I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Slick Vik]

I use a pedestrian underpass to avoid a five lane road and a railroad. Sometimes I'm the only one under there. Sometimes I go under when a train is passing. Should the underpass be backfilled and the traditional crosswalk and the pedestrian at-grade railroad crossing be restored because of those two facts?

 

Also, as an addendum to how ridiculous this discussion is, the whole thing is like complaining about people parallel parking on a narrow street because of an elementary school in the neighborhood. If your answer to the problem is something along the lines of "provide better parking", then you're on the right track. If your answer is to "demolish the school", then you're not on the right track.

 

These analogies are not related to the topic at hand at all.

[DNAguy]

From what I read it seems the city has abandoned trying to get the post office site. It makes since to simply move the Police department and the rest of the courts to where the jails and other courts are right now. Then develop the Franklin lot in tandem with  the rerouting of I-45. I swear though that TXdot is manned by monkeys because all the alternatives really suck right now. The only bright spot is the re-routing, but i have no clue why they will not simply trench the rest of 59 and trench I-45 with it.....or idk maybe just have traffic go on the same lanes as 59?? No the current proposal would then make that whole area into a super highway of...guess......14 freakin lanes! UGH. I'm not even kidding too. Go look at the I45 north and above site....it makes me sick -.-

 

How can I like this comment more. I 100% agree. TxDOT is served by poor engineers. I'm sorry. Most work is done for the lowest cost to a contractor. You get what you pay for. I went to the November public meeting. To say that I was 'unimpressed' by the 'engineers' that presented this information is like saying that WW2 was a 'difference of opinion between us and Germany+Japan'.

 

I put in a public comment that expressed your view after the November TxDOT meeting about this. Here's the thing, all of TxDOT's alternatives that they presented have not been costed out yet. That's right. They've eliminated all the original ideas without taking cost into account. So saying that tunneling isn't desirable has no bearing in reality other than they don't want to do it. They didn't cost it. They seriously don't have the expertise or the contractual resources to look at it so they just say that its not doable.

What else is ridiculous is their spreadsheet showing 'Pros' and 'cons' of the alternatives they did present. They just give it an arbitrary 'Desirable', 'Undesirable', or 'Neutral'. Seriously?! WTF. That's the engineering equivalent of pulling stuff out of your a$$. If I tried to present that at project meeting without any data to back it up, I'd get laughed out of the room.

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs3/I-45%20Segment%203%20Renderings_Final.pdf

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs3/NHHIP%20Secondary%20Screening%20Matrix%20Draft%2012-19-13.pdf

[BigFootsSocks]

1. Legalize gambling and build about 8 themed casinos on there.

2. Sell it to South Texas College of Law so when they consolidate with UHD they will be right there.

3. Build a giant Hellipad for extraterrestrial landings.

4. Sell it to the Landrys guy, he will know what to do with it. His ideas are cheesier than mine.

5. Build a proper museum for NASA there so that we can be awarded proper shuttles.

Somebody needs to put you in charge. Best ideas I can think of

[Luminare]

How can I like this comment more. I 100% agree. TxDOT is served by poor engineers. I'm sorry. Most work is done for the lowest cost to a contractor. You get what you pay for. I went to the November public meeting. To say that I was 'unimpressed' by the 'engineers' that presented this information is like saying that WW2 was a 'difference of opinion between us and Germany+Japan'.

 

I put in a public comment that expressed your view after the November TxDOT meeting about this. Here's the thing, all of TxDOT's alternatives that they presented have not been costed out yet. That's right. They've eliminated all the original ideas without taking cost into account. So saying that tunneling isn't desirable has no bearing in reality other than they don't want to do it. They didn't cost it. They seriously don't have the expertise or the contractual resources to look at it so they just say that its not doable.

What else is ridiculous is their spreadsheet showing 'Pros' and 'cons' of the alternatives they did present. They just give it an arbitrary 'Desirable', 'Undesirable', or 'Neutral'. Seriously?! WTF. That's the engineering equivalent of pulling stuff out of your poopy head. If I tried to present that at project meeting without any data to back it up, I'd get laughed out of the room.

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs3/I-45%20Segment%203%20Renderings_Final.pdf

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs3/NHHIP%20Secondary%20Screening%20Matrix%20Draft%2012-19-13.pdf

 

I actually plan on being at this next meeting.

 

I might start working on a sketchup model to help illustrate a possible alternative.

 

No question that they are trying to do it the cheapest way possible. What I have a problem with engineers today is that they are exactly this. Lazy and always about the bottom line instead of looking at how to innovate which could save money in the long run.

 

Apparently they said that going under ground would cost about 700-900 million per mile!!! Seriously? I would understand if we were digging into actual bedrock (such as the case as the Big Dig or Seattle burying the Alaskan Corridor), but we would be digging through nothing but clay. It would probably be the fast dig ever because of our geology. The only real cost is depth between we would probably have to bury it pretty deep here.

 

I was actually wondering if those charts where TxDOT's opinion on the options or the actual public, because I would assume that the public is actually in favor of either burying or diverting I45 and even trenching all of it.

 

Would certainly like some more info on this.

[DNAguy]

I actually plan on being at this next meeting.

 

I might start working on a sketchup model to help illustrate a possible alternative.

 

No question that they are trying to do it the cheapest way possible. What I have a problem with engineers today is that they are exactly this. Lazy and always about the bottom line instead of looking at how to innovate which could save money in the long run.

 

Apparently they said that going under ground would cost about 700-900 million per mile!!! Seriously? I would understand if we were digging into actual bedrock (such as the case as the Big Dig or Seattle burying the Alaskan Corridor), but we would be digging through nothing but clay. It would probably be the fast dig ever because of our geology. The only real cost is depth between we would probably have to bury it pretty deep here.

 

I was actually wondering if those charts where TxDOT's opinion on the options or the actual public, because I would assume that the public is actually in favor of either burying or diverting I45 and even trenching all of it.

 

Would certainly like some more info on this.

 

From my conversations with the engineers, this is what they came up with. It doesn't take into consideration what the public wants.

Take for instance the idea of the street level blvd that would replace the Pierce elevated. [From what I was told by an engineer] The city engineering office voiced concern about increased street level traffic if this were to come to fruition. TxDOT took note. And thats how we get an 'U' under vehicle miles traveled on city streets. I mean, where is the proof? What models show that this will actually take place? If anything, our downtown grid can absorb traffic. We have streets WIDER than the freeway downtown. This traffic will also not be passing through. It will be trying to get somewhere like midtown, Eado, the Spur. I don't buy what they're selling.

And what's up with the 'U' for constructibility? What are the metrics? How is that 'U', but expanding the existing Peirce elevated is a 'neutral'?! Come on. Both would take significant ROW (although the re-route option wouldn't have to). Are they talking about cost? Who knows. Better to use vague semi-technical terms to distract us while they go with the option that they've already chosen. It's obvious that they either will expand it or go with a 'split' option.

 

If you're truly going to mock some alternatives, I'd like for you to take some things into consideration. 

1.) The Spur 5 elevated freeways on I 45 south. 

These weren't taken into consideration b/c the boundaries of this project end at the 45/59 intersection. However, these can be a real asset - either as direct 59 connectors or downtown exits (as they already are). The thing is though, if 45 is rerouted along 59, why would we need them as DT exits. The freeway would most likely route along 59 w/ a DT exit right there at 59.

2.) [Like you said earlier] Widen and continue the 59 trench withing its current ROW (can accomplish b/c walls are sploped currently or have Chartes 'overhang' the trench) past the GRB. Have 45 re-routed withing that trench ROW as an elevated section. This would lessen land acquisition cost. 45 exits to I10 East can then tie into the current 59 to I 10 east ramps as well.

3.) Urban blvd. / DT exit from the SB I45 north.

Instead making a whole new street where the Pierce elevated is, why not just use St Joseph's prkway and Pierce. TxDOT can re-coup some of the projects cost by selling the ROW it owns / is being taken by the elevated freeway for development. The trenched section that's on the west side of DT needs to be tied into Houston Ave. with a bridge over the Bayou. 45's DT exit ties directly into Bagby and .... well I don't know exactly how to preserve the west side of DT to I 45 north I 10 access right now. Thoughts?

[Luminare]

From my conversations with the engineers, this is what they came up with. It doesn't take into consideration what the public wants.

Take for instance the idea of the street level blvd that would replace the Pierce elevated. [From what I was told by an engineer] The city engineering office voiced concern about increased street level traffic if this were to come to fruition. TxDOT took note. And thats how we get an 'U' under vehicle miles traveled on city streets. I mean, where is the proof? What models show that this will actually take place? If anything, our downtown grid can absorb traffic. We have streets WIDER than the freeway downtown. This traffic will also not be passing through. It will be trying to get somewhere like midtown, Eado, the Spur. I don't buy what they're selling.

And what's up with the 'U' for constructibility? What are the metrics? How is that 'U', but expanding the existing Peirce elevated is a 'neutral'?! Come on. Both would take significant ROW (although the re-route option wouldn't have to). Are they talking about cost? Who knows. Better to use vague semi-technical terms to distract us while they go with the option that they've already chosen. It's obvious that they either will expand it or go with a 'split' option.

 

If you're truly going to mock some alternatives, I'd like for you to take some things into consideration. 

1.) The Spur 5 elevated freeways on I 45 south. 

These weren't taken into consideration b/c the boundaries of this project end at the 45/59 intersection. However, these can be a real asset - either as direct 59 connectors or downtown exits (as they already are). The thing is though, if 45 is rerouted along 59, why would we need them as DT exits. The freeway would most likely route along 59 w/ a DT exit right there at 59.

2.) [Like you said earlier] Widen and continue the 59 trench withing its current ROW (can accomplish b/c walls are sploped currently or have Chartes 'overhang' the trench) past the GRB. Have 45 re-routed withing that trench ROW as an elevated section. This would lessen land acquisition cost. 45 exits to I10 East can then tie into the current 59 to I 10 east ramps as well.

3.) Urban blvd. / DT exit from the SB I45 north.

Instead making a whole new street where the Pierce elevated is, why not just use St Joseph's prkway and Pierce. TxDOT can re-coup some of the projects cost by selling the ROW it owns / is being taken by the elevated freeway for development. The trenched section that's on the west side of DT needs to be tied into Houston Ave. with a bridge over the Bayou. 45's DT exit ties directly into Bagby and .... well I don't know exactly how to preserve the west side of DT to I 45 north I 10 access right now. Thoughts?

 

I will probably just start off with sketches first. We should probably create a new thread for this imo or one which ties all of these together. This whole thing could literally change the way Houston functions for the next 2-3 decades and I don't understand why TxDOT is being so blah about it. Looks like I will have a fun project on my hands to do after work this afternoon

 

This actually kind of ties into a project I'm thinking about starting up later this month which is essentially a massive sketchup file archive of the city of houston. I will probably provide details later. Still working on a game plan, but this area of town could be an important place to start.

[Avossos]

Can we stay on topic please? ^^1-45 or freeway construction should be a different thread.

 

Thanks

[DNAguy]

I will probably just start off with sketches first. We should probably create a new thread for this imo or one which ties all of these together. This whole thing could literally change the way Houston functions for the next 2-3 decades and I don't understand why TxDOT is being so blah about it. Looks like I will have a fun project on my hands to do after work this afternoon

 

This actually kind of ties into a project I'm thinking about starting up later this month which is essentially a massive sketchup file archive of the city of houston. I will probably provide details later. Still working on a game plan, but this area of town could be an important place to start.

 

 

Can we stay on topic please? ^^1-45 or freeway construction should be a different thread.

 

Thanks

 

 

You're right. It'll need a new topic. 

Sorry for going on a tangent like that.

[Subdude]

You're right. It'll need a new topic. 

Sorry for going on a tangent like that.

 

No worries.  Moved to the new Pierce Elevated Redesign Thread, merged from a couple of older topics.

[Luminare]

Danke Schoen

[IronTiger]

In terms of redesigning the Pierce Elevated, I thought about "working around what we have", since it's going to (and SHOULD) be here for a long time. One thing I thought was building a Galleria-like skylight around the elevated portion to reduce visual blight as well as having a semi-enclosed area for cars to drive on in inclement weather.

[DNAguy]

In terms of redesigning the Pierce Elevated, I thought about "working around what we have", since it's going to (and SHOULD) be here for a long time. One thing I thought was building a Galleria-like skylight around the elevated portion to reduce visual blight as well as having a semi-enclosed area for cars to drive on in inclement weather.

 

Adding a sky light enclosure over a freeway essentially turns it into an elevated tunnel.

So you have the downsides (such as reduced access of emergency vehicles like Life flight) of a tunnel w/ the blight of an elevated freeway. Literally, the worst of both worlds (I say that with all due respect). Remember, the Pierce elevated already suffers from skinny shoulders that don't allow for emergency vehicle to drive along.

 

Although, I wouldn't mind seeing that in a conceptualization. Would be pretty cool looking actually.

[IronTiger]

Adding a sky light enclosure over a freeway essentially turns it into an elevated tunnel.

So you have the downsides (such as reduced access of emergency vehicles like Life flight) of a tunnel w/ the blight of an elevated freeway. Literally, the worst of both worlds (I say that with all due respect). Remember, the Pierce elevated already suffers from skinny shoulders that don't allow for emergency vehicle to drive along.

 

Although, I wouldn't mind seeing that in a conceptualization. Would be pretty cool looking actually.

Yeah, I did draw a pretty rough sketch of it (which I may or may not scan and show) but it is just a concept. Most concepts tend to put "does it look cool and pretty" in front of "would it be practical and feasible" of which my concept would be of the former.

I think that when they rebuilt that McDonald's in late 2013 they should've razed it entirely and kept that block as a park, something to make the transition from Midtown to Downtown less intimidating and more welcoming.

The real trick is trying to think of an acceptable solution that wouldn't necessitate tearing down the existing freeway.

So anyone get any real ideas?

[BigFootsSocks]

No worries.  Moved to the new Pierce Elevated Redesign Thread, merged from a couple of older topics.

Mate I think you might've moved one too many. My post up there is so far off from this discussion you might as well delete that one and this.

[IronTiger]

I don't think they should've rebuilt Pierce in the late 1990s, should've done it in the late 2000s, taking out the rest of the block and making it depressed, similar to the 59 rebuild. Of course this means the light rail would've been closed for some time, and that the whole thing would be unusable in a flood...

[Subdude]

How can I like this comment more. I 100% agree. TxDOT is served by poor engineers. I'm sorry. Most work is done for the lowest cost to a contractor. You get what you pay for. I went to the November public meeting. To say that I was 'unimpressed' by the 'engineers' that presented this information is like saying that WW2 was a 'difference of opinion between us and Germany+Japan'.

 

I put in a public comment that expressed your view after the November TxDOT meeting about this. Here's the thing, all of TxDOT's alternatives that they presented have not been costed out yet. That's right. They've eliminated all the original ideas without taking cost into account. So saying that tunneling isn't desirable has no bearing in reality other than they don't want to do it. They didn't cost it. They seriously don't have the expertise or the contractual resources to look at it so they just say that its not doable.

What else is ridiculous is their spreadsheet showing 'Pros' and 'cons' of the alternatives they did present. They just give it an arbitrary 'Desirable', 'Undesirable', or 'Neutral'. Seriously?! WTF. That's the engineering equivalent of pulling stuff out of your a$$. If I tried to present that at project meeting without any data to back it up, I'd get laughed out of the room.

 

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs3/I-45%20Segment%203%20Renderings_Final.pdf

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs3/NHHIP%20Secondary%20Screening%20Matrix%20Draft%2012-19-13.pdf

 

Thanks for posing the links to the study recap.  Very interesting reading.  They didn’t consider my favorite idea, which is to tear down the Pierce Elevated altogether.  The “Identified Reasonable Alternatives” are

-          Widen the existing road (predictably enough)

-          Realign 45 along 59 and convert the Pierce section into a parkway/boulevard

-          Modified directionality with northbound traffic on 59 and southbound on existing Pierce 

 

To me the idea of widening it sounds like an absolute nightmare.  It is already dangerous enough with the left exits for Allen Parkway and McKinney.  Just adding more and more lanes on the Pierce is ultimately a fool’s game; but I’m afraid that kind of solution is so deeply ingrained it will be hard to ever move beyond it.  They at least don’t rule out the boulevard concept, although it’s probably too radical (and simple) an idea to make the final cut.

[DNAguy]

Thanks for posing the links to the study recap.  Very interesting reading.  They didn’t consider my favorite idea, which is to tear down the Pierce Elevated altogether.  The “Identified Reasonable Alternatives” are

-          Widen the existing road (predictably enough)

-          Realign 45 along 59 and convert the Pierce section into a parkway/boulevard

-          Modified directionality with northbound traffic on 59 and southbound on existing Pierce 

 

To me the idea of widening it sounds like an absolute nightmare.  It is already dangerous enough with the left exits for Allen Parkway and McKinney.  Just adding more and more lanes on the Pierce is ultimately a fool’s game; but I’m afraid that kind of solution is so deeply ingrained it will be hard to ever move beyond it.  They at least don’t rule out the boulevard concept, although it’s probably too radical (and simple) an idea to make the final cut.

 

TxDOT isn't doing their job unless their answer to the problem at hand is acquiring ROW and adding lanes....

 

 

Oh and tolling said lanes.

Edited May 20, 2014 by DNAguy

[Luminare]

Thanks for posing the links to the study recap.  Very interesting reading.  They didn’t consider my favorite idea, which is to tear down the Pierce Elevated altogether.  The “Identified Reasonable Alternatives” are

-          Widen the existing road (predictably enough)

-          Realign 45 along 59 and convert the Pierce section into a parkway/boulevard

-          Modified directionality with northbound traffic on 59 and southbound on existing Pierce 

 

To me the idea of widening it sounds like an absolute nightmare.  It is already dangerous enough with the left exits for Allen Parkway and McKinney.  Just adding more and more lanes on the Pierce is ultimately a fool’s game; but I’m afraid that kind of solution is so deeply ingrained it will be hard to ever move beyond it.  They at least don’t rule out the boulevard concept, although it’s probably too radical (and simple) an idea to make the final cut.

 

Luckily we still have the time to change it. From what I saw just adding more lanes is actually not the favorite concept. Adding more lanes never solves the problem. Looking at the option for moving 45 to 59 they have plenty of room to do it and they have plenty of room to trench it. Got tied up with some stuff at work, but I'm working on some sketches and then maybe a sketchup model to show the general idea.

 

As for the Boulevard I don't even know if we should do that either. Lets just simply reconnect the existing roads. Then turn those blocks into a greenbelt or more of a pedestrian promenade. This way TxDOT doesn't have to spend money building a new boulevard. Then they can sell all that ROW back to the city to help recover the costs. 

[IronTiger]

As for the Boulevard I don't even know if we should do that either. Lets just simply reconnect the existing roads. Then turn those blocks into a greenbelt or more of a pedestrian promenade. This way TxDOT doesn't have to spend money building a new boulevard. Then they can sell all that ROW back to the city to help recover the costs.

I think that Pierce already allows through traffic and solid blocks underneath it.

If the Lofts at the Ballpark and the whole BBVA Compass Park thing hadn't been built, it would be a more viable idea to route at least some lanes that way.

Perhaps...paralleling the railroad at EaDo a truck loop. That might keep the largest and most damaging vehicles off the Pierce Elevated.

[DNAguy]

Luckily we still have the time to change it. From what I saw just adding more lanes is actually not the favorite concept. Adding more lanes never solves the problem. Looking at the option for moving 45 to 59 they have plenty of room to do it and they have plenty of room to trench it. Got tied up with some stuff at work, but I'm working on some sketches and then maybe a sketchup model to show the general idea.

 

As for the Boulevard I don't even know if we should do that either. Lets just simply reconnect the existing roads. Then turn those blocks into a greenbelt or more of a pedestrian promenade. This way TxDOT doesn't have to spend money building a new boulevard. Then they can sell all that ROW back to the city to help recover the costs. 

 

As in the previous cases, I agree. However, getting rid of a freeway will already cause a fire storm. This is Houston. People think more lanes = better traffic.

 

An option kind of middle road option is what I proposed b/f: Instead of a blvd, I think you can tie Houston ave to the depressed section of 45 (the part that goes under W Dallas) and then tie the depress section back into St. Joseph's parkway / Pierce street. This accomplishes the same result as a parkway and it uses existing streets. And it's possible to get a nice signature bridge over BB that's right next to downtown! Heck, maybe even cap that section of depressed freeway w/ some green space!

 

The problem w/ the selling the ROW back to the city / developers is that (from my understanding) TxDOT's process doesn't have a way of capturing that in the costing of a project. So while we intuitively know that getting rid of the Pierce elevated would free up land to sell or that the properties close to the PE section would be more valuable w/out it, there is no value capture that is taken into account when grading / costing / vetting these options.

 

The traffic on the Pierce doesn't come from lack of lanes. I don't know how txdot doesn't see this. It comes b/c everyone on the Pierce elevated aren't staying on 45. Hear me out. If you're SB on the Pierce, most people aren't going to stay on 45 toward Galveston. Most people are actually trying to go to 288 south / 59 south. If you're NB on the Pierce, people are most likely going to get on I10 west. So the issue isn't really lanes at all, its the CONNECTIONS w/ the other freeways in the area. Re-routing along I-10 and 59 makes a lot of sense b/c of this. Having straight aways merging with longer site lines from freeway to another helps the merging of traffic / reduces back ups / reduces congestion.

 

The issue comes down to the fact that west downtown has less direct access to 45 (and subsequently I10) if we get rid of the downtown section of 45. Even though north downtown has direct access to both freeways, people will resist the removal of the freeway b/c it will take them 10 minutes longer to get home by having to travel 8 blocks north on the downtown grid rather than 3 blocks west. for those 10 minutes, people are willing to put up w/ a less overall efficient and uglier freeway option that costs us more and cuts off downtown from the gem of Buffalo Bayou park.

[IronTiger]

If we routed it down 59/10 there'll be more traffic on that section unless you wanted to widen that area. Texas Avenue and 59 has the tightest ROW unless you want to take out the Lofts at the Ballpark (one of the buildings) or if you wanted to double-deck the highway entirely. As for lanes, notice that north of downtown I-45 has four lanes, south of downtown I-45 has four lanes, but Pierce Elevated only has three.

The problem with getting rid of the Pierce Elevated is that a partial reconstruction was done in 1997 and like the short-lived five-stack at Beltway 8 and Interstate 10 it's not recommended to dismantle things that aren't at the end of their functional lifespan (other freeway removals, conversely, were). Making walking under it safe and attractive should be the first thing focused on. The second thing is rerouting trucks to another path, though the problem is Interstate 10 on the north side is curvier and fewer sight lines. Plus, trucks would have to also navigate two exits.

If dedicated truck bypass lanes were built along Interstate 10 and 59, that might solve part of Pierce's problems without destroying ROW or infrastructure.

[Luminare]

I've always thought that most highways in Houston should at least have a dedicated lane for trucks/semi's. The lane closest to the barrier is for speedy traffic/passing. The lane next to that would be constant speed. The lane next to that would be trucks/ semi's and buses and then a lane that is for getting on and off the freeway. What causes the most traffic are large trucks and while they are valuable to the economy they do cause a massive amounts of traffic.

[DNAguy]

If we routed it down 59/10 there'll be more traffic on that section unless you wanted to widen that area. Texas Avenue and 59 has the tightest ROW unless you want to take out the Lofts at the Ballpark (one of the buildings) or if you wanted to double-deck the highway entirely. As for lanes, notice that north of downtown I-45 has four lanes, south of downtown I-45 has four lanes, but Pierce Elevated only has three.

The problem with getting rid of the Pierce Elevated is that a partial reconstruction was done in 1997 and like the short-lived five-stack at Beltway 8 and Interstate 10 it's not recommended to dismantle things that aren't at the end of their functional lifespan (other freeway removals, conversely, were). Making walking under it safe and attractive should be the first thing focused on. The second thing is rerouting trucks to another path, though the problem is Interstate 10 on the north side is curvier and fewer sight lines. Plus, trucks would have to also navigate two exits.

If dedicated truck bypass lanes were built along Interstate 10 and 59, that might solve part of Pierce's problems without destroying ROW or infrastructure.

 

If the issue is that we shouldn't dismantle things until they've reached the end of life, then we probably don't need to go through the exercise of the 45 project at all. However, that prevents us fro making almost all the freeways in Houston better due to the fact that almost all highways have been redesigned since the 90's and we get roughly 50 years out of them (right?). 

 

I'm not a fan of truck bypasses. I get the idea of them but I don't see it as really enforceable. If you have to police them, you don't help traffic b/c the sight of a police car increases congestion. Just the sight. Crazy. I also don't really think it'll do much to relieve congestion.

 

The 45 along 59 idea as TxDOT presented it sucks. It's almost as if they were late turning in their homework and thought something was better than nothing at all. I understand your objection. I object to it as well. But if done right, it can be very beneficial. From the 45/59 intersection to Polk, TxDOt has a full block-wide of ROW to work with. After Polk, you're right, the ROW is tight. You can work with this by doing 3 things:

1.) Trench 59 up to Franklin

2.) Cut Chartes to 2 lanes and / or have it overhang the trench

3.) Deck 45 over the trench

 

After Franklin, the 45 deck would have to split to the east and west side of the 59 elevated freeway. Additional ROW would have to be acquired there. So the section of low income housing project on the bayou west of West Dr would have to be purchased as well as the Star of Hope on the west side of 59. Both of those actions would be a tight rope act of politics.

[IronTiger]

Part of the problem about 10 is that yeah, they could theoretically fit it in without ROW demolitions, but it leaves no room for exit/entrance lanes (especially since Elysian Street Viaduct is getting rebuilt due to the Hardy Toll Road expansion) on either highway. You could probably due with hacking out the blocks south of Interstate 10 (opposite Saint Arnold), but that seems a bit extreme, unless they wanted to end up redoing that highway network.

Alternately, they could build another elevated highway along the railroad at EaDO with four lanes (just four) but that would mess things up as well.

The most extreme thing to do would be terminate the Interstate 45 designation right there where it interfaces with Interstate 10 and rebadge the Gulf Freeway as Texas State Highway 87, which would free up I-45's Interstate designations by avoiding standards.

[mollusk]

I dunno.  As it is, 59/69 southbound past downtown and through the 288 split seems to be a parking lot pretty much any time of the day.  As far as how to get onto 59/69, it may make more sense to use the North Loop, keeping the portion through the Northside down to some point around downtown as a spur.  Using the 10 corridor would end up with a lot of relatively tight curves one right after the other, with a concurrent opportunity for mayhem.

[IronTiger]

Is doing anything about the Pierce Elevated really a big deal? Yeah, it seems kind of narrow and yeah it is a "dividing barrier" between Midtown and Downtown, and it is in a uncomfortable situation--not even the 1997 re-do did TxDOT have the heart to widen it (if TxDOT was personified), but tearing it down seems more of an idealistic vision (something found in renderings) rather than think about any real-world consequences.

[IronTiger]

But if we were on the topic of imagination, one thing I thought of was to leave the Pierce Elevated as is (structure wise), then depress the other side of those blocks (taking out buildings, I know), resulting in a sort of "hanging gardens" type freeway with one side elevated and one depressed. The existing Pierce would be reworked to include (from west to east), an inner lane, four main lanes, an outer lane, and a pedestrian promenade area that would include marked bike lanes that would link Buffalo Bayou, Downtown, and EaDo all together.

[Slick Vik]

Is there one bridge on earth that's attractive to walk under?

[mollusk]

Is there one bridge on earth that's attractive to walk under?

 

The New River Gorge bridge in West Virginia ain't bad.

 

 

With 876 feet of clearance, Williams Tower would almost fit underneath.

[BigFootsSocks]

I've always thought that most highways in Houston should at least have a dedicated lane for trucks/semi's. The lane closest to the barrier is for speedy traffic/passing. The lane next to that would be constant speed. The lane next to that would be trucks/ semi's and buses and then a lane that is for getting on and off the freeway. What causes the most traffic are large trucks and while they are valuable to the economy they do cause a massive amounts of traffic.

The normal laws of driving don't really apply to Houston though.

"Inside lane is for the fast drivers? Nah they can just go around me"

Also every truck driver loses any ability to drive and follow the traffic pattern once they're inside Harris County. It's ridiculous.