IronTiger

Well, ridership is always the question, isn't it?

Wouldn't it make more economical sense to tear down ugly, dilapidated buildings then?

So, you want to tear down the Pierce Elevated solely for aesthetic reasons and don't want to see new freeways built or expanded, but you don't want a far-reaching commuter rail system? Gee, I thought you liked rail.

Houston is a big city where people want to work, with driving for hours to work there. Therefore, commuter rail isn't just for the Outer Belt and Galveston, it's for the entire region.

That was one of my worst ideas, which would also be illegal.

There's one part where it says "Scary Rednecks" but it's only this one trailer park surrounded entirely by junkyards.

Here's one for sevfiv: the Church of Burger Chef in Baytown, Texas. OK, it isn't really called that, but it has the same sign and building as its former occupant.

There's also one for that other city too. I don't have a lot of feelings on that one since in the last decade, I've been to Dallas three times compared to Houston's ~16.

In that pic, it looks like the Pierce Elevated is still there. The best thing they could do right now is get rid of that inner highway entrance from Allen Parkway.

I'm curious as to what constitutes as "repairing sidewalks". For example, if a sidewalk was damaged to the point where it was very difficult to traverse if you had difficulty walking/biking, would you have to do a new pour or could you just dump a blob of asphalt in the worst spots?

What I mean to say is that we (neither you nor I) actually know how traffic moves over there and how it affected traffic and congestion.

Yeah, but the restrictions applied: SF had the earthquake-damaged spurs, Seoul has freeways of ambiguous use and construction, Vancouver has never had very many freeways to speak of with its famous anti-freeway attitude, Portland had an old pre-Interstate highway replaced, and Seattle has a very old earthquake-prone viaduct that needs to be replaced (not removed) anyway. Fort Worth and Oklahoma City have done "freeway removals" to an extent, the latter moving the highway south to some ROW that happened to be mostly vacant.

There needs to be a study of the downtown highway systems and where cars go, which will help bring understanding on the highways, including how necessary (or not) the Pierce really is.

Correction: "which is why I'm NOT pushing it"

It looks like they're building something at the old Lord & Taylor site. What is it?

The Northeast Metro with its vast commuter rail system (which you, SV, love the idea of) stretches from DC to NYC in about 200 miles alone and there are people who travel a long distance, mostly rail-based, for their commute. However, you are correct in that at the density we have right now that won't work, which isn't why I'm pushing it. A Galveston-Houston line COULD be the start of a larger system, and it would be relatively cheap to start one and see how that actually works out.

It is when used in context, and you can tell when someone is using it as a slur or not. The name of this thread is "The Pierce Elevated Redesign Thread", not the Pierce Elevated Removal Thread, and any "misinformation" was mostly referring to other threads. The point is, the Pierce carries way too much traffic as it is and the other freeways aren't exactly empty, so tearing it down isn't a good idea especially when the alternatives could get rather messy (10 and 59) and expanding them probably isn't the best decision either. The best "freeway removal candidate" in Houston would probably be the spur to U of H, not the Pierce. Secondly, despite what anti-freeway activists may like to think, there's not a real example to work from, so there's not an easy solution. "What about in Portland and Milwaukee?" Well, those, as KHH explains, those were old pre-Interstate highways that were proved redundant when newer highways took their place, and were stripped out. This caused the first interest in "freeway removal" even back in the '80s, even though it wasn't. "OK, what about San Francisco?" They were spurs that were never completed after a master plan failed. As a result, it was more cost-effective after an earthquake compromised them to never carry the same capacity, so they became wide boulevards instead. "Well, the Seattle Alaskan Viaduct is being replaced with a tunnel, and it was dividing the city!" Again, the AWV actually was filled out (no spurs) and it was actually compromised. "OK, then Seoul is removing another freeway!" And there you go, the Seoul examples are used the most often in the whole "Why we should tear down the Pierce" argument and it's the thing we know the least amount. We have no idea how the traffic moves around in the city, and it mentions something that I always suspected: some seriously compromised, cheap, fast construction. Short of leaving it where it is, it would either benefit from an additional tunnel or something, but to really do something about it would be a part of a much more massive downtown plan to circulate traffic better.

Well, it seems like you have an unchanging mindset and don't realize the irony of you accusing me of thread de-railing and name calling as you do the exact same thing. Time to ignore this thread again.

I don't have any hard numbers, but it's a significant number. I'm guessing you don't have hard numbers on that either. Since I don't know what the numbers are, I'm not really arguing either way.

The "painting columns" idea is just an idea put out there because one of the complaints is that the Pierce is uninviting, which was one of your main ideas of why the Pierce should go. Now, that idea has jumped from "The Pierce divides Midtown and Downtown" to "The Pierce is unnecessary" which you've got no basis for. That's to be expected because you've spread so much consistent misinformation about traffic/transit related things: METRO, Bob Lanier, the Katy Freeway, and the Pierce Elevated itself that people either think that you have no idea what you're talking about or you're trying to lie to prove your point.

DANG!! Should've recognized the exterior of Larry's...anyway, thanks for everything, it will be "locked in" until the next update. The new page (when it's done) will include Burger Chef and Red Lobster with an all-new format. Wait for it soon! Preview:

Yup. While tunneling the Pierce Elevated is a rather attractive idea, admittedly, it's where you end up redesigning your entire on-ramp/off-ramp system where costs start ballooning. One of the reasons (just one) of the problems with the Big Dig was that they were trying to create a full Interstate system all underground, which they put off for years--not wanting to add more highways left them with a woefully inadequate elevated viaduct that was already a couple of decades old when the rest of America was receiving their new Interstate highways.

I would think a tunnel southbound but northbound remaining the Pierce Elevated would actually work out. A cut and cover would be disastrous to every business around it while a true tunnel would at least let that work out. Part of the big problem about the elevated segment isn't so much the 1997 rebuild but rather the capacity issue. It isn't designed to take as much traffic as it does now so a way to reduce that (possibly by adding a new SB tunnel) would be beneficial. The Pierce removal issue I think is more of a vanity/novelty thing than anything else with little regard for how congestion moves, because the only way to remove congestion right now effectively is to get rid of a large portion of the population. I've changed my mind on the induced demand theory, and I think there's an element of truth to it but constantly misinterpreted. The induced demand theory isn't "add highway lanes=instant congestion" with the conclusion of "remove highway lanes=remove congestion" it's more of the fact that it de-incentivizes other routes, which is why I started the parkway thread with the ideas of parkways and their lower capacity, but still viable. A good road network should include freeways, parkways, and major roads, because each of them have advantages and disadvantages. A parkway is one of the worst ideas for the Pierce Elevated because it is a freeway that's actually connecting other freeways (no frontage roads) and parkways have lower capacity than freeways (and the Pierce is already overcapacity). One reason I've ignored IDT before now is that every time someone talks about it, they use it as a vehicle to promote mass transit, which is a bit like using the theory of evolution to prove that there isn't a god (which we actually don't know if it does or not). If the Pierce was truly closed, then the next "best thing" would be going east on Interstate 10 and going south on 59, with lots of would-be Pierce traffic (and there will be traffic, even if some of them do choose sneakier alternative routes--think trucks) jogging on that part of 59 then going 45 south. Part of this discussion often leads to double-decking 59 or doing something with 10...but if we're talking double-decking, than it would stand to divide more of East Downtown and Downtown more than anything. There are really two questions to be asked here: 1. What can we do with congestion on the Pierce? 2. What can we do about the Pierce's appearance? The second question should not be answered without a good thought about the first--doing something for aesthetic purposes is a pretty bad idea when the thing you want to do something about has a real purpose and all you can offer is some vague ramblings about land value. That said, tearing it down isn't the best option right now. Some of the freeways in Houston (Shepherd under 59) are indeed rather dark and scary, so one option would be adding lots of lights, energy efficient, so they can stay on 24/7. Perhaps some soundproofing as well so you don't have to hear the constant rumblings. Or maybe add plants and greenery along the side so it almost looks like a giant hedge. Or perhaps adding a pedestrian underpass to bypass the streets paralleling the Pierce Elevated and add some soundproofing at that as well. Maybe there could be something where TxDOT could let the columns be painted by different civic organizations and turn the freeway into a living art installation. The possibilities are endless, and while that doesn't help the congestion issue all that much, it doesn't make it worse, and that's also important.

They are valid comparisons if you're actually looking at commuter rail destinations (notice I already said that Galveston is closer to either). Of course people commute to Houston from Galveston and vice versa, but also those two cities too. But they're not suburbs either. These cities are all unique in that they both have people that commute regularly but are real self-contained cities in their own right and will become more important as the Houston sphere of influence grows.

As much as I'd love to see commuter rail to Galveston, I think it would work only as part of a wider, metro-plus-wide system and how it actually would stack up against Interstate 45 (freeway construction makes that sort of thing appealing, I admit), as Galveston isn't a suburb to Houston but rather a satellite city much like Beaumont or College Station would be (granted, closer to Houston than either of those) that can operate on its own accord (unfortunately, Conroe isn't large enough to hold its own weight, which is why I didn't count it).