Is this really going to help traffic? Could this money not have been used to add light rail or something instead? https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/...288-toll-project-gets-closer-to-construction/ http://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/6994159/traffic-roads-induced-demand But there's a fundamental problem with this idea. Decades of traffic data across the United States shows that adding new road capacity doesn't actually improve congestion. The latest example of this is the widening of Los Angeles' I-405 freeway, which was completed last May after five years of construction and a cost of over $1 billion. "The data shows that traffic is moving slightly slower now on 405 than before the widening," says Matthew Turner, a Brown University economist.
It will help the people willing to pay the toll. There are aspects of this project I am not happy with. They are adding the big connecting ramps at 288 and beltway 8, this is way overdue. They are adding some kind of direct ramp from 288 to the med center, this is probably good. They are adding two toll road lanes in each direction on 288, I'm not thrilled with this idea. Unfortunately 288 isn't like most Houston freeways. It doesn't have service roads, so when there is a big wreck there isn't anyplace to go. This big project doesn't address this problem. This new project also doesn't add any new free lanes. I don't like that aspect of the project. A light rail line going south would be great since many people living in Western Pearland work in the Med Center.
That's an incredibly stupid study. The reason they are adding lanes is more people will be driving in the future and the capacity is needed. I hope they address the massive swimming pool just inside the 610 loop that floods so easily.
When I45 North beyond the beltway went through all the expansions from two to four lanes, the traffic went down considerably, just from personal experience. I really find it hard to believe that more lanes = more traffic.
Those toll payers will reduce the overall traffic in the main lanes.. that helps everyone. Agreed indeed, these are good things to help traffic. Agreed, but it would take a lengthy, expensive project to service-road 288. There's so much limited space. Agreed _____________________________ A couple things that completely suck is 1) the huge 610 renovation from a few years ago only added a few extra ramps (stacked entrance/exit ramps) from 59 to I-10. While this did improve things, they really needed 5 lanes both directions with a continuous entrance/exit lane. There's simply too much traffic in the Galleria for 4 lanes + separate ramp. 2) 59 between I-10 to Greenbriar needs an extra lane both directions. There's simply too much constant traffic in that area. _____________ 3) Major freeways should never reduce to 2 lanes.... I-10 @ 45 does this. 610 WB @ 45 also. 59's exit to I-45 downtown is an embarrassment reducing to One lane. That why there's always constant congestion during the day. 288 @ 610 does this both directions. 4) 288 NB reduces to One lane when it intersects with 59. If they simple adding a continuous lane from Bloggett to the Charles exit (2 miles) traffic would be 10x better. Cars have to merge to an already congested 59, only to exit a 1/2 mile later. Very inefficient. _________ All that being said, Texas, specifically Houston, has the greatest freeways in America.
If they addressed the idiotic merging lanes on 288 traffic would be a lot better. Explain to me why we need such a huge shoulder here and instead it make two exit only lanes? Every day I watch people drive on the shoulder only to get pulled over. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.664...4!1sNEkkPoO0E-hzppIktCbslg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 No service roads and instead we are adding more toll lanes.
Yeah, I was speaking inside the loop, but even some places inside there's a huge shoulder. I still think 288's biggest problem is @ 610. There's no excuse for reducing to 2 lanes. That effects traffic 5 miles away. The area between 1 mile south of 59 to the Charles St exit is a huge problem for NB. 288 could also use continuous entrance/exit lanes instead of the direct merge.
Living in The Woodlands, it absolutely blows me away how few people take advantage of the Hardy Toll Road. You see the traffic reports in the morning and it's usually something like 50-65 minutes from Sawdust to 610 and 20 minutes on the HTR.
Actually if I recall the study, it showed that adding freeway lanes without allowing for more capacity on feeder/surrounding streets, the congestion just bottlenecks there. Basically the pouring rate of a 2-liter and a 3-liter is the same. Add in a few assholes exiting from an even further left lane, and you have slower traffic.
If they work the way they should, I actually like them. Less people drive on them because they cost $. Therefore they are worth the $ because less people drive on them. On a totally unrelated note, they finally opened the I-45 South entrance from Allen Parkway. Used it for the first time yesterday and it was GLORIOUS. Barely had to slow down to merge and it was the middle of the afternoon rush hour. The Allen Parkway project is a rare example of Houston getting it right. Aside from a couple of extra traffic lights, it looks great, works great and was finished before the end of the year just like they said it would be.
The populist in me agrees, but the pragmatist in me strongly disagrees. As long as there are free (tax-supported) roads that'll get you to the same destination, I have no problem paying a little bit of money to get there faster. I don't drive SAT-HOU a ton, but when I do I frequently jump on the Katy and Sam Houston Tollways to ease my drive.
Same here. Coming out of The Woodlands, I almost never get on I-45 any more unless I have to...and that includes weekends and nights. Going into the city? HTR. All points west? Grand Pkwy to 249 to Sam Houston.
I don't remember exactly what happened to the feeder road on I45 North during all the expansions, I see what you are saying however. All I remember was that from 2 - 4 lanes freeway, time was incredibly saved
The med center expressway lane they are putting on 288 seems like it should really help. A considerable chunk of traffic is to and from the med center, so if that reduces the amount of cars entering and exiting the existing portion of the freeway I don't see how it can't help. We'll see what happens but I'm optimistic about this once it's done, being a Pearland resident.
All this construction is definitely helping....TO CREATE MORE ACCIDENTS. They keep changing traffic patterns on a monthly basis and now there's at least 1 accident during on my morning or evening commute. Entrance to 288 from CR-59/Southfork used to be a separate lane but now it's a merge...2 accidents already in the last week. 15 years of living in Pearland it's the first time I have seen a wreck there.
It's extremely annoying. This better fix the flooding issue. I'm very curious how much the toll lanes will be.
Yeah, the lane shifting is bad from McGregor, South. The finished product better be good -- UNLIKE.... 610 @ the Galleria. The most recent construction lasted 5+ years and there's STILL only 4 main lanes reach direction. They did good stacking the entrance/exit ramps, but there's ZERO excuse for 4 lanes in an area with that amount of traffic. Galleria Area is basically another downtown. Four lane blooper.
But more lanes do not help in Houston. All it does is allow idiot drivers going 5 under to take up more lanes. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/...ideo-documents-the-worst-of-houstons-drivers/ https://globenewswire.com/news-rele...le-Urban-Transportation-in-North-America.html No city in the United States or Canada makes it into the top 20 cities ranked in the global index. New York City, sitting in 23rd place globally, is the most sustainable city for transportation in U.S. and Canada, buoyed by an efficient, expansive and heavily used metro system operating around the clock. This index, one of the most comprehensive sustainable transit studies ever conducted, is an indicative ranking of sustainable urban transportation practices across 100 of the world’s leading cities. It looks at more than 20 elements of mobility that are essential to a city’s competitive advantage, economic vitality and overall sustainability. The study was conducted for Arcadis by the London-based Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).
