (but leave the roads layer on) and tell me what you see.

[UtterlyUrban]

1 hour ago, IronTiger said:

In a historical sense, the highways DID bypass the core. The reason why I-45 is always bad because of the sharp curves in the road, and those were there to AVOID THE CBD. Interstate 10 went clear on the other side of the railroad while US-59 also avoided the core. With the exception of Boston's defunct Central Artery (which pre-dated the Interstate system), the Interstates were largely designed to go AROUND the downtown area. Anyone telling you otherwise either has no idea about history or is trying to push an agenda (usually both). Don't believe me? Fire up Google Earth (I think there's still a desktop version if you don't already have it), go back to 1944 when the freeways didn't exist (but leave the roads layer on) and tell me what you see.

As with everything, it all depends on how either side of the discussion defines the word “ around”.  

 

Those who were PRO highway described a freeway that cut between established neighborhoods and downtown as “ going around”.....

those who were CON highway described the same freeway as going through the core.

 

Both are correct.

 

 

 

 

 

[IronTiger]

5 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said:

As with everything, it all depends on how either side of the discussion defines the word “ around”.  

 

Those who were PRO highway described a freeway that cut between established neighborhoods and downtown as “ going around”.....

those who were CON highway described the same freeway as going through the core.

 

Both are correct.

Of course there would be demolitions. If you wanted minimal demolitions, you would have to re-route 59 up to Kirby and Richmond (east of Greenbriar was where the heaviest demolition starts for 59, and even then a lot of that is reduced due to a tight right of way and using the railroad). The real question is if you want "core" to mean "CBD with few to no single family houses" (which I-45 DID avoid) or "core" to include "established neighborhoods". If you want to change the definitions, then anything in the Beltway is "core" as well. I find it interesting how the same people who accuse the Pierce as "cutting" through Midtown and shouldn't be there are the same ones who hold 610 as a dividing line between "muh inner loop core" and everyone outside of it.

[Ross]

10 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

I've said it before and will continue saying it there is no reason for highways to go through the core.

 

I would remove all of them in the loop and stick to boulevards and mass transit in the loop. Even I10 should go. Trucks from Jacksonville heading to LA should not be clogging areas around downtown. 10 can be looped around  610.

 

Trucks should definitely bypass downtown. 

Trucks with hazardous materials do bypass downtown. I don' tthink it would work at all well to route all of the trucks onto 610, especially Westbound trucks in the morning, where teh Loop is very backed up with traffic headed to the Galleria.

 

I also think it's naive to think that all of the tens of thousands of people headed to Downtown would be handled well by boulevards and mass transit. I recall going through Houston in the 60's to get to Baytown, where my Dad was from. It took forever on surface streets.

[ADCS]

14 hours ago, IronTiger said:

 I find it interesting how the same people who accuse the Pierce as "cutting" through Midtown and shouldn't be there are the same ones who hold 610 as a dividing line between "muh inner loop core" and everyone outside of it.

Probably because we live here and can tell the difference.

 

I noticed in your retelling of history how you ignored 45, 59 and 10 splitting up Freedmen's Town, along with the Third and Fifth Wards, too. Do those communities just not count?

Edited April 9, 2018 by ADCS

[IronTiger]

22 hours ago, ADCS said:

Probably because we live here and can tell the difference.

 

I noticed in your retelling of history how you ignored 45, 59 and 10 splitting up Freedmen's Town, along with the Third and Fifth Wards, too. Do those communities just not count?

Any urban highway is going to cut through neighborhoods in the city no matter what. The big question was the urban highways cutting in the central business district. As for your other comment, I commute under 610 on a daily basis on one of the major roads that go under 610 North. On either side, there are old buildings and the occasional business. Yes, looking at Google Earth, there are more of the dense townhomes on the southern (more affluent) neighborhoods than the north side but even that's starting to change.

[Triton]

May 2018 update is just now out!

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/

[BeerNut]

Any noticeable changes since the last drawing?

[Triton]

11 minutes ago, BeerNut said:

Any noticeable changes since the last drawing?

Quite a few. Still going over them. One big one is that instead of going over Dallas, the new spur will now be sunken:

 

 

 

 

[cspwal]

It looks like that change enabled one more street level connection across the spur

I wonder if a park cap could be possible there?

[Triton]

If you look back at the schematics now that I just posted, there is a somewhat weird connection at Dallas now. In order to keep going straight towards Allen Parkway, you must cross the Dallas Bridge and turn right. Hopefully that doesn't become a bottleneck.

 

My two other big beefs are still about San Jacinto at I-10 and N Main at I-45. Both are major thoroughfares but San Jacinto still doesn't not have any type of major intersection at I-10... that has to be a mistake that needs to be addressed, especially if this is to ever connect to Fulton.

 

N Main also does not have anyway to get onto I-45 before 610 and people from 610 have no way to get to N Main either. Right when I-45 is going downwards from the Patton St Bridge, it seems like a perfect opportunity to have ramps on both sides.