DH: Your proposal calls for minimal impact on the existing I45 roadway during tunnel construction. How is this possible?
GC: There will be some impact when existing lanes
will be connected to the tunnels but these will certainly not take
5 to 10 years. Access locations for building the tunnels does not
need to be over the existing I-45, but can be done outside the area
of traffic impact. Again, some of these details have to be considered
but we will not have appropriate answers unless a feasibility study
is done.
DH: What would be the state of the current I45 roadway
after tunnel completion, would it be retained or would its function be
changed?
GC: There are several options. The most economical
would be to leave I-45 as it is but reconfigure the number of lanes
through pavement markings. This would standardize the width for shoulders,
include additional HOV lane, and reduce number of through lanes so
it serves local traffic. The other option is to phase out segments
of I-45 so that local traffic gets an express street similar in concept
to Allen Parkway. The transit option is to take the center portion
of I-45 and turn it into a mass transit corridor and eventually develop
an express boulevard instead of the at-grade highway. This is based
on the concept that most through traffic will take the tunnel and
local traffic will take the express boulevard.
DH: You mentioned expansion of the HOV lane, what would be the status of the HOV lane after the tunnel completion and how does it fit into your plan?
GC: The simplest option is to reconfigure the existing
lanes on I-45 to add the two HOV lanes that METRO has identified on
the MIS (major investment study). Or these could be incorporated inside
the tunnel thus allowing for more capacity on the existing at-grade I-45.
The future of transit on the I-45 is a key factor on the tunnel concept,
thus it is so important for METRO to be part of the decision making
process.
DH: If the primary problem is limited capacity of the current roadway and little room to widen, why would a removal of the current roadway be advisable post tunnel completion? In other words, why not simply add the tunnels under the current infrastructure permanently?
GC: TxDOT is probably more qualified to determine if the "primary problem is limited capacity." My understanding is that TxDOT does not plan to purchase significant right-of-way for the purpose to add more capacity but TxDOT has the need to rebuild I-45 mainly because it is an old infrastructure and design standards need to be updated - current facility has narrow shoulders and short on/off merging distances.
I would advise the reconfiguration of the at-grade highway for something
similar to Allen Parkway for several reasons: enhance the quality
of life and business along the I-45 corridor, reduce the negative effects
of I-45 on the environment and people's health, enhance redevelopment
of the corridor with transit, and provide an express corridor for
through traffic or traffic accessing the airport to downtown. On the
other hand the tunnels could be added to the current I-45 but this
will not exclude the fact that I-45 needs to be reconstructed and under
current operating conditions it is "unsafe."
