largeTEXAS Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I'm shocked/ elated/ skeptical about the potential of one of these scenarios happening. It almost seems like Houston us waking up to some planning! Imagine downtown seamlessly merging with Midtown, Montrose, and even, the East End! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate99 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I am intrigued by the one way roundabout idea for 45/10/59, it sounds blissfully simple. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I'm intrigued by the Parkway Scheme that re-integrates the First and Fourth Wards into the downtown street grid. It would be spectacular having an bayou park uninterrupted by overpasses all the way from Shepherd to downtown, like a back yard for the city. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisPHous Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 A new definition of "Inside the Loop" Would be cool to have all of it tunneled! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 A new definition of "Inside the Loop" Would be cool to have all of it tunneled! Until you need a bunch of fire trucks to handle an accident scene with burning cars. I'll take surface roads, thank you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Until you need a bunch of fire trucks to handle an accident scene with burning cars. I'll take surface roads, thank you.Guess like your mindset isn't the holy grail anymore. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 I think that it's good that the city is looking at alternatives, whether it actually translates to reality is another question entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 I think that it's good that the city is looking at alternatives, whether it actually translates to reality is another question entirely.If it didn't translate to reality would the city bother wasting time studying it as an option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 If it didn't translate to reality would the city bother wasting time studying it as an option? I'm not sure I understand your comment. It looks like the city is looking at a series of different options for the area including creating a tunnel. They may choose one of the options, they may choose to do nothing. I'm assuming that there would be some kind of project cost analysis done as well before any kind of decision is made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Well, the option of tunneling I-45 is no longer, an option. -___- The downtown loop segment, probably the most complex of the three areas due to limited space, has three viable options: Widening the Pierce Elevated portion of I-45 and narrowing Pierce Street; moving I-45 to where U.S 59 is and running the freeways parallel along the eastern side of downtown while tearing out the Pierce and turning the route into a parkway to get to I-10; or leaving I-45 southbound lanes on the Pierce Elevated and shifting northbound lanes to U.S 59. Weston said the options also do not include what most residents said was their preferred choice: Tunneling so the freeway would be separated from the neighborhood and downtown. Though expensive, Weston said the tunnel construction would not affect the existing freeway as much as other proposals, and the added cost would be worth it. Many of the 400-plus comments TxDot received favored the tunnel plan. TxDot spokesman Danny Perez said the tunnel was taken off the list of reasonable alternatives due to engineering challenges. "There would be no available space for roadway shoulders with a tunnel" Perez said. "This creates a safety hazard in the event of an accident and greatly reduces access for emergency vehicles. Vehicles would also face slower speeds in a tunnel, Perez said, defeating the purpose of the widening and its ability to handle growing traffic demand planners predict. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/TxDOT-considering-options-for-widening-I-45-4981875.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 That seems rather silly. Why not just extend the tunnel by a few feet and then you can put roadway shoulders. How come tunneled freeways work in other cities? Bummer, but sadly I knew there was no way TxDOT would consider the tunnel option anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Disappointed, but not surprised at all. If Boston could accomplish the Big Dig I'm not sure why the engineering challenge of a tunnel is so overwhelming in Houston. Vehicles would also face slower speeds in a tunnel, Perez said Slower than what they are now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban909 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) Even though the tunnel option is taken off the table, so to speak, it looks like there is still an option to turn the Pierce Elevated into a parkway?? Edit: I found my answer. http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs3/Segment_3_Alt_11_400scale.pdf Interesting to see how they would fit and extra 6 lanes on the East End side. Edited November 14, 2013 by urban909 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Pathetic. What's the point of having public comments if you just ignore them. This is very similar to the metro gm payments situation last year. At this rate out best hope for change is just for the old ruling generation to just die out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Pathetic. What's the point of having public comments if you just ignore them. This is very similar to the metro gm payments situation last year. At this rate out best hope for change is just for the old ruling generation to just die out. That's outstanding. The point of soliciting comments against several options is to assist in the process of eventually arriving at one option and then executing it. I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but I'm going to hazard a guess that there were public comments in favor of several different options. Therefore, somebody's comments are always going to be ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 That's outstanding. The point of soliciting comments against several options is to assist in the process of eventually arriving at one option and then executing it. I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but I'm going to hazard a guess that there were public comments in favor of several different options. Therefore, somebody's comments are always going to be ignored. The majority of the comments favored the tunnel option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 The majority of the comments favored the tunnel option. I haven't seen any tally of the comments, so I can't comment on the truth of that, but it's still irrelevant because those comments don't consider cost and general feasibility of the project. Comments are one factor in a decision nothing more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I haven't seen any tally of the comments, so I can't comment on the truth of that, but it's still irrelevant because those comments don't consider cost and general feasibility of the project. Comments are one factor in a decision nothing more. History shows what happens when the will of the people is denied. Also, I go to these meetings, I see what happens. It's insulting to see our comments thrown to the side. Why even have public comment sessions in the first place then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 The majority of the comments favored the tunnel option. Then the majority probably didn't understand the major risks involved with a tunnel option. I didn't until I actually read about it. People making comments say what they want, but people studying the issue actually know what's feasible and what isn't feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Then the majority probably didn't understand the major risks involved with a tunnel option. I didn't until I actually read about it. People making comments say what they want, but people studying the issue actually know what's feasible and what isn't feasible. What are the major risks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) TXDot shouldn't ever publish ideas that are not feasible. That would be a waste of time and money. The tunnel is doable -$$$$$$$- and will probably $ome day be con$tructed - if anything it allows a further zone that could flood in the event of catastrophic flooding (much like 59/69 and I-10 are designed flood ways). That said, the Pierce Elevated proposal looks to be nixed in the one option they present. It would appear that the intent is to lower I-45 to grade with the streets and I assume maybe run some over head or under the freeways? If that's the case - my god! That would be horrible! I'd rather have the elevated than a freeway at grade. Now if the do like 59/69 and sink it 20' below the feeder roads then that would be ok. Edited November 14, 2013 by arche_757 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNAguy Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I called the mayor's office. We need the weight of the city of Houston b/c obviously TxDOT could care less of what we the people think. This is pathetic. From the chron article:‘TxDOT spokesman Danny Perez said the tunnel was taken off the list of reasonable alternatives because of engineering challenges.“There would be no available space for roadway shoulders within a tunnel,” Perez said. “This creates a safety hazard in the event of an accident and greatly reduces access for emergency vehicles.”Vehicles also would face slower speeds in a tunnel, Perez said, defeating part of the purpose of the widening and its ability to handle the growing traffic demand planners predict.’ Like others said b/f, why was TxDOT proposing alternatives that aren't feasible? Why have public comment periods if they aren't going to listen?I've got two major issues w/ the TxDOT hack's statement:A.) All tunnels aren't the same size so the argument that there is not shoulder room for emergency vehicles is just a BS lie.B.) What are they comparing the speed of the tunnels to? An at grade freeway of the same size? Ok, well I10 goes pretty darn slow. An elevated freeway? Well 59 has more lanes than 45 downtown and it goes pretty slow. Mr Perez, don't insult my intelligence w/ your half baked, lazy excuses. TxDOT wants to just keep doing what it always does. Buy up more ROW and add more lanes. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 ^Don't expect them to give you any insightful moments either. What I'm confused about - from your post DNAguy - is that there really aren't any shoulders on the Pierce Elevated now. So there again, that idea from TxDot gets tossed out the window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNAguy Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 ^Don't expect them to give you any insightful moments either. What I'm confused about - from your post DNAguy - is that there really aren't any shoulders on the Pierce Elevated now. So there again, that idea from TxDot gets tossed out the window. Exactly. There isn't really a difference btwn an elevated freeway, a trenched freeway, or a tunnel without shoulders. I was waiting for Mr Perez to follow his argument w/ the repeated refrain "it rains too much in Houston to have a tunnel' that I always hear when I talk about tunneling 45 in downtown. The ineptitude is staggering. And I actually just spoke w/ a mayoral representative. We'll see if it makes any difference. At least I tried. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 From what I've read, conversion of the 45-10-59 loop into a roundabout is also off the table, as are the other tunnel proposals that were in the mix. What remains are - widening the existing Pierce Elevated and 59 - make Pierce Elevated southbound only and route northbound on 59/10 - demolishing it and routing all traffic on 59/10 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 From what I've read, conversion of the 45-10-59 loop into a roundabout is also off the table, as are the other tunnel proposals that were in the mix. What remains are - widening the existing Pierce Elevated and 59 - make Pierce Elevated southbound only and route northbound on 59/10 - demolishing it and routing all traffic on 59/10The third option has pierce turning into something similar to allen parkway / memorial, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 TxDOT wants to do it cheap, so they can make more money 20 years later by performing another patch job. A tunnel option is as viable as any other option, many cities throughout the world tunnel their freeways. Sure it's expensive, but sometimes you gotta do it right, not cheap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNAguy Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 TxDOT wants to do it cheap, so they can make more money 20 years later by performing another patch job. A tunnel option is as viable as any other option, many cities throughout the world tunnel their freeways. Sure it's expensive, but sometimes you gotta do it right, not cheap. I agree TxDOT wants to do this on the cheap. Making money off another patch job though? I really don't think so. IF you mean that it's about maximizing and securing a revenue stream for maintenance or other projects, then you may be right. Why is there so much emphasis on HOT or multi use lanes? Because TxDOT wants a steady stream of $. If you under engineer the 'free lanes' (which is what they're doing here) you assure that ppl will use the tolled option. Then, TxDOT can get more $ to leverage more projects. Without toll roads TxDOT can't function now. Our years of bad tax policy is coming to roost by having TxDOT produce this drivel. It may also me even less sinister and more about overall incompetence. Does TxDOT have anyone that can accurately vet the tunnel options? What expertise do they even have here? The contractors that they use for a majority of their projects probably are less than qualified too. I imagine this is/was the thinking here:Tunnel? UHhHHHhhhhh. Do you mean elevated concrete freeway with more lanes? No? I think you mean elevated freeway. You keep pronouncing elevated freeway incorrectly when you say tunnel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 I agree TxDOT wants to do this on the cheap. Making money off another patch job though? I really don't think so.IF you mean that it's about maximizing and securing a revenue stream for maintenance or other projects, then you may be right. Why is there so much emphasis on HOT or multi use lanes? Because TxDOT wants a steady stream of $. If you under engineer the 'free lanes' (which is what they're doing here) you assure that ppl will use the tolled option. Then, TxDOT can get more $ to leverage more projects. Without toll roads TxDOT can't function now. Our years of bad tax policy is coming to roost by having TxDOT produce this drivel. It may also me even less sinister and more about overall incompetence. Does TxDOT have anyone that can accurately vet the tunnel options? What expertise do they even have here? The contractors that they use for a majority of their projects probably are less than qualified too. I imagine this is/was the thinking here:Tunnel? UHhHHHhhhhh. Do you mean elevated concrete freeway with more lanes? No? I think you mean elevated freeway. You keep pronouncing elevated freeway incorrectly when you say tunnel.No mention of a rail either, just more lanes. I had a feeling they would start stacking when room to widen ran out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted November 15, 2013 Share Posted November 15, 2013 No mention of a rail either, just more lanes. I had a feeling they would start stacking when room to widen ran out. OK, but that's never been an alternative and this topic isn't about rail, so let's no hijack it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.