HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 1:15 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Bigger vehicles require more space. The U.S. has gigantic lanes and everything overengineered. TX takes it up a level with enormous freeways with huge parallel retail arterials. And most places stopped building freeways decades ago; it appears TX never stopped.

Yeah, a 30 lane freeway is more "efficient" than a six lane freeway, but is horrible planning. Efficiency shouldn't drive public policy.
You never been to Texas have you? Should we halt all freeway (re)construction and just hope Houstonians eventually warm up to mass transit or are you going to invest where the demand is right now and in the near future?

And no, bigger vehicles doesn't mean bigger freeways. lol We could all be driving Honda Fits and the expansions would still be necessary. Texas cities are growing fast and decades old infrastructure meant for areas a fraction of their sizes are maxed out. See Austin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 1:39 AM
benp's Avatar
benp benp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
Right like what will those Midtown residents ever do with a brand new large linear park connecting them with downtown. And those Woodland Heights/Near Northside residents must hate the fact the city wants to build a new deck park over the freeway for them connecting their neighborhoods together. I bet they hope the city doesn't put something crazy like a dog park on that deck park. Who needs that? And I bet everyone who takes 45N to catch a flight wishes TxDot keeps those sharp curves, terrible sight-lines, and skinny lanes on the freeway. Maybe even repaint to put the far left lane even closer to the HOV concrete barrier. The margin for error is already half an inch there, why not make it half a centimeter?
I just don't share your enthusiasm about having more and wider freeways. Maybe I am just cynical after experiencing 30+ years of Houston and TxDOT freeway design and construction. Nothing wrong with fixing issues (I think TxDOT has made horrendous designs in the past, like the "disappearing" lanes on 45N that require frequent lane changes), but the continuous state of construction (and re-construction, and re-construction again...) on Houston freeways, I feel, can arguably be responsible for more disruption and issues for Houston drivers than undersized road design alone. With stability, at least drivers and residents can adapt, either by finding alternate routes, or changing their place or work or residence. Or, crazy as it sounds for Houston, seek alternate forms of transportation (I'm so old I remember when only buses and vans (and later 3+ carpools) were allowed on the HOV or "contraflow" lanes).

I also have little confidence in TxDOT road designers doing a better job in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 1:43 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
You never been to Texas have you? Should we halt all freeway (re)construction and just hope Houstonians eventually warm up to mass transit or are you going to invest where the demand is right now and in the near future?

And no, bigger vehicles doesn't mean bigger freeways. lol We could all be driving Honda Fits and the expansions would still be necessary. Texas cities are growing fast and decades old infrastructure meant for areas a fraction of their sizes are maxed out. See Austin.
What are we arguing here? You think freeway expansion in urban neighborhoods is good, I think it's bad.

There's no debate that larger vehicles require more road space. The U.S. has overengineered roads because it has huge vehicles, and TX is an extreme example of both American trends. Big vehicles, big roads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 1:43 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Freeway expansion is bad for Brooklyn, vital for Houston's growth.

Ever been to Toronto? LA? Not exactly known for huge trucks but they have massive freeways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 3:36 AM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by benp View Post
I just don't share your enthusiasm about having more and wider freeways. Maybe I am just cynical after experiencing 30+ years of Houston and TxDOT freeway design and construction. Nothing wrong with fixing issues (I think TxDOT has made horrendous designs in the past, like the "disappearing" lanes on 45N that require frequent lane changes), but the continuous state of construction (and re-construction, and re-construction again...) on Houston freeways, I feel, can arguably be responsible for more disruption and issues for Houston drivers than undersized road design alone. With stability, at least drivers and residents can adapt, either by finding alternate routes, or changing their place or work or residence. Or, crazy as it sounds for Houston, seek alternate forms of transportation (I'm so old I remember when only buses and vans (and later 3+ carpools) were allowed on the HOV or "contraflow" lanes).

I also have little confidence in TxDOT road designers doing a better job in the future.
Why cant all be done? Does expanding 45 somehow stop all public transit expansion Houston has had over the last few years? I feel like thats such a cliche argument to make that at this point is outdated. The congressman most detrimental to transit growth in Houston was voted out years ago. There is always going to be construction in a fast growing metro. If anything, keeping a freeway in the dangerous state it is in is the opposite of the stability you're talking about.

Last edited by Trae; Feb 24, 2022 at 4:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 3:38 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,189
How many lanes is it now?
__________________
Pretend Seattleite.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 5:30 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
You never been to Texas have you? Should we halt all freeway (re)construction and just hope Houstonians eventually warm up to mass transit or are you going to invest where the demand is right now and in the near future?

And no, bigger vehicles doesn't mean bigger freeways. lol We could all be driving Honda Fits and the expansions would still be necessary. Texas cities are growing fast and decades old infrastructure meant for areas a fraction of their sizes are maxed out. See Austin.
What an odd mindset on an urbanist forum.

None of that means freeways should be expanded. Maybe Houston can gradually adopt less-pathetic mode splits and shorter trips if it stops expanding the system. It can also shift the same money toward other modes.

Or there's a middle ground: Build more lanes but make them all bus/HOV.

Saying it won't isn't the same as saying it shouldn't.

This isn't theoretical. Lots of fast-growing car-dominant places do little if anything to add highway capacity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 5:41 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Right, Toronto has Texas-level growth trends, and no new freeways. Hell, they barely have any freeways. And it's not like Canada isn't car crazy with tons of SUVs and trucks and sprawl autotopia.

Seattle, Portland, Bay Area, DC are all rapidly growing metros with no new/expanded freeways. NYC and LA are gigantic metro areas with no new/expanded freeways.

Many metros are thinking of removing freeways. NYC already removed the Sheridan Expressway, and major portions of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway are likely to be turned into a surface boulevard. Other existing buried freeways, like the Cross-Bronx, are likely to be covered with platforms for development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 6:20 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by benp View Post
Well, all I can say is as former resident who lived along Montrose, I can see nothing good coming from this redesign for people who live inside the loop.
Freeways aren’t neighborhood level infrastructure, they are regional infrastructure. It doesn’t really matter if ONE SMALL AREA does not benefit, as long as the REGION AS A WHOLE benefits.
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 8:37 AM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is offline
Future God
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago/Nashville
Posts: 19,492
Well, they're casually dropping nine billion dollars at a time to widen an already absurdly wide freeway. That's part of the problem right there. If a 26 lane freeway didn't easy traffic, what the hell makes them think a 28 lane freeway will? And what is their end game? Just eventually pave over everything?
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 1:11 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,510
Lol people say a bunch about this project but dont care to look at all angles of the project before doing that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
What an odd mindset on an urbanist forum.

None of that means freeways should be expanded. Maybe Houston can gradually adopt less-pathetic mode splits and shorter trips if it stops expanding the system. It can also shift the same money toward other modes.

Or there's a middle ground: Build more lanes but make them all bus/HOV.

Saying it won't isn't the same as saying it shouldn't.

This isn't theoretical. Lots of fast-growing car-dominant places do little if anything to add highway capacity.
Nah the weird mindset is when folks refuse to see the bigger picture. So freeways should never be expanded unless they add bus/hov lanes? You realize they will be adding 3 more bus/hov lanes from this expansion right (bringing the total to four for this freeway)? The mainlanes would be getting one new lane each direction for some segments.

Is building more parks for the city also a good middle ground? What about the neighborhood improvements that'll also come like better pedestrian walkways, better signage, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Right, Toronto has Texas-level growth trends, and no new freeways. Hell, they barely have any freeways. And it's not like Canada isn't car crazy with tons of SUVs and trucks and sprawl autotopia.

Seattle, Portland, Bay Area, DC are all rapidly growing metros with no new/expanded freeways. NYC and LA are gigantic metro areas with no new/expanded freeways.

Many metros are thinking of removing freeways. NYC already removed the Sheridan Expressway, and major portions of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway are likely to be turned into a surface boulevard. Other existing buried freeways, like the Cross-Bronx, are likely to be covered with platforms for development.
Not sure how many times it must be said that this isnt a new freeway, and they will be demolishing elevated eyesore sections or turning it into a long linear park.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BnaBreaker View Post
Well, they're casually dropping nine billion dollars at a time to widen an already absurdly wide freeway. That's part of the problem right there. If a 26 lane freeway didn't easy traffic, what the hell makes them think a 28 lane freeway will? And what is their end game? Just eventually pave over everything?
It's not currently a 26 lane freeway. You are confusing different interstates. That 26 lane freeway (only that wide in certain segments) is I-10 and it has DEFINITELY eased traffic even 20 years after its expansion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 1:45 PM
downtownpdx's Avatar
downtownpdx downtownpdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by R1070 View Post
The freeways mentioned have a lot of blight and derelict looking development built up along them. While some people will be displaced, this is a good opportunity for Houston to clean up these corridors.
That sounds like an echo from the 1950s urban "renewal" age. Mow down unsightly houses and replace with cars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 1:51 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,519
I-10 is also "only" something like 16 through lanes at it's widest, the 26 lane number includes service roads and merge lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 2:05 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Wait, when we're saying 16 lanes, are we talking one way or both ways? Because if it's one-way, that's insane. 32 lanes of traffic is complete insanity.

Most urban freeways worldwide are 2 lanes one way. Even the pre-1950 U.S. parkways are mostly 2 lanes, though some were widened to 3.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 2:35 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,703
Don't do it. Within a few years it will be completely congested. Tragedy of the commons, all over again.

Toronto-style
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?

Last edited by MolsonExport; Feb 24, 2022 at 2:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 2:40 PM
benp's Avatar
benp benp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Wait, when we're saying 16 lanes, are we talking one way or both ways? Because if it's one-way, that's insane. 32 lanes of traffic is complete insanity.

Most urban freeways worldwide are 2 lanes one way. Even the pre-1950 U.S. parkways are mostly 2 lanes, though some were widened to 3.
The Katy freeway (I-10) is about 16 lanes max in each direction, depending on how and where you count it, which include 5 or 6 main lanes, 2 or 3 HOV lanes, 4 feeder road lanes, plus 3 or 4 turn/entrance/exit lanes (feeder, exit, HOV), plus 1 or 2 paved shoulders.

The width of I-10 (Katy Freeway) right-of-way, including feeder roads, is between 450-500 feet for several miles outside of the 610 loop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 3:55 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Freeway expansion is bad for Brooklyn, vital for Houston's growth.

Ever been to Toronto? LA? Not exactly known for huge trucks but they have massive freeways.
I highly doubt that people would stop moving to Houston if the city better allocated their transportation infrastructure. It would probably grow more if they had better transit.

It also doesn't seem like this is sustainable for Houston. Houston and Brooklyn added a similar number of people between 2010 and 2020 (205k vs 231k). But Brooklyn's land area is 1/10 the size of Houston's. There are only so many places for Houston to stick 10-lane highways to keep growing, while Brooklyn didn't have to add any transit infrastructure to absorb the growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 3:56 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Wait, when we're saying 16 lanes, are we talking one way or both ways? Because if it's one-way, that's insane. 32 lanes of traffic is complete insanity.

Most urban freeways worldwide are 2 lanes one way. Even the pre-1950 U.S. parkways are mostly 2 lanes, though some were widened to 3.
8 lanes each way, 16 total. Then 3-4 lanes on each side of the highway for the service roads, plus a bunch more for merge lanes, auxillary lanes, etc.

This stretch of the Katy has 25 "lanes" for example, but of that, "only" 16 lanes are through lanes which run continuously on the freeway portion of the road.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ho...!4d-95.3698028

The widest highway in terms of through lanes in North America, and likely the world, is the 401 in Toronto, with 18 through lanes (9 in each direction).

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6649.../data=!3m1!1e3

Houston is planning to rebuild it's downtown freeway network though, which is the subject of this thread, which would involve constructing a 22 through lane highway, beating the 401.

Brooklyn didn't have to build much more infrastructure to absorb the growth because it was returning to historic population peaks. Brooklyn peaked at 2.738 million in 1950 - and was still below that in 2020 at 2.736 million.

NYC is going to start seeing increasing infrastructure pressures now that population has largely returned to mid-century peaks, existing infrastructure is running out of slack. Most new infrastructure will likely be transit to respond to the denser nature of the city, and is something Houston needs more of too as it continues to get denser in it's core areas, but the car is king in Texas and Houston would be shooting itself in the foot if it cancelled all freeway projects in some futile attempt to convert the absolutely sprawling city into riding relatively slow-moving LRTs around. It just won't work, it's kind of stuck with the transportation patterns it's built itself around.

And regarding the 401, the 18-lane portion of the highway is largely uncongested for most of the day, despite being widened to that width more than 30 years ago. The part that experiences the most congestion is the 10-lane part, the narrowest part of the highway, followed by the 14 lane part which is also substantially busier than the 18-lane part and hasn't substantial revisions to it's capacity since the late 1960's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 4:32 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Right, Toronto has Texas-level growth trends, and no new freeways. Hell, they barely have any freeways.
toronto certainly has freeways (in fact it has one of the largest ones in the world in the 401), but what toronto was extremely smart to do was to keep them out of the urban core of the city for the most part, with the exceptions of the gardiner expressway and the don valley parkway, which are both relatively small old-school 6-laners, not 12+ lane modern monsters.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2022, 4:52 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Wait, when we're saying 16 lanes, are we talking one way or both ways? Because if it's one-way, that's insane. 32 lanes of traffic is complete insanity.

Most urban freeways worldwide are 2 lanes one way. Even the pre-1950 U.S. parkways are mostly 2 lanes, though some were widened to 3.
7-8 main lanes in each direction, 14-16 total.
5-6 frontage lanes in each direction, 10-12 total.

Texas freeways are deliberately (and stupidly) designed to run down the middle of what are essentially large boulevards.

If people want to take issue with something, take issue with the fact that Texas still insists on building frontage roads. If they didn’t have those, they wouldn’t ve expanding the right-of-way.

Why do they call it a right-of-way? Because there is a communitarian right to be able to move freely without trespassing against private property. In other words, we collectively (and as a result individually, because of the nature of this particular right) have a right to make our “way” to wherever we want. In the U.S. constitutional regime communitarian rights can and often do, within certain bounds, take precedence over individual rights (in this case property ownership). The tool used to ensure that the communitarian right of freedom of movement remains viable: eminent domain.

For most of our history we have exercised eminent domain principally to ensure that the freedom of movement of people via public rights-of-way. In fact, the use of this principle for this purpose is so uncontroversial historically that it wasn’t until governments starting using the tool for movement of goods (railroads) rather than people that it became controversial. Hell, at least this is a PUBLIC use and not the shenanigans that New London pulled seizing land to give to a developer and then arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that it was in the public’s broader interest…

Guess who won: New London.

This thread is exactly the same thing as when TxDoT released the newest schematics for Austin’s I-35 reconstruction where, just like here, so many people seem to miss the forest for the weeds. So what a few people are being displaced and being justly compensated for their property? Like hella benefits are coming with that project:

1. Significant capped parkland and much wider bridges for pedestrian use.
2. Burying the highway beneath grade and reconnecting the adjacent neighborhoods.
3. Reducing the number of, extending the remaining, and declining the grade of entrances and on ramps.
4. Adding managed lanes.
5. Cantilevering the access roads over the freeway in places to reduce RoW acquisitions.
6. Bringing the overall design of the freeway up to current interstate standards. This stretch of freeway was built under the original standards that are long since obsolete and do not function well with the vastly superior modern technology on our roads today.
7. Improved signage.
8. Aesthetic improvements to the freeway.
9. Adding lanes in both directions in all categories and maximizing the use of existing right of way by removing concrete embankments and choosing to instead use vertical retaining walls (again, and I cannot say this enough, thereby further minimizing additional RoW acquisition).

All of these things are also true of Houston’s freeway project.

Missing. The. Forest. For. The. Weeds. People.

p.s. I am calling them weeds instead of trees because y’all are finding a few bad details and ignoring all the good ones. The good ones are the trees and if you were looking from above rather than from on-the-ground you’d see the forest and not be so focused on the couple of weeds.
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.