If you thought the Katy Freeway expansion was big, wait until you see 290. That’s a proposed cross section above, of 610 just south of 290. From left to right: a reserved transitway, 3 frontage road lanes, 1 ramp, a 4-lane direct connect ramp from 290 to I-10, an HOV/toll lane, 8 mainlanes, HOV/toll, 4-lane I-10 connector, ramp, frontage road, and 2 more HOV/toll lanes. That’s 30 lanes at this spot, up from 18 today. Between 610 and Beltway 8, there will be 24 lanes, up from 19. And the project will stretch 40 miles, 1 1/2 times as long as the I-10 project.
First, the Harris County Toll Road Authority will construct a 4-lane HOV/Toll facility along Hempstead Highway, parallel to 290. The surface lanes of Hempstead will remain, and the existing freight rail line will be untouched. Additionally, a 50 foot wide transit right of way will be set aside for light rial or commuter rail. The actual construction of that transit is not part of the project (but METRO’s plans show commuter rail from Northwest Mall to Cypress and BRT from Uptown to Northwest Mall by 2012, both of which could use that right-of-way.)
Then 290 will be completely rebuilt, with added lanes, new on- and off-ramp configurations, and widened access roads. The HOV lane will disappear, since it’s been replaced by the Hempstead lanes.
There are some smart things in this project. Setting aside room for transit is a good move, something that should have been done on 1-10. The new I-10 direct connector ramps promise to eliminate the merging mess that now prevails on 610 north of I-10. 290, antiquated more or less since it was built, needs help.
But there are some big flaws in the plan. One is transit. The idea is that the managed lanes replace the HOV lanes. But the current HOV lanes have direct ramps to three park-and-rides; the current plans show direct ramps from he HOV to only one of those — Northwest Station — and would strand the Pinemont P&R ___ miles from the managed lanes. The current plan also proposes to keep the existing freight rail line and surface streets at grade, meaning that local traffic would continue to be stuck at railroad crossings as train volume increases. In fact, the proposed design of the managed lanes would make it almost impossible to build a grade separation in the future.
The big problem, though — the reason why maybe 300 filled a room last Monday night for the first of 3 public hearings — is land. There’s no room to widen 290 without taking more of it. In this case, that means displacing 100 houses, 300 apartment units, 2 churches, and 100 businesses. That may be an acceptable price to pay for more traffic capacity. But it is without a doubt a high price.
And, speaking of price: TxDOT estimates the project cost at $1.5 billion. That’s a lot of money, but it seems like a low estimate. The 290 project is bigger than the I-10 project, and I-10’s price tag is now at $2.6 billion. Of course, the original estimate for I-10 was $1.1, estimated by the same agency that’s designing this project. With that cost overrun factor, 290 would be a $3.5 billion project. Time estimates: about 10 years of construction.
I have no doubt something is needed on 290. But I wonder of this project is overkill. Consider an alternative: build the HOV/toll lanes, build the improvements to the 290/610/10 interchange, remove the HOV lane to add shoulders to 290, and do some targeted improvements to merge lanes and other hazardous spots. Then see what happens. This would more than double the capacity in the corridor for a fraction of the cost — in taxpayer dollars and disrupted homes and businesses — of the whole project. And it could be done is less time, with virtually no disruption to 290’s current lanes.
Do you think this the right project? Tell us in our forums. And tell TxDOT, too: the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Study — the last required public comment period for this project — closes on August 8. There’s one more public hearing tomorrow. As they say, speak now or forever hold your peace.
Oh, by the way: why is that graphic so fuzzy? Because I had to photograph it in a crowded room. TxDOT has not posted its schematics of the project on the internet. To see them, you need to go to a public meeting (there are no further ones scheduled right now), visit the project field office between 8:00 and 5:00 on workdays, or submit a request for a specific section with a explanation of why you want to see it. There is no good reason why TxDOT cannot post these. METRO, for example, posted its preliminary schematics for the University Line. We, the taxpayers, paid for the preparation of this information. We are being asked to comment on it. Should we not have the right to study it at our leisure?
This entry was posted
on Monday, July 23rd, 2007 at 7:35 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
