Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's examine their logic here. If we do anything that makes traffic flow better around Downtown it will benefit people from outside of Houston therefore, we should not do it. Leave the bottlenecks and traffic as they are and it will not hurt Downtown and will not benefit the suburbs which is just the way we like it.
False,
People in the downtown area also benefit if the highways are improved
The less time there’s traffic jams there, the more time they can use those highway to move around downtown
It also would make it more appealing for people to visit and spend money in downtown
I disagree. The cap parks will never be built and are a stupid concept anyway. The submerged portion to the East of Downtown will be a bigger impediment than the Pierce ever was. The entire city will lose because of this project that is intended to benefit only the commuters from The Woodlands.
No. That’s not the only benefit. Removing Pierce is an example of a particular benefit that isn’t to the Woodlands.
I can agree any day with TxDot’s corruptness and the overall problems of this project. And the embarrassingly proportional high spending on highways instead of an array of transportation options. But repeating “this only benefits the Woodlands commuters” over and over despite clear cut examples starts ruining the argument against. Maybe to you removing Pierce isn’t good, but to the average resident (what matters), it is.
Why do you keep saying this? Commuters from the Woodlands would not even get on the Pierce Elevated, nor would they traverse the east side of downtown!
The work that's not on the North Freeway was thrown in to satisfy the freeway haters that want the Pierce Elevated torn down. None of the realignment would happen without the rebuild of the freeway from Downtown to the Beltway.
I was opposed to the I-10 expansion as well, so I'm pretty consistent.
Merging Downtown, Midtown, EaDo, and the museum district with the cap parks and removing the Pierce is such a huge win for the city.
I think it's a win for the LOOP. It's the other "improvements" in segment 1 and 2 that I feel is a step backwards towards the Greater Houston area.
I'm all for getting rid of the Pierce elevated. If that was the only thing proposed I wouldn't have a problem with that but the reality is majority of Houstonians live OUTSIDE the loop. And widening lanes, and making extra lanes while displacing black and brown home owners or even renters is again imo not a good solution.
Am I saying keep 45 in it's current state? NO. But TxDot refuses to put more money into alternatives such as public transportation, more walkable and bike friendly infrastructure. Yeah I get it I-10 Freeway is a better than what it use to be. But I still take I-10 to work everyday and it's still a mess. It's just less of a mess. I'm all for getting rid of bottlenecks and what not. Again I have no issue with segment 3. It's Segment 1 and 2 that imo is basically trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Houstonians decades ago were excited about the addition of more freeways till it became an issue we have today. 15 to 20 years from now we'll we be talking about something needs to be done about the proposals in segment 1 and 2? If history tells us anything about Houston it's that the next generation will continue to complain about the incompetent infrastructure of the metro and TxDot role in it.
I think it's a win for the LOOP. It's the other "improvements" in segment 1 and 2 that I feel is a step backwards towards the Greater Houston area.
I'm all for getting rid of the Pierce elevated. If that was the only thing proposed I wouldn't have a problem with that but the reality is majority of Houstonians live OUTSIDE the loop. And widening lanes, and making extra lanes while displacing black and brown home owners or even renters is again imo not a good solution.
Am I saying keep 45 in it's current state? NO. But TxDot refuses to put more money into alternatives such as public transportation, more walkable and bike friendly infrastructure. Yeah I get it I-10 Freeway is a better than what it use to be. But I still take I-10 to work everyday and it's still a mess. It's just less of a mess. I'm all for getting rid of bottlenecks and what not. Again I have no issue with segment 3. It's Segment 1 and 2 that imo is basically trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Houstonians decades ago were excited about the addition of more freeways till it became an issue we have today. 15 to 20 years from now we'll we be talking about something needs to be done about the proposals in segment 1 and 2? If history tells us anything about Houston it's that the next generation will continue to complain about the incompetent infrastructure of the metro and TxDot role in it.
I actually mostly agree with this post, but I have diffferent reasons for not being too in love with Segments 1 and 2 - they are inadequate expansions and these segments should really should be I10-like with at least 5 lanes each way, 3-lane + feeders, and the interior MAX lanes if they are not going to do light/commuter rail in the corridor (which they aren't). Plainly speaking, I think we lose competitiveness with our peer metros if we refuse to expand our road infrastructure, and I don't think long-distance mass transit will ever be all that effective here due to the widespread distribution of jobs and activity centers. Even more importantly, 45 is a major national route, not a local one - regardless of how dense and urban Houston gets, traffic to the Port and eastside industrial complexes is going to continue to increase and the idea that the city wants to restrict this corridor is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I could not care less about whether people in the Woodlands or whatever suburb benefit, I care about Houston's continued desirability and economic competitiveness. Ask Austin how not investing in infrastructure worked out for them. People are going to come regardless as long as the cost of living is reasonable and we have jobs. If we're going to be a driving region, we don't need to be known for being a town full of gridlock, and Segments 1 and 2 frustratingly represent the worst aspect of Houston highway-building, and that is the acceptance of design compromises that should be unacceptable in the context of the ridiculous growth the region has seen since Texas first freeway was built 70+ years ago. That tacit acceptance of mediocrity is why the brand new 288 interchange at 610 only has two free lanes going south to Pearland (it formerly had three pre-tollway), which will quickly prove inadequate even after the construction is completed. That's why they're rebuilding the 610/59 interchange for the third time since 1988. That's why stupid decisions like building the segment of 99 between 59 and 610 as two lanes despite the obviousness of the area's future growth continue to be done over and over and over again. Now the new segments of 99 on the east side of the region are being built as Super 2's - wonder how long that'll be adequate?
We don't build what we need to build correctly the first time - just build enough to get by and then end up surprised when the traffic never improves due to the growth. Phoenix and DFW do a much better job of building the road infrastructure that is actually needed now and in the future as opposed to just building what is easy to do, and their better traffic situations despite being metros of similar sizes speaks to that. While it may be unpopular to say this in 2023, especially here, I fully believe that better mobility benefits us all immensely in a variety of ways (from pollution to general QOL) and results in a better long term economic outcome for the city as a whole (including poor people). I say that as someone who lives directly on a freeway corridor and would get eminent domained if they ever chose to expand the nearby freeway. It would be a case of "it is what it is" and I'd be onto the next place because (especially in the US) there is little built of enough historical or community significance to justify torpedoing a road project that would benefit people every single day.
But as far as Segment 3, I think its pretty much a huge win on all fronts. Chopping down barriers between neighborhoods and potentially adding massive amounts of parkland in the core, promoting greater density? It really flummoxes me that a huge percentage of so-called "urbanists" are so against that idea. It does suck that the project will require them to take out that block on the east side, but the potential benefits to the city more than outweigh that imo.
I agree with Clutch. And additionally, I’m noticing that it’s popular to go against the project so people are doing it loudly and proudly and forgetting why. So much that people are apparently saying “it’s sole benefit is to Woodlands commuters”. And in lions case, I recall a big criticism for not focusing on making the core walkable. Now it’s “let’s not focus on the walkable core because most of the metro doesn’t live there”. I also remember “I-45 is ugly when coming from the airport. We need to do something about it”. Well dang can we atleast make our minds up. (I agreed with both of those statements and still do).
I mean come on. I can easily name much better criticisms for this project. The single most important is::::: Funding too much Highway with not enough public transport. Some form on public transport to northern Houston should have came with this project
Yes, access to one of Americas biggest and most important ports is an important thing to do. And yes, Houston’s biotech facilities and BioPort will need a lot of added infrastructure to live to expectations. You do realize Houston’s economy is important for the region too, no?
I by the way don’t approve of the final decision of this project. My answer to this question is that I don’t approve of it. From a non approving peer, let’s hold our horses with some of these critiques.
I will help knock down the Pierce Elevated myself. Give me a hammer and let me at it.
I would love to take a couple swings at 59/69 at Fannin too.
Apart from being unsightly, those two are some crazy bottlenecks. In a perfect world 45 would be shedding commuters before Pierce and 59 would be shedding before Montrose.
I don't know what good it is to funnel people going past downtown into downtown.
But this world is not perfect and there is no way that the neighborhoods to the North would go for any street infrastructure enlargements through this neighborhoods.
For 45N, I'm not sure if they can make it to where the traffic is probably routed to 59 as early as Pease
I think it's a win for the LOOP. It's the other "improvements" in segment 1 and 2 that I feel is a step backwards towards the Greater Houston area.
I'm all for getting rid of the Pierce elevated. If that was the only thing proposed I wouldn't have a problem with that but the reality is majority of Houstonians live OUTSIDE the loop. And widening lanes, and making extra lanes while displacing black and brown home owners or even renters is again imo not a good solution.
Am I saying keep 45 in it's current state? NO. But TxDot refuses to put more money into alternatives such as public transportation, more walkable and bike friendly infrastructure. Yeah I get it I-10 Freeway is a better than what it use to be. But I still take I-10 to work everyday and it's still a mess. It's just less of a mess. I'm all for getting rid of bottlenecks and what not. Again I have no issue with segment 3. It's Segment 1 and 2 that imo is basically trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Houstonians decades ago were excited about the addition of more freeways till it became an issue we have today. 15 to 20 years from now we'll we be talking about something needs to be done about the proposals in segment 1 and 2? If history tells us anything about Houston it's that the next generation will continue to complain about the incompetent infrastructure of the metro and TxDot role in it.
The vast majority (almost 80%) of the residential displacement is happening in Segment 3, not Segments 1 & 2.
The fact is, the bulk of the added capacity in Segments 1 & 2 is in the form of High Capacity lanes, which will serve public transportation, and reducing bottlenecks. The project also includes a good deal of pedestrian and biking infrastructure improvements.
For all of our so-called incompetent infrastructure, it's still easier to get around in Houston than in any other major city that I'm aware of.
I actually mostly agree with this post, but I have diffferent reasons for not being too in love with Segments 1 and 2 - they are inadequate expansions and these segments should really should be I10-like with at least 5 lanes each way, 3-lane + feeders, and the interior MAX lanes if they are not going to do light/commuter rail in the corridor (which they aren't). Plainly speaking, I think we lose competitiveness with our peer metros if we refuse to expand our road infrastructure, and I don't think long-distance mass transit will ever be all that effective here due to the widespread distribution of jobs and activity centers. Even more importantly, 45 is a major national route, not a local one - regardless of how dense and urban Houston gets, traffic to the Port and eastside industrial complexes is going to continue to increase and the idea that the city wants to restrict this corridor is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I could not care less about whether people in the Woodlands or whatever suburb benefit, I care about Houston's continued desirability and economic competitiveness. Ask Austin how not investing in infrastructure worked out for them. People are going to come regardless as long as the cost of living is reasonable and we have jobs. If we're going to be a driving region, we don't need to be known for being a town full of gridlock, and Segments 1 and 2 frustratingly represent the worst aspect of Houston highway-building, and that is the acceptance of design compromises that should be unacceptable in the context of the ridiculous growth the region has seen since Texas first freeway was built 70+ years ago. That tacit acceptance of mediocrity is why the brand new 288 interchange at 610 only has two free lanes going south to Pearland (it formerly had three pre-tollway), which will quickly prove inadequate even after the construction is completed. That's why they're rebuilding the 610/59 interchange for the third time since 1988. That's why stupid decisions like building the segment of 99 between 59 and 610 as two lanes despite the obviousness of the area's future growth continue to be done over and over and over again. Now the new segments of 99 on the east side of the region are being built as Super 2's - wonder how long that'll be adequate?
We don't build what we need to build correctly the first time - just build enough to get by and then end up surprised when the traffic never improves due to the growth. Phoenix and DFW do a much better job of building the road infrastructure that is actually needed now and in the future as opposed to just building what is easy to do, and their better traffic situations despite being metros of similar sizes speaks to that. While it may be unpopular to say this in 2023, especially here, I fully believe that better mobility benefits us all immensely in a variety of ways (from pollution to general QOL) and results in a better long term economic outcome for the city as a whole (including poor people). I say that as someone who lives directly on a freeway corridor and would get eminent domained if they ever chose to expand the nearby freeway. It would be a case of "it is what it is" and I'd be onto the next place because (especially in the US) there is little built of enough historical or community significance to justify torpedoing a road project that would benefit people every single day.
But as far as Segment 3, I think its pretty much a huge win on all fronts. Chopping down barriers between neighborhoods and potentially adding massive amounts of parkland in the core, promoting greater density? It really flummoxes me that a huge percentage of so-called "urbanists" are so against that idea. It does suck that the project will require them to take out that block on the east side, but the potential benefits to the city more than outweigh that imo.
Agree with most of this. But 288 pre-tollway only had two southbound lanes going through the 610 intersection. You can confirm on Google maps.
Arguably the biggest benefit to me is that it allows the entire urban core to grow together because after it's done there will essentially be no more elevated freeways inside the loop and most of them will be buried in the most urban areas. Add to that the safety improvements, redesign of ramps to eliminate choke points, deck parks, and the potential repurposing of the Pierce elevated into a park, and I think you have a project that'll leave us with a better core than we would have otherwise had 15 years from now.
And widening I-45 enables downtown to grow as well instead of doing nothing and driving businesses to the suburbs because it becomes too hard to get downtown.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leave the bottlenecks and traffic as they are and it will not hurt Downtown and will not benefit the suburbs which is just the way we like it. 
