News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

North Houston Highway Improvement Project (project resumed March 2023)

Started by MaxConcrete, April 22, 2015, 09:19:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

In_Correct

QuoteNice first post.

QuoteNice welcoming to the forum.

:bigass: Welcome To AARoads Forum!  :bigass:

I had not checked that Message Board where people introduced them selves, but there have been several new people recently. I got you mixed up with them. And I got them mixed up with you.

QuoteAll widening this road will do is stimulate further sprawl on the peripheries of the region until we're back at square one.

Not exactly. Gentrification is much more likely to stimulate Sprawl. The traffic is increasing no matter where the Highways are located. The only thing about this project I am against is that they are trying to reroute traffic from Pierce Elevated. If they demolish it, that would be terrible. Texas needs to ban Freeway Removals. I also welcome Property Acquisitions since both the Highway and Rail systems badly need expansions and also Tolls. While Plutonic Panda might have been drinking, I am naturally grouchy.

QuotePersonally, I don't have a problem with freeways in general, though I do understand why the urban ones suck.

Reasons why they might suck includes:

They do not yet look like this:

https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg

They are not yet tolled.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.


Plutonic Panda

Are there any freeway removals in Texas that legitimately could use a removal? I can certainly agree with some of the removals like 375 in Detroit. I'm not completely anti freeway removal.

jadebenn

There's no real isolated bits I'm aware of since Texas never had major freeway revolts, so anything you take away is going to be fairly integral to the system. Like, the Pierce and I-345 are less important than some others, but they're definitely functional. You don't have anything like the portion of I-395 in front of the capitol in DC, where you could make a fairly strong case that the incomplete stub is worse than not having it at all (since you're just concentrating the traffic before dumping it into an arterial all at once).

Plutonic Panda

Even though many here have made the case to keep the Pierce, it's the only freeway I can think of where I'd remove it.

On the flip side, you could build a massive flood tank and build a freeway through it. As crazy as that sounds simply close it when flooding rain is in the forecast.

jadebenn

It's not that crazy. A lot of the highways in Houston are intentionally built that way. I pass through a bunch of flood depth markers whenever I head downtown, and it's really not avoidable whenever you go below-grade in a city so prone to flooding, so you may as well design it in.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: jadebenn on June 09, 2021, 11:52:01 PM
It's not that crazy. A lot of the highways in Houston are intentionally built that way. I pass through a bunch of flood depth markers whenever I head downtown, and it's really not avoidable whenever you go below-grade in a city so prone to flooding, so you may as well design it in.
That's my thought. I propose elevated heavy rail instead of subways but freeways can be more resilient to floods unless I'm mistaken. A full tunnel for the pierce would be a good alternative but I'd rather see the billions spent on a real heavy transit system for downtown Houston.

jadebenn

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 10, 2021, 12:01:34 AM
Quote from: jadebenn on June 09, 2021, 11:52:01 PM
It's not that crazy. A lot of the highways in Houston are intentionally built that way. I pass through a bunch of flood depth markers whenever I head downtown, and it's really not avoidable whenever you go below-grade in a city so prone to flooding, so you may as well design it in.
That's my thought. I propose elevated heavy rail instead of subways but freeways can be more resilient to floods unless I'm mistaken. A full tunnel for the pierce would be a good alternative but I'd rather see the billions spent on a real heavy transit system for downtown Houston.
Heavy rail in Houston would mean elevation, and elevation means a big NIMBY factor in this day and age, because people think we still build noisy claptraps like the Chicago El. I'd personally love to see it, but it'd be a hard sell politically.

sprjus4

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2021, 11:26:22 PM
Are there any freeway removals in Texas that legitimately could use a removal? I can certainly agree with some of the removals like 375 in Detroit. I'm not completely anti freeway removal.
I could see downgrading I-37 between SH-286 and Shoreline Blvd (the first couple blocks is already at-grade) in Corpus Christi, once the Harbor Bridge replacement / relocation is done. That part of the freeway will no longer be needed for through traffic connecting to the bridge, merely an outlet into Downtown. Demolish some of the old overpasses and make it a surface boulevard like the last 2 blocks are.

Bobby5280

Quote from: jadebennThe cost of living in the outer suburbs is traffic. If they don't want traffic, they shouldn't be living in the outer suburbs.

Stated as if living in the city center is practical and affordable for everybody.

Cost of housing is by far the biggest reason why people move farther away from a city center into the suburbs and exhurbs. Some people with lots of money do so since they can pay far less per square foot for a big home. Many others are priced out of the city center because the suburbs or exhurbs are the only places they can find anything remotely affordable to buy/rent that isn't located in a crime-filled combat zone.

The sheer absurdity of the real estate market today is showing what a crock of $#!+ the whole "new urbanist" concept has become. The ideology is completely out of touch with people who aren't rich or at least upper middle class. Many of the kinds of businesses new urbanists pitch as part of the city core utopia depend on lot of a low paid service industry workers. Where do the new urbanists expect these workers to live when buying or renting in the city core is getting to require a six figure income just to make ends meet? I can't see coffee shops paying baristas $50 per hour or better.

What we have happening instead is massive amounts of gentrification in city cores and the areas near the cores. Not everyone who gets shoved out of the core will stay in that region and agree to commute significant distances to work a $#!+-pay job. We already see large numbers of people leaving California and the Northeast US for destinations like Texas. And the misery index has been ramping up in Texas' biggest cities, so that might encourage migration to other places. We have a lot of speculative real estate buying nonsense going on here in Oklahoma now.

The whole sales pitch to convince everyone to live in the city core only works if everyone can afford to live there.

Quote from: Plutonic PandaI definitely think we need more transportation options in Houston than just cars. Keep in mind this projects adds many miles of trails and bike lanes. It also adds a grade separation for the red line to reduce end to end travel times. Houston needs to get on the ball with a serious mass transit network. DFW and Austin are doing just that. Houston, San Antonio, and dare I say El Paso, need to develop serious mass transit plans to compliment a real Texas triangle HSR system or else it won't matter if you still have to drive to the station anyways. That's my real beef with the current proposal for LA to Vegas HSR is it stopping in Victorville.

The United States has a far more fundamental problem: we don't know how to build anything related to passenger rail with a reasonable price tag. It all turns into an extreme cost boondoggle, especially high speed rail. Subways, light rail and commuter rail have similar problems with runaway costs.

The only kind of mass transit that can be deployed to cover most cities effectively is bus travel. There ain't any kind of romance or convenience about riding a city bus.

Quote from: In_CorrectNot exactly. Gentrification is much more likely to stimulate Sprawl. The traffic is increasing no matter where the Highways are located. The only thing about this project I am against is that they are trying to reroute traffic from Pierce Elevated. If they demolish it, that would be terrible. Texas needs to ban Freeway Removals. I also welcome Property Acquisitions since both the Highway and Rail systems badly need expansions and also Tolls. While Plutonic Panda might have been drinking, I am naturally grouchy.

The thing that should be happening is long range planning. Texas used to be really good at this in regards to highways. They would get the right of way secured where a freeway could be built decades into the future, but start out with either a 2 lane road with vacant land to the side or a divided highway/street with a large median in the middle.

The bad thing about the Pierce Elevated is lack of space for any expansion. The current, aging facility has 3 lanes in each direction with no inner left shoulder. I-45 needs to have at least 4 or 5 lanes in each direction. If the Pierce Elevated was re-built on the same spot no new lanes could be added.

In some respects high speed rail corridors are even more difficult to plan and acquire land for the route. A true 200mph+ HSR line requires paths that are extremely straight and only the most gradual of curves for any bends. That leaves far less room for error when a property owner whose land is in the proposed path refuses to sell. Highways and even freeways have a little more flexibility in how much they can bend to get around an obstacle.

bwana39

Texas used to be good at this.....
When we are taking about urban freeway corridors, it comes down to the economics from the sixties and seventies.  Build it as narrow as possible.  This is what they have to work with both with the Canyon in Dallas and the Pierce Elevated in Houston.

Another part of the difference between building an urban freeway in the sixties and today is there is opposition to building them. In the sixties, most of the opposition was poor renters who lived in and around the path. The owners as a whole were ready to move the properties. 

Today, there is much more resistance from a multitude or reasons. Ironically, the people in the downtown area who fought to insure the freeway didn't  bypass downtown are the very ones who want rid of them today . (I realize that the business interests were the powers back then and today it is two groups: The people who live in the urban center and the owners of curbside commercial properties.

The TXDOT handbook advises the districts to buy all of the right of way for a projected expansion at the start. Pretty much any reroute or significant upgrade of a US Highway or a potential freeway would be to buy ROW for 2/2/2/2 or 2/3/3/2 at minimum. This doesn't always happen, but when it does, it prevents problems down the line.



Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Bobby5280

I'm not a fan at all of freeway removal campaigns in major cities that don't include a replacement that maintains or improves traffic moving capacity. The downtown Houston proposal that relocates I-45 would be a net improvement for I-45, I-10 and I-69 all while removing the Pierce Elevated. The new urbanist folks just want all the freeways removed and make it a costly and time consuming ordeal to visit the city core by auto.

The new urbanists oddly assume freeway removals would have no effect on the number of people visiting the city core either for work or leisure. It appears they did not notice certain trends that really took off in the 1980's and never really stopped. 40 years ago major companies and various other kinds of businesses discovered it was no longer necessary to be located in a downtown zone. More and more workers were being forced out to the suburbs and exhurbs to find the combination of more affordable housing in safer neighborhoods. Some companies decided get out of city center towers and open suburban corporate campuses.

Today not only is it no longer necessary for a big company to lease space in a downtown skyscraper it's no longer necessary for the big company to be located in a giant sized city. Technology is allowing most kinds of corporate business to be done anywhere. Considering our nation's declining birth rate it's likely more couples will prioritize living in a region where they can afford to start a family.

Anyway, with all that said, if the new urbanists make a city core a complete pain in the @$$ to ever visit then a lot of people will just stop visiting. That won't be so good for business in the city core.

achilles765

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2021, 11:46:34 PM
Even though many here have made the case to keep the Pierce, it's the only freeway I can think of where I'd remove it.

On the flip side, you could build a massive flood tank and build a freeway through it. As crazy as that sounds simply close it when flooding rain is in the forecast.

the problem with that is that ANY rain here can be flooding rain.  and we never can completely know when its going to rain heavily haha.
The second problem with that idea is that the planned route is going to be the ONLY north-south route in the city center.  Surface streets often flood more quickly than the freeways, as long as the freeways are not depressed or below grade.  the freeway stretches that flood the most are the ones that are depressed: IH 45 near North Main, IH 69 through Montrose, Beltway 8 in Memorial City, most of 288.
The pierce elevated is also the only freeway with a choice of exits for downtown.  There is exactly one exit on IH 69 heading south, and only one heading north.  IH 10 only has one each direction as well.  But the Pierce Elevated allows one to exit onto McKinney, Dallas, Pierce (and the Dallas Street/Pierce Street Exit ramp is long and has exits for Bagby and a turn lane for Gray), Allen Parkway heading south; while the northbound side has that long ramp for IH 69/US 59/SH 288 which itself has exits to Scott Street, Emancipation Avenue, St Joseph Parkway, and Pease Street; Allen Parkway, and Houston Avenue/Memorial.
I have not yet seen anywhere what the planned exits and entrances are for this project.
I love freeways and roads in any state but Texas will always be first in my heart

bwana39

We keep talking about the infeasibility of a tunnel, but the fact is they are going to build a fully depressed roadway (with the goal of putting a deck park above it.) While it will only be about 20 to 25 feet below grade, it is still a tunnel for all practical purposes subject to the same flooding that a true tunnel would be. Arguments against a tunnel however well founded or not are moot.

As to the practical application, the Washburn Tunnel has stood since the fifties without flooding being a problem.  The Baytown tunnel had its problems, but flooding was not one of them. I will admit that the depressed portion of the Southwest Freeway DID flood during a hurricane some tears ago, but it is still in the same depressed canyon.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

TXtoNJ

Pierce needs to go - the plan as it exists is a good one, and only the most absolutist of roadgeeks could think otherwise.

QuoteThe pierce elevated is also the only freeway with a choice of exits for downtown.  There is exactly one exit on IH 69 heading south, and only one heading north.  IH 10 only has one each direction as well.  But the Pierce Elevated allows one to exit onto McKinney, Dallas, Pierce (and the Dallas Street/Pierce Street Exit ramp is long and has exits for Bagby and a turn lane for Gray), Allen Parkway heading south; while the northbound side has that long ramp for IH 69/US 59/SH 288 which itself has exits to Scott Street, Emancipation Avenue, St Joseph Parkway, and Pease Street; Allen Parkway, and Houston Avenue/Memorial.
I have not yet seen anywhere what the planned exits and entrances are for this project.

That's what the Downtown Connector is for. There are going to be practically no changes to the exits available - it's just the segment along Pierce that solely serves through traffic that will be rerouted.

bwana39

Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 11, 2021, 12:40:12 PM
Pierce needs to go - the plan as it exists is a good one, and only the most absolutist of roadgeeks could think otherwise.
****
That's what the Downtown Connector is for. There are going to be practically no changes to the exits available - it's just the segment along Pierce that solely serves through traffic that will be rerouted.

I agree with the exits available. ESPECIALLY coming in from and departing toward the north.  If only the elevated is removed.   
Going from south of downtown to the northwest part of downtown will be a little more inconvenient.

The through traffic will have a minimally longer route and a wider path. 

My personal qualms come down to a very negative experience in / around downtown Houston over 30 years ago.  I think it was US-59 and SH-288. (I certainly am not sure what highways it was. That is just my best guess.) They had that traffic pattern so that the two middle lanes had opposite direction traffic on both sides.  I had been drinking. My wife was driving (We were both less than 25 years old). It was disorienting for both of us. I just have a sour spot for that particular highway setup. It might be fine with barriers between it so  that you don't have oncoming headlights on both your right and left.


Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

jadebenn

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 10, 2021, 11:55:00 PM
Anyway, with all that said, if the new urbanists make a city core a complete pain in the @$$ to ever visit then a lot of people will just stop visiting. That won't be so good for business in the city core.
Give me an example of this ever happening to a city not already in decline. Because plenty of modern cities have been selecting other modes of transportation over vehicular transportation, and this prediction hasn't happened. Vehicular traffic has been on a massive decline in Seattle, for example, so much that some people were calling the city's initiatives "the War on Cars" and the local economy didn't suffer for it. Or how about the legacy cities, or ones that had huge freeway revolts that prevented much of their local freeway networks being built. NYC has no urban freeways in the core, and DC tore up their freeway map and built a metro network instead. They're not exactly suffering for their lack of vehicular access. Sure, I'm certain the car commuters in those places want to tear their hair out, but why exactly should they be catered to at the expense of everyone else?

sprjus4

DC and New York City have good and reliable metro systems.

Houston...? Not really

Bad comparison.

achilles765

Quote from: bwana39 on June 11, 2021, 02:04:11 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 11, 2021, 12:40:12 PM
Pierce needs to go - the plan as it exists is a good one, and only the most absolutist of roadgeeks could think otherwise.
****
That's what the Downtown Connector is for. There are going to be practically no changes to the exits available - it's just the segment along Pierce that solely serves through traffic that will be rerouted.

I agree with the exits available. ESPECIALLY coming in from and departing toward the north.  If only the elevated is removed.   
Going from south of downtown to the northwest part of downtown will be a little more inconvenient.

The through traffic will have a minimally longer route and a wider path. 

My personal qualms come down to a very negative experience in / around downtown Houston over 30 years ago.  I think it was US-59 and SH-288. (I certainly am not sure what highways it was. That is just my best guess.) They had that traffic pattern so that the two middle lanes had opposite direction traffic on both sides.  I had been drinking. My wife was driving (We were both less than 25 years old). It was disorienting for both of us. I just have a sour spot for that particular highway setup. It might be fine with barriers between it so  that you don't have oncoming headlights on both your right and left.




I have heard a lot of people describing that stretch you just described.  I think it US 59 closer to IH 10 or that area; but that was totally redone years ago.  Im curious as to what it looked like before because I have a hard time picturing this.
I love freeways and roads in any state but Texas will always be first in my heart

bwana39

Quote from: achilles765 on June 13, 2021, 05:43:24 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on June 11, 2021, 02:04:11 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 11, 2021, 12:40:12 PM
Pierce needs to go - the plan as it exists is a good one, and only the most absolutist of roadgeeks could think otherwise.
****
That's what the Downtown Connector is for. There are going to be practically no changes to the exits available - it's just the segment along Pierce that solely serves through traffic that will be rerouted.

I agree with the exits available. ESPECIALLY coming in from and departing toward the north.  If only the elevated is removed.   
Going from south of downtown to the northwest part of downtown will be a little more inconvenient.

The through traffic will have a minimally longer route and a wider path. 

My personal qualms come down to a very negative experience in / around downtown Houston over 30 years ago.  I think it was US-59 and SH-288. (I certainly am not sure what highways it was. That is just my best guess.) They had that traffic pattern so that the two middle lanes had opposite direction traffic on both sides.  I had been drinking. My wife was driving (We were both less than 25 years old). It was disorienting for both of us. I just have a sour spot for that particular highway setup. It might be fine with barriers between it so  that you don't have oncoming headlights on both your right and left.




I have heard a lot of people describing that stretch you just described.  I think it US 59 closer to IH 10 or that area; but that was totally redone years ago.  Im curious as to what it looked like before because I have a hard time picturing this.

That was actually where I was thinking it was, I just cannot imagine what two freeways it was, so I assumed I just had the location mixed up. Country boy and girl (figuratively) lost in the city at night.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Bobby5280

Quote from: Bobby5280Anyway, with all that said, if the new urbanists make a city core a complete pain in the @$$ to ever visit then a lot of people will just stop visiting. That won't be so good for business in the city core.

Quote from: jadebennGive me an example of this ever happening to a city not already in decline. Because plenty of modern cities have been selecting other modes of transportation over vehicular transportation, and this prediction hasn't happened.

We're getting into uncharted territory. California just experienced its first net loss of population in the state's history, nearly 200,000 people. People are migrating away from the Northeast states too. Downtown cores in America's biggest cities tend to be extremely expensive. It's not a good arrangement for young adult workers looking at starting families.

40 years ago in metros like DC and DFW major companies started building corporate campuses out in the suburbs closer to where more of their employees could live comfortably. Even in Seattle some major companies have their main offices built away from the city core. Under the current circumstances this kind of trend could accelerate. Removing a bunch of downtown freeways could actually increase suburban sprawl by making both housing and office space on the city outskirts even more attractive.

Thegeet

Not sure if this is mentioned, but would TxDOT demolish the existing I-45 freeway from 69/59 to I-10? Or will it be a 3di?

sprjus4

Quote from: Thegeet on June 16, 2021, 04:10:59 AM
Not sure if this is mentioned, but would TxDOT demolish the existing I-45 freeway from 69/59 to I-10? Or will it be a 3di?
Yes.

bwana39

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 16, 2021, 10:18:14 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on June 16, 2021, 04:10:59 AM
Not sure if this is mentioned, but would TxDOT demolish the existing I-45 freeway from 69/59 to I-10? Or will it be a 3di?
Yes.

No not exactly. They would demolish the part of the existing freeway called the Pierce Elevated.  This part runs from I-69 / US-59 on the south side of downtown to around Jefferson Street on the North side of downtown.  The freeway stub into downtown would remain from I-10 to flow into Pearce, Jefferson, and Pease.  There would be  city streets bridging the former freeway path with the freeway running around the East side of downtown adjacent to I-69 then I-10.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MaxConcrete

FHWA has officially halted virtually all work on the project. This appears to be separate and independent of the lawsuit against the project.

https://abc13.com/i-45-houston-downtown-project-north-highway-improvement-txdot/10824254/
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Federal-officials-tell-TxDOT-again-to-slow-down-16268146.php

Now we need to see if the TxDOT commission will leave funding in place, or if NHHIP will be defunded and the funds distributed elsewhere. At the June 10 NCTCOG meeting director Morris said "We have a major push working with TxDOT headquarters to advance projects in Dallas-Fort Worth as other big projects in the rest of the state do not move forward. So, [name] and Mo and Carl and John and our office are working hard to get really big projects slotted for any opportunities that either Washington or Austin wish to advance (transportation projects)."
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

abqtraveler

Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 24, 2021, 09:57:02 AM
FHWA has officially halted virtually all work on the project. This appears to be separate and independent of the lawsuit against the project.

https://abc13.com/i-45-houston-downtown-project-north-highway-improvement-txdot/10824254/
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Federal-officials-tell-TxDOT-again-to-slow-down-16268146.php

Now we need to see if the TxDOT commission will leave funding in place, or if NHHIP will be defunded and the funds distributed elsewhere. At the June 10 NCTCOG meeting director Morris said "We have a major push working with TxDOT headquarters to advance projects in Dallas-Fort Worth as other big projects in the rest of the state do not move forward. So, [name] and Mo and Carl and John and our office are working hard to get really big projects slotted for any opportunities that either Washington or Austin wish to advance (transportation projects)."

An article I read this morning stated the FHWA is now stepping in to block TxDOT from acquiring the needed property to complete the NHHIP, and is conducting an audit of TxDOT's environmental review process. TxDOT is in a unique position where it has been delegated the authority to act as a Lead Agency for preparing NEPA documentation, unlike other states where the FHWA serves as the Lead Agency to sign off on the Final EIS and ROD. I would anticipate that following the FHWA's audit of TxDOT, they will probably strip TxDOT of their authority of sign off on EISs and RODs and pull that back to the FHWA.

I wouldn't say that the NHHIP is necessarily "dead," but I can see the FHWA stepping in an telling TxDOT to "go back to the drawing board and figure out a better solution...and oh by the way...you (TxDOT) will not be signing off on the EIS and ROD...we'll do that after you give us something we like." 

https://abc13.com/i-45-houston-downtown-project-north-highway-improvement-txdot/10824254/
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.