I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[CaptainJilliams]

Approve it or oppose it, most major American cities damned themselves a long time ago when they built major highways that flattened whole neighborhoods. Most of these cities have only continued to grow since then and the infrastructure will need to be updated (at the very least) to avoid dangerous deterioration. I drove south on i-45 through downtown just yesterday and you can tell just by looking at the existing structures that something will need to be done the next 5-10 years if the highway is expected to handle traffic for the next generation. The current roadways are outdated, I'd argue smaller scale changes (widening the lanes, adding more shoulder room for disabled vehicles/emergencies, better feeder/exit connections) are an absolute must, regardless of whether or not the whole "trenching" proposal comes to fruition. 

 

I'm open to alternative perspectives on how we can update i-45 and the highways surrounding downtown, but I think it's a tad bit foolish to oppose any highway expansion altogether.

[DrLan34]

The amount of money that will be poured into this highway is is not worth the ROI for the city. That's my two cents and I hope the opposition becomes louder and louder.

We don't need 10 billion so that we can encourage more traffic and be left with the same congestion we have now, some short time into the future.

 

I'm game with repairing old infrastructure, but let's look to the future and beyond ridiculously wide highways that just encourage more driving.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, CaptainJilliams said:

Approve it or oppose it, most major American cities damned themselves a long time ago when they built major highways that flattened whole neighborhoods. Most of these cities have only continued to grow since then and the infrastructure will need to be updated (at the very least) to avoid dangerous deterioration. I drove south on i-45 through downtown just yesterday and you can tell just by looking at the existing structures that something will need to be done the next 5-10 years if the highway is expected to handle traffic for the next generation. The current roadways are outdated, I'd argue smaller scale changes (widening the lanes, adding more shoulder room for disabled vehicles/emergencies, better feeder/exit connections) are an absolute must, regardless of whether or not the whole "trenching" proposal comes to fruition. 

 

I'm open to alternative perspectives on how we can update i-45 and the highways surrounding downtown, but I think it's a tad bit foolish to oppose any highway expansion altogether.

 

fixing problems, and increasing efficiency within the existing ROW is possible. just look at what they are doing for the 45/59 interchange. so far as I know, the 610/59 interchange will not be taking any ROW to increase efficiency either.

 

I think txdot is foolish to not entertain any other form of transit than vehicular. they say Texas is not a mass transit state, they're right, and it's their fault Texas is built the way it is. they have the power to make a difference, yet they continue to put forward projects like this.

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

I think txdot is foolish to not entertain any other form of transit than vehicular. they say Texas is not a mass transit state, they're right, and it's their fault Texas is built the way it is. they have the power to make a difference, yet they continue to put forward projects like this.

1

 

The legislature wrote into the state constitution one or two sessions ago that 97% of TxDOT funds have to be spent on roads. So they can't even do public transit if they wanted to. 

[H-Town Man]

What I never understood from the beginning is why I-45 needs to be doubled in size. I could see adding a lane or two, but they are doubling it. It always moves fairly quickly between downtown and 610 in my experience.

 

[intencity77]

If one wants to pinpoint the blame somewhere we cannot simply blame TXDOT. I think you also have to add in the mentality factor as well. The majority of Texans and Houstonians in particular have been groomed through the years to believe that bigger, wider, super freeways, here, there and everywhere, are the ONLY answer to vehicular traffic issues. Groomed to the point that most are blinded by how truly destructive, expensive and outrageous many of these freeway projects are. If Houston were a real progressive minded city on transportation issues, protesting would have occurred years ago when this project was initially announced and by now, we could have seen a much better version with added in transit options or just killed altogether. In order for us to demand better results from mega transportation projects such as this one, the perceptions of freeways has to change for the majority of Houstonians. There is no way around that. I think we are, albeit extremely slowly and way behind many other cities on the issue. I do believe that the added in possibility of the very pretty, very enticing and unfunded park caps on this project prove that. Their existence in the official renderings were purely a ploy, a hypnotizing trinket, by TXDOT to softened the blowback they knew they’d surely receive from the public had there been no possibility of the caps at all.

[Houston19514]

4 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

What I never understood from the beginning is why I-45 needs to be doubled in size. I could see adding a lane or two, but they are doubling it. It always moves fairly quickly between downtown and 610 in my experience.

 

 

I don't think they are doubling it.  Between downtown and 610 currently has 9 lanes total (4 in each direction plus one HOV lane).  The current plan appears to provide 14 lanes total (5 in each direction plus 2 Max Lanes in each direction).

[H-Town Man]

3 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

I don't think they are doubling it.  Between downtown and 610 currently has 9 lanes total (4 in each direction plus one HOV lane).  The current plan appears to provide 14 lanes total (5 in each direction plus 2 Max Lanes in each direction).

 

Aren't all of the new lanes wider, with more shoulders as well as spaces between the toll and free lanes?

 

[Houston19514]

5 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

The legislature wrote into the state constitution one or two sessions ago that 97% of TxDOT funds have to be spent on roads. So they can't even do public transit if they wanted to. 

 

Pretty sure that's false.  First, the legislature does not have the power to amend the constitution.  That can only be done by the voters.  Second, I can't find any such provision in the constitution.  Can you provide a section number or other citation?

[Luminare]

13 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Pretty sure that's false.  First, the legislature does not have the power to amend the constitution.  That can only be done by the voters.  Second, I can't find any such provision in the constitution.  Can you provide a section number or other citation?

 

but...but the conspiracy! thats against the conspiracy of a TXDoT cabal scheming and plotting against us all! take those facts somewhere else!

[Houston19514]

17 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Aren't all of the new lanes wider, with more shoulders as well as spaces between the toll and free lanes?

 

 

Not sure, but I do know for sure that the total right of way is no where near double, even at its widest. In a large part of the section between downtown and the Loop, the right-of-way expands very little (zero in some places, no more than 28' in quite a few other areas).  At no point does it come anywhere near doubling.

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs9/20180413_NHHIP_Seg2_I-45_RollPlots_PH.pdf

[Houston19514]

On 3/4/2019 at 5:19 PM, Triton said:

I really do think TXDOT is trying to make this project a win-win (or as I said earlier, at least it market it that way) especially with all the added park space and everything, which I do truly believe funding will come through on. There's just too many developers that would love to build next to something like this, as we've seen with Discovery Green.

 

One key point that I do agree with Speck though is connectivity. Perhaps this is just a Northside issue but I really do see the number of connections coming down. Perhaps overall, especially on the east side, I suppose we can see an increase in connections, at least safer ones.

 

One area I think he is dead wrong is that increased lanes don't reduce congestion. A lot of people point to I-10 but I seriously think I-10 is a very poorly designed highway. I've said this a thousand times but the big flaw with the freeway is that it forces people from the tollway to have to cross several lanes to exit to other off-ramps. What I do like about the I-45 project is that there are several direct connectors from the toll lanes to other freeways, such as the tollroad direct connect ramps to and from Beltway 8.

 

Agree with most of your post, but where is the reduction in the number of connections that you are concerned about?  Between downtown and the Loop I think we lose only North Street and we gain through frontage roads on the loop, PLUS the possibility of a cap park around North Main Street.

[H-Town Man]

17 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Not sure, but I do know for sure that the total right of way is no where near double, even at its widest. In a large part of the section between downtown and the Loop, the right-of-way expands very little (zero in some places, no more than 28' in quite a few other areas).  At no point does it come anywhere near doubling.

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs9/20180413_NHHIP_Seg2_I-45_RollPlots_PH.pdf

 

Let the word "doubled" be stricken from the record then.

 

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Pretty sure that's false.  First, the legislature does not have the power to amend the constitution.  That can only be done by the voters.  Second, I can't find any such provision in the constitution.  Can you provide a section number or other citation?

 

55 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

but...but the conspiracy! thats against the conspiracy of a TXDoT cabal scheming and plotting against us all! take those facts somewhere else!

 

Sorry, you are right technically. It was texas voters who approved it, but it was placed there by the legislature via a legislatively referred constituional amendment. The most recent one was 2015 Prop 7 which diverted more billions specifically into the State Highway Fund. They could have put those funds at the discretion of TXDot entirely, but they were locked into highway usage. 

[Houston19514]

27 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

 

Sorry, you are right technically. It was texas voters who approved it, but it was placed there by the legislature via a legislatively referred constituional amendment. The most recent one was 2015 Prop 7 which diverted more billions specifically into the State Highway Fund. They could have put those funds at the discretion of TXDot entirely, but they were locked into highway usage. 

 

Proposition 7 did not require that 97% of TxDOT funds have to be spent on roads.  I can find no such requirement in our Constitution (and, apparently, neither can you).

 

This seems like a good place to note something that actually is in our Constitution:  One-fourth of the net motor fuel tax collections are dedicated to the Available School Fund.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Houston19514

[Luminare]

3 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Proposition 7 did not require that 97% of TxDOT funds have to be spent on roads.  I can find no such requirement in our constitution (and, apparently, neither can you).

 

Correct. The only directive TxDOT was given was that the funds be spent period. The framing is always highways because that is what TxDOT predominately does. It doesn't run a state owned passenger rail system so there are no funds which go to a state run rail system. TxDOT uses funds to also go into bike lanes as well as its within the preview of transportation, and they have sections of TxDOT that are dedicated for that purpose.

 

21 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

 

Sorry, you are right technically. It was texas voters who approved it, but it was placed there by the legislature via a legislatively referred constituional amendment. The most recent one was 2015 Prop 7 which diverted more billions specifically into the State Highway Fund. They could have put those funds at the discretion of TXDot entirely, but they were locked into highway usage. 

 

As I pointed out above, the only reason we don't get railroads is because TxDOT can't build railroads without a proper bureaucratic infrastructure to do so. They don't operate any passenger rail as far as I'm aware of and if the entity doesn't exist then no money is going to go to those purposes. If you don't have rail roads to operate then the money will go to the one which has the most need and is the biggest priority which is roads/bridges/and highways. If you want TxDOT to do more than that then it means they will need to create a state run entity that builds publicly owned passenger railroads, but state doesn't want to increase the bureaucracy. To even get started on passenger rail and put money to that task they would have to do an incredible amount of work to get the foundations of an organization started. Thats why you can't just build a railroad. Its massive system that has to be organized. Nobody has yet proposed a statewide public owned passenger solution for TxDOT to either undertake or operate. Its much more complicated than just "why are you building highways! you should be building railroads!" TxDOT doesn't put money into building rail because they don't have the infrastructure internally to do so. Thats a state matter that would have to be drafted and most likely they would put it up for a vote as referendum. Again an incredible amount of work (that could be done if the state had the political will), or build highways? They will choose the easier path to build highways. This is why I believe if we want rail then we have to push it as a local matter that could then get private interests involved. Its at least easier to convince and get one city involved in the effort than convincing a whole state to reverse course and start building passenger rail.

[wilcal]

1 minute ago, Luminare said:

 

Correct. The only directive TxDOT was given was that the funds be spent period. The framing is always highways because that is what TxDOT predominately does. It doesn't run a state owned passenger rail system so there are no funds which go to a state run rail system.

2

 

TN.222.001 requires that funds in the State Highway Fund must be used to improve the state highway system or mitigate environmental effects of such system. 

 

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/TN/htm/TN.222.htm#222.001

 

The State Highway Fund takes constitutionally dedicated taxes and fees, Prop 1 Oil and Gas Taxes, Prop 7 taxes, and federal funds.

 

Here is your breakdown on State Highway Fund Revenue:

 

 

Only Special Vehicle Permits Fees, Sale of Publications/Advertising, Supplies/Equipment/Service, and Other Revenue are not dedicated purely to highways. Those total to just under 3% of state revenue. 

 

And both of you may know more than me, but it's certainly possible that not all of the federal dollars ($11.31B for next year) heading into the State Highway Fund don't have to be tied to road construction/maintenance, but TXDoT is not treating them that way to my knowledge. 

 

So no, there is nothing written into the state constitution that TXDoT must spend 97% of their revenue on highways, but they way that they have written constitutional amendments for funding via the props and other taxes have that effect. By all means, they could sell tens of billions in advertising and they could, at their discretion, choose how that money is used, but the other funds equal tied hands. 

 

Quote

TxDOT uses funds to also go into bike lanes as well as its within the preview of transportation, and they have sections of TxDOT that are dedicated for that purpose.

 

I could be wrong, but to my knowledge, they are only administering federal funds, not their own (TASA stuff). 

[wilcal]

25 minutes ago, Luminare said:

To even get started on passenger rail and put money to that task they would have to do an incredible amount of work to get the foundations of an organization started.

 

They administer $25 billion/year. I think they could figure it out if Brightline can.

 

26 minutes ago, Luminare said:

If you want TxDOT to do more than that then it means they will need to create a state run entity that builds publicly owned passenger railroads, but state doesn't want to increase the bureaucracy.

 

Isn't this why they changed their name from Texas Department of Highways? To be more all-encompassing? (an honest question here)

 

27 minutes ago, Luminare said:

They will choose the easier path to build highways.

 

As I showed above, it's the only path they have. 

 

28 minutes ago, Luminare said:

This is why I believe if we want rail then we have to push it as a local matter that could then get private interests involved.

 

Then you'll never have access to state funds or the federal funds that are given to the state, and that's a shame. 

[Luminare]

16 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

They administer $25 billion/year. I think they could figure it out if Brightline can.

 

First off. You are asking exactly the right questions. This is exactly some of the questions we should be asking if we want to have a mature dialogue about rail in the state instead of lets all plead and beg and whine about having rail. So good for that. I can tell you are serious about the matter.

 

Starting with this first line, yes they administer $25 billion/year. Money is clearly not the issue. What is the issue then if money isn't the problem? I watched a really good Q&A once by a cool youtuber called CGP Grey. In one question he was asked whether driving on the left was better or driving on the right is better. His answer was: It doesn't matter, only consensus matters. We can't even have a mature discussion about what we want in the first place. The first question we have to all agree too is; Should TxDOT appropriate funds to use for rail? yes or no. We need a solid consensus on that direction. Next question; What role do we want TxDOT to take in this or proceed in this goal? Public ownership, or Overseer of Private Ownership, etc...? There are a lot of options.

 

Brightline can "figure it out" because its a private company, I believe, that is being overseen by the state. Brightline, as a private company, already wants to build railroads as a service for the economy, so it doesn't need to go to the people for the directive. It already knows what it wants and doesn't need to pass a bill in the Legislature or get 30 million people to agree on it. Way easier for it to "figure it out". Its way more complicated for a public entity to "figure it out" because it has so many people to answer too.

 

17 minutes ago, wilcal said:

Isn't this why they changed their name from Texas Department of Highways? To be more all-encompassing? (an honest question here)

 

Honestly, I wasn't aware they had a name change at all. I would have to look more into it. Even if they changed it to Transportation instead of highways, they didn't change it to Railroads right? Change a name doesn't change your actual purpose. If that were the case then the IHOP changing its name to IHOB to better promote its burgers would mean its main goal is to serve burgers, but we know its big on pancakes. Just changing a name is a waste if it isn't assumed that its actually real.

 

29 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

As I showed above, it's the only path they have. 

 

You answered this for me through your logical reasoning. No need to go further. If we know they only have one real path to use the money with no other real alternative or mandate to do so then it will only go into one place. We as the people need to invest upon them the power to build railroads which leads back to the real question we need to have as a state that I stated in the beginning.

 

31 minutes ago, wilcal said:

Then you'll never have access to state funds or the federal funds that are given to the state, and that's a shame. 

 

This is true. There is good an bad to this. State funds and federal funds always come with strings attached. This is why TCR has been able to move so quickly as a private company because it doesn't need public approval to build a railroad in the first place nor is it dependent on state/federal funds which could bring more cooks into the kitchen to slow things down with strings attached. The good thing about state/federal funds is that you get more money in bulk, and the backing of a strong and poweful entity that has low odds of going out of business so its a safer investment.

 

39 minutes ago, wilcal said:

And both of you may know more than me, but it's certainly possible that not all of the federal dollars ($11.31B for next year) heading into the State Highway Fund don't have to be tied to road construction/maintenance, but TXDoT is not treating them that way to my knowledge. 

 

This brings to what I have to say in response to this. Remember when I said that State/Fed money has strings attached. Federal money always has strings attached. When you get federal money its for a specific reason. Most of the Federal money we get for transportation is for Federal Insterstate highways. Probably the only reason why we have the TxDOT plan right now is because we can probably afford it with a chunk of funds coming in from the Feds because I-45 is a federal interstate highway. The Feds have invested interests because a better, new highway means better commerce for all (we could say this is a common interests to all votes and legislature) which is why they give those funds in the first place. The only other time they give money is for extremely local projects, but might have bigger repercussions for the local area that could improve commerce that could then affect the area and then the state and then the nation.

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

This brings to what I have to say in response to this. Remember when I said that State/Fed money has strings attached. Federal money always has strings attached. When you get federal money its for a specific reason. Most of the Federal money we get for transportation is for Federal Insterstate highways. Probably the only reason why we have the TxDOT plan right now is because we can probably afford it with a chunk of funds coming in from the Feds because I-45 is a federal interstate highway. The Feds have invested interests because a better, new highway means better commerce for all (we could say this is a common interests to all votes and legislature) which is why they give those funds in the first place. The only other time they give money is for extremely local projects, but might have bigger repercussions for the local area that could improve commerce that could then affect the area and then the state and then the nation.

 

Lets also be clear that those federal funds were our money to begin with. It's sad that we run the biggest negative in terms of receiving federal road funding. We send out about 110% of what we get back. Yes, that's how being in the federal government works, but still annoying. 

 

Brightline is 100% private (well, they almost just had an IPO after collaborating with Virgin), but getting to utilize some existing government/train ROW.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I don't necessarily think the state should be paying for high-speed rail to connect cities (although I wouldn't be against it) but the funds should certainly be available for other transit projects. Just the option! But it's been designed so there is no option, and that is heartbreaking. 

 

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, wilcal said:

 

Lets also be clear that those federal funds were our money to begin with. It's sad that we run the biggest negative in terms of receiving federal road funding. We send out about 110% of what we get back. Yes, that's how being in the federal government works, but still annoying. 

 

Brightline is 100% private (well, they almost just had an IPO after collaborating with Virgin), but getting to utilize some existing government/train ROW.

 

I understand what you are saying, and I don't necessarily think the state should be paying for high-speed rail to connect cities (although I wouldn't be against it) but the funds should certainly be available for other transit projects. Just the option! But it's been designed so there is no option, and that is heartbreaking. 

 

 

Thats a good response. Again you are right on the money. Now lets think about this for a moment.

 

I'll ask this question: Why do we receive the least out of most states in the union in terms of Federal funding? Why do we shell out 110% or whatever number (thats not the important part. The stat has almost always been that we pay the federal government more than we receive)? First, we should ask ourselves: who gets the most federal money of any state? One of the states that receives the most is Alabama. Alabama is cool and all, but as a state its not great. They can not survive without federal money. That should tell you something. Normally the states that get the most federal funding are also the states that aren't doing very good. What does that tell about us? We are so good at being a state that we don't need federal money to operate! We kicka$$ so hard that we can take care of ourselves, and even better we can help out other states by paying more to the Feds (this is without us paying state income tax btw). The times when we take federal money are when the federal government needs THEIR $hit fixed. Federal highways are federal property (maintained by the states, but Federal property nonetheless).

 

Now we definitely aren't perfect thats for sure. There is a lot of work to do, and a lot to improve on. I want rail. You want rail. With that being said, we are doing pretty damn good. So when some douche from the East Coast waltzes down here to tell us how terrible we are...I start to have a problem with that. We get some stuff very wrong, definitely. But we have more positives than negatives, and luckily the negatives are fixable!

 

I also understand what you are saying. Options are always preferable, but thats also because, like you, I care about this city and this state. The guy that did the lecture....doesn't. Imagine if that were your friend. Some dude that puts you down all the time, and tells you how terrible you are. That's an awful friend. If he really "cared" he wouldn't have presented the info in the way that he did, or addressed our city the way that he did.

 

We are doing just fine. I-45 isn't the only time we will ever touch this highway again, and can add or change it later if we want. Right now though....its pretty darn important, and what we are seeing out of TxDOT is more effort to solve a problem than I have ever seen. If they can get at least the downtown section right I'll be thrilled and we can fix the big a$$ highway up north later. The downtown part has a lot of potential that we should see through.

[H-Town Man]

Something that puzzles me is that we will have two toll roads for the north corridor. Hardy will run all the way into downtown and then we will have the toll road down I-45. Seems like overkill.

 

[Luminare]

5 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Something that puzzles me is that we will have two toll roads for the north corridor. Hardy will run all the way into downtown and then we will have the toll road down I-45. Seems like overkill.

 

 

As someone who used to work in The Woodlands and then had to travel all the way down to site visits as far as Texas City, its very much needed and interesting the dynamics of both. Hardy has always been a good safety valve when things start to jam on 45. I also in general like Hardy more. I always feel like I'm traveling on a European highway at moments because of the lack of feeder roads and how it weaves in and out. Hardy is a fun drive.

Edited March 7, 2019 by Luminare

[H-Town Man]

21 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

As someone who used to work in The Woodlands and then had to travel all the way down to site visits as far as Texas City, its very much needed and interesting the dynamics of both. Hardy has always been a good safety valve when things start to jam on 45. I also in general like Hardy more. I always feel like I'm traveling on a European highway at moments because of the lack of feeder roads and how it weaves in and out. Hardy is a fun drive.

 

I'm sure it's nice to have the option of two different toll roads when you want to drive south from the Woodlands, but these things come at a cost. Redundant toll roads might be nice for the Woodlands but it hurts the people who have to live next to an 18 lane behemoth.

 

[BeerNut]

4 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I'm sure it's nice to have the option of two different toll roads when you want to drive south from the Woodlands, but these things come at a cost. Redundant toll roads might be nice for the Woodlands but it hurts the people who have to live next to an 18 lane behemoth.

 

I'm sure Hardy will be the preferred toll road to get to IAH.

[samagon]

On 3/6/2019 at 4:40 PM, wilcal said:

 

TN.222.001 requires that funds in the State Highway Fund must be used to improve the state highway system or mitigate environmental effects of such system. 

 

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/TN/htm/TN.222.htm#222.001

 

 

 

I could be wrong, but to my knowledge, they are only administering federal funds, not their own (TASA stuff). 

 

this was put in place to stop the state from using gas taxes to make tollroads.

 

here's the text:

Quote

Sec. 222.001. USE OF STATE HIGHWAY FUND.

(a) Money that is required to be used for public roadways by the Texas Constitution or federal law and that is deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the state highway fund, including money deposited to the credit of the state highway fund under Title 23, United States Code, may be used only:

(1) to improve the state highway system; or

(2) to mitigate adverse environmental effects that result directly from construction or maintenance of a state highway by the department.

(b) Notwithstanding Section 222.103, the department may not pledge or otherwise encumber money deposited in the state highway fund to:

(1) guarantee a loan obtained by a public or private entity for costs associated with a toll facility of the public or private entity; or

(2) insure bonds issued by a public or private entity for costs associated with a toll facility of the public or private entity.

 

is it indeed possible that it could be argued that the best way to improve the state highway system is to relieve pressure on it by putting money towards alternate transit options?

 

the spirit of the law may not intend that, but it could easily be argued this way, especially since they put in text for specific exclusions, if someone were wanting to commit political suicide for the greater good of those who live in our largest cities.

[RoadMan76]

The following attachments show design flaws and solutions on the current plans for segments 1 and 2. Please tell me if there are any errors or anything I need to change in this attachment. I already sent it to the project website email a few months ago.

 

Also more lanes does eliminate traffic slowdowns if the entire freeway lane configuration has absolutely no flaws. In order for the added lanes in any expansion project to eliminate traffic slowdowns, 4 rules will have to be followed:

 

1: No forced onramp merges or lane ends. All onramps should have its own dedicated auxiliary lane and don’t merge any lanes.

 

2: Maintain lane balance. 

50% of incoming major interchange lanes should become general purpose lanes with the other 50% exiting to either maneged lanes or feeder (DO NOT MERGE THOSE LANES) and the new general purpose lanes should connect to the next major interchange, maintain lane consistency, etc.

 

3: Merge zones should be long enough.

Auxiliary lanes on the right side of freeway should be at least 2100’ long and on left side of freeway 3500’ long for efficient lane switching.

 

4: Provide easy access to managed/HOV lanes.

Direct connectors from and to Managed/HOV lanes should be provided to eliminate heavy lane switching on freeway general purpose lanes.

 

If one of these rules are not followed, the negative impacts of the design flaw will completely cancel out the positive impact of any added lanes.

 

Also I do wish Houston would build a Commuter rail system as an alternate option to commute.

I-45 Expansion Project Lane Configuratiion Map.pdf NHHIP Recommended Suggestions For I-45 Expansion Project Segments 1 & 2.pdf

[Luminare]

On 3/15/2019 at 11:58 AM, RoadMan76 said:

The following attachments show design flaws and solutions on the current plans for segments 1 and 2. Please tell me if there are any errors or anything I need to change in this attachment. I already sent it to the project website email a few months ago.

 

Also more lanes does eliminate traffic slowdowns if the entire freeway lane configuration has absolutely no flaws. In order for the added lanes in any expansion project to eliminate traffic slowdowns, 4 rules will have to be followed:

 

1: No forced onramp merges or lane ends. All onramps should have its own dedicated auxiliary lane and don’t merge any lanes.

 

2: Maintain lane balance. 

50% of incoming major interchange lanes should become general purpose lanes with the other 50% exiting to either maneged lanes or feeder (DO NOT MERGE THOSE LANES) and the new general purpose lanes should connect to the next major interchange, maintain lane consistency, etc.

 

3: Merge zones should be long enough.

Auxiliary lanes on the right side of freeway should be at least 2100’ long and on left side of freeway 3500’ long for efficient lane switching.

 

4: Provide easy access to managed/HOV lanes.

Direct connectors from and to Managed/HOV lanes should be provided to eliminate heavy lane switching on freeway general purpose lanes.

 

If one of these rules are not followed, the negative impacts of the design flaw will completely cancel out the positive impact of any added lanes.

 

Also I do wish Houston would build a Commuter rail system as an alternate option to commute.

I-45 Expansion Project Lane Configuratiion Map.pdf 207.25 kB · 11 downloads NHHIP Recommended Suggestions For I-45 Expansion Project Segments 1 & 2.pdf 655.63 kB · 7 downloads

 

Now this is what I'm talking about. Someone with criticisms that then brings forward an alternative. Bravo. I've already taken a look at this, and have some good and not so good things to say, but you have already done more than many of the complainers before you. I just like how rigorous and diagrammatic it is. I can tell you took the matter seriously.

[houstontexasjack]

On 3/5/2019 at 12:38 PM, H-Town Man said:

One thing that seems apparent doing a little Google research about Jeff Speck is that he is opposed to any and all highway expansion plans. I wonder how closely he even looked at this one. He probably is right though that projects like the park decks and the highline thing are being dangled to get people to go along. I think the park decks could happen (probably a trade-off with how fast we turn the east end of Buffalo Bayou into parkland), but the Pierce will most likely be sold off to individual developers and demolished.

 

I think you're on the money there regarding Mr. Speck. I also appreciate @Luminare 's comments on the freeway reroute and Mr. Speck's criticisms.  His alternative "proposal" amounts to a bag of beans and wishful thinking. From the summary I've read of his presentation, it seems the bulk of his criticisms involve Segments 1 and 2. Segment 3, the Downtown reroute, has a very large number of positives.  I think urban sentiment can be mobilized behind the park decks to make them happen.  If the @$$holes to the north (Dallas) can fund Clyde Warren Park, surely we can produce something bigger and better.

 

Demolishing the Pierce, even to sell off the pieces of land to developers, isn't a bad thing in my view.  It'd eliminate the psychological barrier between Downtown and Midtown. And heck, some of the proceeds could fund the deck east of the George R. Brown.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, houstontexasjack said:

Demolishing the Pierce, even to sell off the pieces of land to developers, isn't a bad thing in my view.  It'd eliminate the psychological barrier between Downtown and Midtown. And heck, some of the proceeds could fund the deck east of the George R. Brown.

 

The problem with this is as a reason is that to accomplish this you are increasing a physical barrier between other close in areas and downtown. unfortunately, no one cared about midtown before it was filled with affluence. Now that it has affluence, the Pierce has to go to create synergy and remove a psychological barrier, but at the expense of adding bigger physical and psychological barriers between downtown and other poor neighborhoods.

 

The physical and psychological barrier between downtown and the area directly to the north is going to expand drastically.

 

While the gulf between downtown and east end might have a nice park on it (which will be behind a building that is a massive psychological barrier in and of itself), they are still removing one of the 4 remaining through streets that cross 59 and continue on beyond the railroad tracks, thereby reducing local mobility, and adding to a psychological barrier.

 

so yeah, affluent people gonna get a psychological barrier removed, but at the expense of poor neighborhoods. that shouldn't be acceptable in this day and age, so if there is a benefit you want to expand upon it should be for helping traffic flow around town, not for making affluent people more comfy at the expense of poor people.