Highway 288

[MaxConcrete]

looks like the 288/beltway interchange is going to be made into a 5 stack interchange. its about time.. i wonder what they will do at the 610 interchange? possibly another 5 stack? its a little more "confusing" of a situation though.

 

Schematics were on display at the March 2013 public meeting and can be found here

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh288-exhibits.html

 

According to a recent posting on the HGAC web site, TxDOT is attempting to proceed with building the 4-lane 2-way facility (2 lanes each way) "ultimate" design rather than building an interim reversible 2-lane facility.

 

It looks like the Loop 610 interchange won't be a five-level design even in the "ultimate" design. The current main lanes will become toll lanes and the main lanes will go on new structures. I seem to recall from the meeting exhibit that the main lanes overpass everything below, but the online schematic looks like the new SH 288 main lanes structures are one level above Loop 610.

Edited August 7, 2013 by MaxConcrete

[cloud713]

Schematics were on display at the March 2013 public meeting and can be found here

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh288-exhibits.html

 

According to a recent posting on the HGAC web site, TxDOT is attempting to proceed with building the 4-lane 2-way facility (2 lanes each way) "ultimate" design rather than building an interim reversible 2-lane facility.

 

It looks like the Loop 610 interchange won't be a five-level design even in the "ultimate" design. The current main lanes will become toll lanes and the main lanes will go on new structures. I seem to recall from the meeting exhibit that the main lanes overpass everything below, but the online schematic looks like the new SH 288 main lanes structures are one level above Loop 610.

it looks like the 610 interchange may in fact be a 5 stack and Houston might be getting its first (and the nations first) 6 stack interchange.. (at Beltway 8 and 288).

610 has the main lanes of 288 running under 610, with 2 levels of flyovers above 610, and then another level of ramps going over everything else that will be the 288 toll lanes. then for the beltway interchange from bottom to top is the feeder roads, 288 overpass, beltway 8 overpass, then 288 toll lanes, with 2 levels of flyover ramps above that connecting beltway and 288. those will be some HIGH overpasses. i think the 5 stack at i10W and Beltway is 110' so a 6 stack could be 130' easy.

(about 3/4 the way down)

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_toll_lanes/rfq/preqs_052113_presentation.pdf

Edited September 20, 2013 by cloud713

[IronTiger]

I know that TX-288 has a super-wide median and was designed that way, but it was designed for express lanes when it was built. Still, the 100 ft./30 m. space seems to have a lot of potential either way and a lot to the imagination. So, what would you do? While making it a six lane super highway in both directions with two elevated HOT lanes might be the "du jour" way of making highways, I would like to see two HOT lanes in each direction and an extension of the Red Line down to Pearland. Any extra space would be used for shoulders.

That said, what would YOU like to see in the median? More lanes? Rail-based transit? HOT lanes? A lane for the daily Pearland/Houston bike commute? (Just kidding. Maybe.) Spare me the blubbering about politics and please don't attack others' ideas...this is mostly for fun.

[Slick Vik]

Rail down the middle to 518 or so. And then with leftover space feeder or shoulder, I'm not sure what's more important out of those two though. Shoulder is probably easier.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Slick Vik

[Slick Vik]

It would be cool if there was a stop off 288 with a one stop train into medical center kind of like grand central to penn station shuttle also.

[mfastx]

Hell, at the very least I'd like to see some landscaping.  The landscaping near the 59 interchange is nice but I wish it were extended down until 610 at least. 

 

Rail is an interesting idea but I'm not sure that 288 south has the population to support it, lot's of vast empty spaces before Pearland it seems.  Commuter rail maybe, but it will be difficult to bring commuters into downtown using rail, lots of new expensive infrastructure needs to be built.  Rail could be successful if done right, I'd like to see a branch off to the Medical Center if that's the case.  

 

Realistically I'd imagine that some sort of tollway will be built eventually, similar to HOT lanes.  

[cloud713]

Commuter rail from highway 6 to Fannin south with alternating trains going further north to the TMC.

Rail is an interesting idea but I'm not sure that 288 south has the population to support it, lot's of vast empty spaces before Pearland it seems. Commuter rail maybe, but it will be difficult to bring commuters into downtown using rail, lots of new expensive infrastructure needs to be built. Rail could be successful if done right, I'd like to see a branch off to the Medical Center if that's the case.

Realistically I'd imagine that some sort of tollway will be built eventually, similar to HOT lanes.

While I agree the population of 288 south isn't that crazy yet, it's better (and cheaper) IMO to build rail now than in the future after all of 288s ROW has been paved over with HOT lanes. 278 is the last major corridor to be developed and it's time is coming.. Since so many TMC workers live along 288 it would be nice to have an alternate mode of transit for them to avoid traffic. I agree though, once you get to 59 it gets tricky and there's really no room to get to downtown. You could maybe elevate the rail up and over 59 to Wheeler station (where the University line is supposed to bisect the red line), but idk if the added expense is worth extending it past the TMC.

And HOT lanes are the plan for the 288 median unfortunately. I hope they don't pave over every bit of it.

Edited August 14, 2014 by cloud713

[Slick Vik]

Rail to downtown and med center would get heavy ridership

[cloud713]

Rail to downtown and med center would get heavy ridership

I just don't see how rail to downtown would be an option without elevating it the whole way once you get to 59, and even then there's not much room to work with..

[democide]

I think an elevated train is what this city needs, at least moving forward, not rail running on the streets.  Keep it on the ground where you can (like on the 288 median), but elevate it everywhere else.

[IronTiger]

The Red Line, ideally, would be tunneled/depressed from Holmes and Fannin to Reed and 288, that's how you would get light rail in. A real commuter rail would ideally go through the Columbia Tap Rail Trail, but reception seemed to be pretty negative even when that was proposed in the early 1990s. Of course, there would be some slow down as it starts street running, but it's not too long until the TMC.

[sdotwill84]

Well from the looks of it.... Pearland will need something in that median soon enough. Fingers crossed for rail.

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/New-Pearland-project-a-place-to-live-work-and-5689782.php

 

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2014/08/pearland-mixed-use-development-awaits-city-approval/#25899101=4

[ToryGattis]

TXDoT is already in the advanced planning stages of putting HOT lanes there (that's why they didn't bother extending the landscaping farther south), but I think they might be making a mistake making them two-way when one-way reversible makes more sense given that the flows are strongly inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening.

[Avossos]

I love seeing highways packed with trees. Makes the drive and the Houston vibe SO MUCH BETTER. That being said, if rail can be added here, I am for a combonation of wooded landscaping and rail.

[Montrose1100]

I love seeing highways packed with trees. Makes the drive and the Houston vibe SO MUCH BETTER. That being said, if rail can be added here, I am for a combonation of wooded landscaping and rail.

I agree. I wish every available land in between the freeways, medians, everything were filled with mature trees. Imagine only seeing this while driving on our freeways, with only the taller buildings sticking out.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

TXDoT is already in the advanced planning stages of putting HOT lanes there (that's why they didn't bother extending the landscaping farther south), but I think they might be making a mistake making them two-way when one-way reversible makes more sense given that the flows are strongly inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening.

 

I was also going to say that there's no use in trying to come up with fantastic plans for rail down the 288 median...that space is already spoken for with toll lanes.

 

I know that the construction plans are nearing completion for the Brazoria County portion of the toll lanes.  Construction could begin next year, I believe?

 

I do love the landscaping in the median of 288 north of Binz, but know that's it's days are numbered.  I only hope that TxDOT will use that area as a "nursery" and transplant some of those trees rather than simply clear cutting them.  There are great number of mature trees in that median now.  Those trees are nearly 10 years old.  I don't know for a fact, but I assume it's not cheap to buy 10-year old trees.

[JLWM8609]

I sometimes wonder what the traffic situation on 288 would be like today if it was completed in the mid-70s as planned with express lanes and not completed in the mid-80s without the express lanes.

[ToryGattis]

I was also going to say that there's no use in trying to come up with fantastic plans for rail down the 288 median...that space is already spoken for with toll lanes.

 

I know that the construction plans are nearing completion for the Brazoria County portion of the toll lanes.  Construction could begin next year, I believe?

 

I do love the landscaping in the median of 288 north of Binz, but know that's it's days are numbered.  I only hope that TxDOT will use that area as a "nursery" and transplant some of those trees rather than simply clear cutting them.  There are great number of mature trees in that median now.  Those trees are nearly 10 years old.  I don't know for a fact, but I assume it's not cheap to buy 10-year old trees.

 

I may be wrong, but I *think* the plan is that the HOT express lanes will only go as far north as Macgregor, where there will be a flying ramp up towards the TMC, plus a merge back into the general lanes (I'm assuming) - so I don't think that landscaping north of Binz will get touched.  There's really no reason to extend them farther north, because there's no place to put them once you get to 59...

[JLWM8609]

I may be wrong, but I *think* the plan is that the HOT express lanes will only go as far north as Macgregor, where there will be a flying ramp up towards the TMC, plus a merge back into the general lanes (I'm assuming) - so I don't think that landscaping north of Binz will get touched.  There's really no reason to extend them farther north, because there's no place to put them once you get to 59...

 

The ramp at MacGregor was squashed. Instead, the ramp will be built at Holcombe. I'll try to find a link to the schematics.

[JLWM8609]

I may be wrong, but I *think* the plan is that the HOT express lanes will only go as far north as Macgregor, where there will be a flying ramp up towards the TMC, plus a merge back into the general lanes (I'm assuming) - so I don't think that landscaping north of Binz will get touched.  There's really no reason to extend them farther north, because there's no place to put them once you get to 59...

 

Here's the schematics that show the lanes ending at the interchange with 59. They don't show the flyover at Holcombe, though.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_toll_lanes/project_documents/schematic_plans/initial/sh288_initial_sheet_13.pdf

[ToryGattis]

Here's the schematics that show the lanes ending at the interchange with 59. They don't show the flyover at Holcombe, though.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_toll_lanes/project_documents/schematic_plans/initial/sh288_initial_sheet_13.pdf

 

Thanks.  I am disappointed they are doing 2 lanes each direction instead of 4 reversible lanes, but I'm guessing the simplicity outweighs the additional capacity utilization (I'm guessing the contraflow lanes will be nearly empty during rush hour - outbound in the morning and inbound in the evening, unless they make them free or close to it).

[JLWM8609]

Thanks.  I am disappointed they are doing 2 lanes each direction instead of 4 reversible lanes, but I'm guessing the simplicity outweighs the additional capacity utilization (I'm guessing the contraflow lanes will be nearly empty during rush hour - outbound in the morning and inbound in the evening, unless they make them free or close to it).

 

They're going to start out with one reversible lane. In time, it'll be widened into two nonreversible lanes.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_us59/harris_county_610_59.pdf

[IronTiger]

Kinda sucks there won't be room for rail, but that was never part of the plan (same with I-10, wishful thinking).

I wonder if they're leaving space (potential) for building a five stack with Beltway 8 eventually.

[cloud713]

I wonder if they're leaving space (potential) for building a five stack with Beltway 8 eventually.

I thought beltway 8 interchange was becoming a (worlds first) 6 stack?

[JLWM8609]

I thought beltway 8 interchange was becoming a (worlds first) 6 stack?

Looks like it'll be a 5 stack.

 

Initial schematics:

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_toll_lanes/project_documents/schematic_plans/initial/sh288_initial_sheet_08.pdf

 

Ultimate schematics:

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_toll_lanes/project_documents/schematic_plans/ultimate/sh288_ultimate_sheet_07.pdf

[cloud713]

That's not a 6 stack? I don't think there's enough room to squeeze 3 more lanes on each side under the Beltway overpass, so they were going to run the HOT lanes over Beltway, and the 2 flyovers above that..

[DNAguy]

Kinda sucks there won't be room for rail, but that was never part of the plan (same with I-10, wishful thinking).

I wonder if they're leaving space (potential) for building a five stack with Beltway 8 eventually.

 

TXDot Kinda sucks there won't be room for rail, but that was never part of the plan (same with I-10, wishful thinking).

I wonder if they're leaving space (potential) for building a five stack with Beltway 8 eventually.

 

fify

[BigFootsSocks]

TXDot Kinda sucks there won't be room for rail, but that was never part of the plan (same with I-10, wishful thinking).

I wonder if they're leaving space (potential) for building a five stack with Beltway 8 eventually.

fify

I was about to say, "It's not really TXDOTs job to build rail" but then I realized I forgot the 'T' stood for "transportation" not "freeway"

[JLWM8609]

That's not a 6 stack? I don't think there's enough room to squeeze 3 more lanes on each side under the Beltway overpass, so they were going to run the HOT lanes over Beltway, and the 2 flyovers above that..

 

It's going to be just 2 more lanes in each direction. It looks like the 2 lanes will go in easy.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.597822,-95.386475,3a,75y,185.39h,84.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sT9jw_mZtp9ZsQxk5Aq3bpQ!2e0

[ToryGattis]

Rail is a debatable investment in general, but it certainly makes absolutely no sense for the 288 median - there is already a parallel Main Street line right to the west.  They will eventually continue that south and possibly take it out to Sugar Land.