The major street plan for Houston and vicinity, 1942

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

FINE ARTS LIBRARY

HAJCI^ STI^EET

PiAN

Cornell University Library
NAC 2174 .H84A18

The major street plan for Houston and vi

HOUSTON

AND VICINITY

1942

Pi Cornell University
S Library

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024404612

THE MAJOR STREET PLAN

for

HOUSTON AND VICINITY

1942

REPORT

of the

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

HOUSTON, TEXAS

MEMBERS

Jesse Andrews, Chairman
Mrs. Ethel Brosius Milton McGinty

Lewis Cutrer J. G. Turney

Rev. T.C. Jester M.E.Walter

TECHNICAL STAFF

Ralph S. Ellifrit Hare & Hare

City Planning Engineer City Planning Consultants

FORMER MEMBERS OF THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
HAVING A PART IN THIS PLAN

James Anderson J. M. Nagle

J. S. Bracewell M. L. Rendleman

Mrs. E. F. Bussard Royal Roussel

Sewall Myer }. M. West, Sr.

l^

<{)/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

IMPORTANCE OF THE PLAN 1

HISTORY OF THE PLAN 2

APPLICATION OF THE PLAN. 3

STRUCTURE OF THE PLAN 4

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN 7

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS 9

LIST OF MAPS

opposite Page

MAJOR STREET PLAN Against Inside Back Cover

TYPICAL RADIAL THOROUGHFARES 4

TYPICAL LOOP OR BY-PASS THOROUGHFARES 6

TYPICAL CROSSTOWN THOROUGHFARES 8

RECOMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION. . . 12

PREFACE

This report is not intended as a technical treatise of the Major
Street Plan. It has been prepared as a simple exposition for the
purpose of informing the citizens of Houston as to the Major
Street Plan and arousing their interest in not only the plan but
also in its development. For this reason the report has been
kept brief and free from many of the usual charts, graphs, and
from the technical language which often comprise a large part
of the average report on this type of subject.

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO COUNCIL

November 27, 1942.

Honorable C. A. Pickett, Mayor
Commissioner Frank Brady
Commissioner M. L. Rendleman
Commissioner Ben J. Reinicke
Commissioner James H. B. House

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to the ordinance, passed February 14, 1940, creating Houston
City Planning Commission, the Commission has prepared and adopted a
Major Street Plan for Houston and vicinity and, as directed by the ordinance
referred to, begs leave to transmit to you with this an attested copy.

It is hoped that this Plan, as its name implies, will constitute the frame-
work for future planning so far as street improvements, traffic ways and the
location of parks and public buildings are concerned.

During the course of the preparation of the Plan it has been necessary on
more than one occasion for the Commission to invoke the aid of the Mayor
and City Council to accomplish some of the essential objectives, as for
example, the approval by the Mayor and City Council of a program of
expenditure of the $600,000 bond proceeds voted for street widening pur-
poses. On each such occasion the response of the Mayor and City Council
was prompt and most satisfactory. For the valuable assistance rendered the
Commission acknowledges its obligation.

Respectfully submitted,

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF HOUSTON, TEXAS.

Jesse Andrews, Chairman
Mrs. Ethel Brosius
Lewis Cutrer
Rev. T. C. Jester
Milton McGinty
J. G. Turney
M. E. Walter

IMPORTANCE OF THE PLAN

AS A GUIDE

The Major Street Plan of a city has often been compared to the arterial
system of the human body and, although trite, there could scarcely be a more
apt comparison. The importance of a logical long-range plan in accordance
with which a city may grow cannot be sufficiently stressed.

TO SAFEGUARD THE FUTURE

We have only to observe the plight of some larger, older cities, due in
large part to inadequacy of major thoroughfares with resulting congestion,
to picture our future, if we fail to recognize and follow a planned system
of growth. As a city expands around its periphery, the load on its central
thoroughfares doubles and redoubles. If thoroughfares Have been planned
only to meet needs at the time of original development, they soon become
congested and inefficient, and in this condition operate to prevent many
persons from patronizing the central business district. At this stage decen-
tralization sets in, and the financial structure of the city gradually begins
to suffer. This condition usually brings forth feverish effort to correct the
deficiency, but thoroughfare improvements are by this time almost pro-
hibitive in cost, and weak compromise measures are usually then adopted
at great expense.

TO PREVENT RECURRENCE OF PAST ERRORS

Early in its life Houston was reasonably planned. Today our principal
thoroughfare problems begin where these first plans ended. Dead-end
streets, jogs, offsets, and narrow rights of way in many parts of Houston
give evidence of what has happened in the past and what will happen in the
future unless there shall be adherence to a plan for the general framework —
a Major Street Plan.

TOWARD A GREATER CITY

We have but to study some of the cities that have been well planned and
developed according to such plan to recognize the substantial benefits that
may be derived. Washington, D. C, is perhaps our foremost example. This
city, planned from the beginning by Major L'Enfante, repays with its con-
venience of arrangement and orderliness the forethought and perseverance
expended. The reputation of any city is measured to a very large extent by
its planning, as reflected in spacious thoroughfares, relative absence of
congestion, and ease of access from one part of the city to another.

1

HISTORY OF THE PLAN

FIRST PLAN— 1836

The first development of Houston in 1836 was based on a street plan.
When the Allen brothers purchased the original site for the city, they did
not undertake a piecemeal job, but laid out a simple plan with streets of
adequate width. Insofar as the original plan was developed and extended,
all went well, but adjacent subdivisions soon began to develop with streets
having narrow rights of way, offsets, and dead ends.

SECOND PLAN— 1913

However, it was not until 1913 that the first comprehensive Major Street
Plan was developed in connection with a general City Planning Report. At
that time, when Houston had a population of only 80,000, Arthur Comey,
City Planner, was brought from Boston to make plans for Houston's future
development. While there is no record of consistent efforts to carry out this
plan, it was, no doubt, of real and beneficial influence.

THIRD PLAN— 1929

It was not until 1924 that interest was again focused on the need of
guiding Houston's then rapid growth. During the following five years
exhaustive study was made of Houston's past and future development, on
the basis of which a Major Street Plan was again prepared and published
as a part of the comprehensive "Report of the City Planning Commission"
in 1929.

PRESENT PLAN— 1942

The trying period following the publication of the Major Street Plan in
1929 and especially the lack of a City Planning Commission with a definite
Planning Department during the following six years combined to obscure
planning and the development of a major street system. Houston continued
to grow so rapidly that in 1940, when the Planning Commission began
reviewing the 1929 Major Street Plan, it was found that certain thorough-
fare locations previously contemplated were then impracticable, due to the
subsequent construction of buildings and to other obstructing developments.
As a result of nearly three years of restudy and reconsideration, the Major
Street Plan has been redeveloped to meet conditions as they exist today and
is presented in this report.

APPLICATION OF THE PLAN

There are several different specific uses of a Major Street Plan which
make it indispensable. It serves as a partial guide for many phases of plan-
ning such as zoning, transit, recreation, and subdivision control.

GUIDE FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS

While the major thoroughfare pattern is of great importance in the exist-
ing developed portions of a city, its greatest importance is, no doubt, in
connection with expansion of the city outward through the developihent of
new subdivisions. The individual subdivider, with the best of public-
spirited intentions, may make a plat that is, introspectively considered, a
well designed unit. However, an accumulation of individually considered
subdivisions, laid out without regard to circulation through the city as a
whole, is very apt to cause congestion and inefficiency in later years with
attendant devaluation of properties, to impair further expansion, and to
promote decentralization of business.

If the real estate developer is aware of a definite plan for major street
locations, he will be able to plan more intelligently and will rarely object
to requirements of necessarily wide rights of way for major streets in the
development of his subdivision. A reasonable Major Street Plan adopted by
the City Planning Commission, certified to City Council, and carefully
observed by all is assurance to the public that it will be required. in the
future to bear only a minimum of expenditures to provide adequate
trafficways.

The City Planning Commission has required and will continue to require
that all subdividers conform to this plan in the development of their sub-
divisions.

FRAMEWORK FOR BOND ISSUES

The development of an adequate major street system for a city cannot,
of course, be realized within a short period of time. For this reason there
is need for a long-range program that will permit part by part development
that will ultimately yield a completed system. The Major Street Plan serves
as such a guide, and adherence to it over a long period of time will prevent
losses that result from individual, disconnected plans of succeeding adminis-
trations. The right of way funds for the 1941 City Bond Program were
pledged to carry out definite recommended phases of this Major Street Plan.

BASIS FOR BUILDING LINES

This plan furnishes the only logical basis for applying a uniform system
of enforceable building set-back lines. In order to prevent business and

other type structures from crowding too closely upon existing and poten-
tially heavily traveled thoroughfares, and to make possible future widening
of inadequate rights of way, a uniform program for the establishment of
building set-back lines should be undertaken. Such building lines have been
established on some thoroughfares to meet particular urgent problems.
This plan will make possible a city-wide program to protect the safety and
general welfare of the people.

STRUCTURE OF THE PLAN

The actual preparation of a major thoroughfare plan must be based upon
many considerations, such as physical features like rivers, bayous, railroads,
density of population, and concentration of business and industry. Of
course, economic considerations require that we give careful consideration
to existing streets and buildings as a basis of any such plan.

In general there are four classifications of major streets: Radial or diag-
onal, loop or circumferential, cross-town or by-pass, and the usual major
street that completes the pattern and provides access to neighborhoods and
access from neighborhoods to principal arteries.

RADIAL THOROUGHFARES

By far the most vital, from the standpoint of concentrated use, are the
radial thoroughfares extending out from the central business district. It is
usually on these thoroughfares that we find maximum congestion and
greatest traffic volumes. As the city doubles and trebles in size and as auto-
mobile registrations mount, we usually find that access to the central busi-
ness area is confined to the same means provided when the city was much
smaller. The increasing of facilities in the way of radial thoroughfares is
usually both difficult and extremely costly if delayed, so the greatest possible
foresight should be used to make maximum provisions for future needs.

In Houston we find these thoroughfares quite limited, with the exception
of those extending southwest parallel to and including South Main. To the
southeast radial thoroughfares are particularly inadequate in width and
number, greatly congesting Telephone Road. The development of the
Houston-Galveston Express Thoroughfare over the G. H. E. right of way
would greatly relieve this situation. To the north Jensen Drive, Hardy
Street, and North Main are inadequate in width and greatly congested by
business, although they are the only through connections. The widening of
these streets, the connection of Houston Avenue into McKinney, and the
development of White Oak Drive are the principal means of relieving this
problem. Radiating to the west, Gray is inadequate, and Washington
Avenue is greatly overloaded. The best possibility in this direction is Buffalo
Drive, which may be developed into an extremely efficient express thorough-
fare as well as a beautiful parkway.

iiiiiiiiiiiy -^ 91

C^'

Hi ■

^^^IrmnTnijiiiiiiiiiiLiii

-LEG END-

■■ Adequate RigW-of-way
1^ To be widened
)c=i To be opened

'%^^%

fe°^^\-5-U— ^

IfflJiil

fy

3^^,;<^;jjTrmirnTTiTTiinT™

MARKET

%.

%

^^\^v^^%^^— 1^^^^

v^^ .#
<^^^^
<e^

i.4

^^ ' • SOAD

CCALC or MILCt

TYPICAL UNDEVELOPED
RADIAL THOROUGHFARES

FROM THE

MAJOR STREET PLAN

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
HOUSTON TEXAS

^■IlUlAZ Sai^^ats^^

CIRCUMFERENTIAL AND BY-PASS THOROUGHFARES

Next in importance are circumferential and by-pass thoroughfares. These
connections provide main routes of access across and around town without
passing through the more congested central areas. By-pass thoroughfares
may greatly relieve the downtown area and the radial thoroughfares, if
properly located. Houston is at present very inadequately supplied with
this type of circulation. Practically our only example is the Old Spanish
Trail- Wayside connection, which is most serviceable and worthwhile. An
example of a greatly needed unit of this type would be the Kiam-Sixth-
White Oak-Quitman-Liberty Road connection. This route, if properly devel-
oped, would provide a much needed connection east and west on the north
side of Buffalo Bayou and would tend to relieve congestion on Washington
and Franklin Avenues. The best example of a circumferential or loop
connection is the so-called "Defense Loop," the completion of which is
provided for in recent City and County bond programs. This unit would
follow the approximate routes of 29th Street, Wayside Drive, Old Spanish
Trail, Bellaire Boulevard, and Post Oak Road.

USUAL THOROUGHFARES

While the more important major streets serve the specific use of getting
traffic to and from the central business district or, perhaps, across town,
others have a more nominal use. These major streets serve principally as
feeder streets for the more important and heavily traveled thoroughfares.
Their purpose is to gather neighborhood traffic and carry it into the more
important thoroughfares leading to the downtown area, highways from
town, or to some other neighborhood. This type of thoroughfare, properly
located, would tend to minimize the use of purely local neighborhood streets
for through traffic. Thus, this type of major street fills in the general pattern
to provide a major street at intervals of approximately one-half to three-
quarters of a mile in the urban area, where practicable. An example of this
type of thoroughfare would be Dunlavy Street as shown on the Major Street
Plan.

CAPACITY OF THOROUGHFARES

While the development of the automobile has resulted in a revolutionary
change in local transportation, we can scarcely say that the improvement in
design of thoroughfares to meet this change has been more than nominal.
Modern heavy traffic has brought problems of congestion and confusion
which we have done relatively little to solve. In approaching the problem
of thoroughfare planning we find that there are two distinct types of prob-
lems: One consists of locating thoroughfares where needed from the stand-
point of providing ready convenient access; the other involves the struggle
to eliminate congestion and to attain adequate capacity.

AVERAGE TYPES. Where present and future traffic volumes are not
expected to be excessive, right of -way widths of eighty and one hundred feet
are acceptable. Such right of way will provide for ultimate paving width
of fifty-six and sixty feet, yielding four moving and two parking lanes.
Where heavier traffic or considerable business development exists or may
be expected, the one hundred foot right of way should be considered a mini-
mum. While the above rights of way may not seem justified at the time
of dedication, a more narrow pavement may first be constructed and later
replaced by a wider one of greater capacity. Within the city limits, where
development of the Major Street Plan is largely a matter of widening right
of way, the choice between a width of eighty or one hundred feet is often
almost wholly an economic question.

FREEWAYS AND PARKWAYS. While the above type thoroughfares
serve adequately on many major streets, their relative inefficiency, due to the
congestion caused by adjacent business development, frequent intersections,
parking and double parking movements, and general local use, has made
them quite inadequate in many locations. This condition is especially true
in the face of increases in traffic loads during the past decades. The average
principal thoroughfare of today requires that traffic, particularly during
peak loads, must work its way slowly mile after mile through local traffic
and local business.

The answer to this problem is the freeway and parkway. These thorough-
fares do not provide access to adjacent property and are entered oiJy at
designated intersections. As a result we find that parking is eliminated, and
traffic is able to travel at more constant speeds without confusion.

Freeways and parkways cannot ordinarily be developed within a city
except where a railroad or stream and a large percentage of vacant, inexpen-
sive land make possible the acquisition of wide rights of way with few
intersections. Many larger cities have already undertaken the development
of these limited access express thoroughfares, notably Los Angeles and New
York. In the latter city costs of such developments have been extreme,
while in Houston, today, many such opportunities may be exploited at
comparatively small cost. Such developments would provide relief for the
present with provisions for future needs.

One of the best of our possibilities for a freeway is the proposed express
way over the G. H. E. or Old Galveston Interurban. Between St. Bernard
Street and the east city limits a great majority of the route is through acre-
age with few intersections. The development of this limited access way on
a 230-foot right of way would not only greatly relieve present congestion on
Telephone Road, but give us our first up-to-date trafficway designed for the
sole purpose of providing efficient movement without interference from
purely local business and residential use.

rjTim'

■iTm

-VM J

20

D POSSIBLE FUTURE
§1 CONNECTION

♦LEGEND*

Adequate Right-of-way
■i ■■■■■1 To be widened
C3c=ii=]c3 To be opened

TYPICAL UNDEVELOPED

LOOP OR BY-PASS THOROUGHFARES

FROM THE

MAJOR STREET PLAN

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
HOUSTON TEXAS

SCALC or MILES

4^/r-4i afctii^*^^

Another very worthwhile opportunity for the development of a parkway,
which would serve many thousands of people and relieve congestion on
adjacent major streets, lies along Buffalo Bayou between the Civic Center
and Memorial Park. Through foresighted consideration a great deal of
land has already been acquired along Buffalo Drive to provide for a park-
way. By the purchase of additional land, all but a small part of which is
vacant, the right of way for a thoroughfare of magnificent capacity and
grandeur could be achieved. It could be a freeway in the true sense, for
throughout its length there would be only four crossings.

A third evident possibility for the development of a freeway lies along
White Oak Drive from the Milam Street Bridge to Houston Avenue, a
distance of over one mile without a single grade crossing.

Since the horse and buggy days we have made very little progress in
development of thoroughfares to meet a phenomenal increase in numbers
of automobiles and the rapid and revolutionary technical development of
motor driven vehicles. If we can but take the first step and develop one
freeway type of thoroughfare, the public will fully sense the value of more
efficient traffic arteries through which time is saved, nervous strain is
greatly reduced, and safety considered.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN

RECENT PROGRESS

The present adopted Major Street Plan is an outgrowth of the 1929 Plan
and has existed in preliminary form since the spring of 1940. First actual
accomplishments on this Major Street Plan occurred in 1941 and 1942.

Realizing the importance of directing every possible effort toward the
development of the Major Street Plan, the Planning Commission prepared
a map and written recommendations for the use of a minimum of $600,000
of the City's then proposed 1941 Bond Program. These recommendations
designated a list of right of way purchases, stated the importance of each,
and listed them according to their relative importance. City Council accepted
the Commission's recommendations and has begun carrying them into
effect, so that the first steps in realizing the development of the Major Street
Plan were achieved even before its final adoption.

POST WAR OPPORTUNITIES

Many conditions point to great public works programs after the war.
The development of major streets will, of course, offer an ideal source of
useful projects of the type most likely needed. An adopted Major Street
Plan is, of course, the only sound basis for the selection of such projects, and
the purchase of right of way at this time will make possible an early start

on construction once the war is at an end. An ideal arrangement would be
to prepare detailed plans of a recommended list of Major Thoroughfare
developments.

COORDINATION WITH HARRIS COUNTY

A glance at the Major Street Plan will show that a large part of the plan
lies outside of the city limits. That part is entirely under the jurisdiction
of the Commissioners Court of Harris County except that new subdivisions
must be approved by the Planning Commission. For this reason it is quite
evident that a high degree of cooperation will be necessary between the City
and the County in order to realize a system of thoroughfares according to
plan. The adopted plan was developed in collaboration with the County,
and its mutual adoption will tend to insure needed coordination in its devel-
opment. Already the County is in the midst of spending the proceeds of
a bond issue, voted in the spring of 1941, which expenditures have accom-
plished and will accomplish many developments shown on this plan. In
addition, full coordination must be realized with respect to state highway
developments.

LONG-RANGE PROGRAM NEEDED

A start has been made, but experience shows that in the past Major Street
Plans have been shelved and neglected for lack of an active program of
development and because of lapses in the existence of the Planning Com-
mission and the Planning Department. Lacking these agencies, the plan is
without a champion — ^is without an alert set of eyes to see that developments
do not wander afield, unconscious of the existence of a plan. We have seen
this fate befall the 1913 Plan and again the very comprehensive Plan of
1929. The drafting of the plan is only the first step and in itself is practi-
cally valueless unless the second step is planned and carried out. That phase
is the' constant recognition and systematic development of the plan.

More and more the value of a long-range capital budgeting program is
being recognized and adopted by many cities as a means of carrying out
their physical development in a business-like manner. Such a program
usually covers a period of six years and is based on careful planning to meet
the current and anticipated needs of the city. A detailed study of the finan-
cial structure of the city, plus the reasonable elasticity of the program,
insures its sound adjustment. Such a means of financing capital improve-
ments is in marked contrast to the usual system of advancing sporadic bond
issues which are brought forth whenever the temper of the taxpayer is
considered amenable and in whatever amount it is felt that the traffic will
bear. In cases where the Federal Government is expected to join in with
grants in aid and otherwise, it is doubtful that it will continue long to join
in where no provision for long-range financing as well as planning has
been made.

8

fIL

llhirmTTT

QUITMAN «-.•'

l*vrrffl|iiii!iiiiiiiiiiriTra

-LEGEND"-

^■■'™» Adequate Right-of-way
"■^^ To be widened
c3 c3 c3 To be opened

SCALl Of HIL«S

TYPICAL UNDEVELOPED

CROSS TOWN ARTERI.ES
FROM THE

MAJOR STREET PLAN

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
HOUSTON TEXAS

^^^'

RECOMMENDED PROJECTS

The Major Street Plan embodies a great number of existing and proposed
thoroughfares. Many of the developments proposed on plan will not be
needed in the immediate future, and their development beyond acquisition
of right of way would be ill-advised at this time. However, a large share
of the proposed developments would be of immediate use and value and
should be undertaken at the earliest possible date. Because of the large
number of proposals on the adopted plan and because of the great amount
of study that has been given these matters, we submit a list of the most
urgently needed proposed developments.

In August, 1941, the Planning Commission submitted a recommendation
to City Council for the purchase of $600,000 worth of major street rights of
way in connection with a bond issue being proposed. City Council adopted
this recommendation, and later the bonds were voted. Since the financial
position of the city made necessary the issuance of the bonds over a three-
year period, only a part of the right of way projects have been carried out
to date. The following is a list of projects for which funds have been voted:

PROJECTS OF 1941 BOND PROGRAM

1. JENSEN DRIVE — ^Provides for widening of Jensen between Naviga-
tion Boulevard and Buffalo Bayou. This right of way has already been
purchased under the 1941 Bond Program.

2. CRAWFORD-ALMEDA CONNECTION— This opening is to be
made, carrying Almeda directly into Crawford, and Almeda widened
south to Cleburne. A portion of the necessary right of way has been
purchased under the 1941 Bond Program.

3. EUREKA TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE— This project calls for the
purchase of approximately 30 acres south of Eureka Underpass for a
traffic interchange at the junction of the Hempstead and Katy High-
ways. This right of way has already been purchased under the 1941
Bond Program.

4. NORTH SEGMENT OF DEFENSE LOOP— The widening and
opening of right of way for the north segment of the so-called Defense
Loop, between Shepherd Drive and the east city limit on approxi-
mately 29th Street, would provide the first through east-west connec-
tion on the north side. About $20,000 of the $50,000 allocated in the
1941 Bond Program for this purpose has been used. The County Court
has agreed by resolution of September 18, 1942, to complete necessary
right of way acquisitions from their 1941 Bond Program after the
$50,000 appropriated by the City has been expended according to plan.

5. WASHINGTON-COHN-MEMORIAL DRIVE^This connection re-
quires right of way acquisitions for opening and widening. The City
Bond Program of 1941 allocated $75,000 toward this right of way,
none of which has yet been acquired.

6. GALVESTON-HOUSTON EXPRESS WAY— This project requires
the acquisition of additional right of way along the old Galveston
Interurban line between St. Bernard and Park Place. The 1941 Bond
Program of the City allocated $200,000 for the purchase of land toward
an ultimate 230-foot width. No right of way has as yet been acquired
from these funds.

7. HEINER — ^The widening of Heiner Street between Buffalo Drive and
Calhoun would provide a link in a cross town connection by-passing
the business district. Money in the amount of $100,000 for the pur-
chase of this right of way has been provided in the 1941 Bond Program,
but none of the money has yet been spent.

8. SHEPHERD DRIVE-GREENBRIAR CONNECTION— This con-
nection would be made between Richmond Avenue and the S. A. &
A. P. Railroad for the purpose of extending Shepherd Drive into South
Main. The sum of $50,000 was set aside in the 1941 Bond Program
for this right of way. None of this fund has been expended to date.

OTHER IMPORTANT PROJECTS

In addition to the above eight street widening and opening projects pro-
vided for in the Bond Program voted in 1941, the Planning Commission
listed four other important projects for which right of way is badly needed.
These projects are as follows:

9. ELGIN-DUMBLE— The extension of Elgin from Ennis to Dumble at
Calhoun Road is recommended. This would provide a valuable east-
west connection serving the University of Houston and the High
School Stadium, and would provide a by-pass route around the central
business district to the Ship Channel and industrial areas. In addition
it would join the proposed express thoroughfare on the G. H. E. right
of way to furnish a connection completely across the city.

10. LAWNDALE-LA PORTE ROAD CONNECTION— This project,
involving the elimination of two long jogs and the widening of some
existing right of way, is very much needed. At present it is the principal
route used by the majority of Houston residents traveling to and from
Galveston, the Bayshore Area, and many industries east of Houston
along the south side of the Ship Channel. If present shipbuilding
activities is to continue after the war, this development will be of
extreme importance, as it is at present.

10

11. STUDEWOOD EXTENSION— The extension of Studewood south
of Sixth to Washington Avenue is contemplated at this time as the
first step in an ultimate connection between North Main and South
Main. With the proper development of Buffalo Drive the extension
should be continued to that thoroughfare, and ultimately into Lincoln
and Montrose.

12. WHEELER — ^The widening and extension of Wheeler Avenue west
of Velasco is needed to provide additional access to the University of
Houston, Public School Stadium, and adjacent residential districts.
The new right of way needed is at present undeveloped and mostly
unplatted.

There are many other important and worthwhile right of way projects in
connection with the alleviation of current traffic congestion and the pro-
vision for needs of the near future. The following is a group of additional
right of way widening and opening projects that are of real importance:

SAN JACINTO-MARKET— This connection, widening Rothwell and
extending it into Lyons Avenue, and widening Lyons and extending it
into Market, which would be widened to McCarty at the junction with
the Market Street Road, is highly desirable. At present the northeast
portion of Houston is, perhaps, more inadequately served by major
thoroughfares than any other section of Houston. This connection
would gready relieve this condition, would tend to relieve Navigation
Boulevard and Franklin Avenue, and would provide a direct route
into the city from Market Street Road.

BUFFALO PARKWAY— While the city owns a large amount of
right of way and bayou frontage along Buffalo Drive, there are still
many parcels, most of which are undeveloped and some of which are
unsuitable for any other use, that should be purchased for the ultimate
development of this parkway. This land should be purchased before
more of it is built upon. Adequate right of way would provide for a
parkway development that could scarcely be surpassed. When devel-
oped, this project would undoubtedly carry a tremendous volume of
traffic from the northwest and southwest portions of Houston.

HOUSTON AVENUE-McKINNEY— This connection would swing
southeast from the present terminus of Houston Avenue at West Capi-
tol, bridge Buffalo Bayou west of the Coliseum, and connect with
McKinney Avenue west of the City Hall. This connection would open
more direct and less congested access to the downtown area than pro-
vided at present by way of West Capitol Avenue.

11

WHITE OAK — Proper widening and straightening of White Oak
Drive between Buffalo Bayou and Houston Avenue could result in a
thoroughly up-to-date and efficient thoroughfare that would carry a
great amount of traffic. Like Buffalo Drive, it would be practically
without intersections and would serve to move traffic swiftly and
smoothly from the downtown area into the northwest portion of
Houston.

CRAWFORD-ELYSIAN-HARDY CONNECTION — This project
would carry Crawford Street north from its present terminus at Ruiz
swinging it across over the railroad, Buffalo Bayou, and the Southern
Pacific yards into Elysian. In addition a grade separation over the
railroad would be necessary in the vicinity of Opelousas Street. It
would also be necessary to widen Elysian and Hardy. This would
provide a complete north-south artery entirely across Houston, supple-
menting the Almeda-Crawford connection for which right of way is
now being purchased. Present facilities in the area that would be
served by this connection are very inadequate and inefficient due to
long traffic delays at railroad crossings and the inadequacy of present
right of way.

WAYSIDE-McCARTY CONNECTION— This project would extend
from Wayside Drive at about Avenue U, over Buffalo Bayou east of
the present bridge, and over Clinton Drive at the present underpass.
Thence it would continue northeast through the open area at the east
of the Port Terminal Railroad yards and join McCarty north of the
Market Street Road. This connection would eliminate the present very
devious route along CUnton Drive and through the congested area of
McCarty Road between Clinton and Market Street Road.

KIAM-SIXTH-WHITE OAK-QUITMAN-LIBERTY— This project,
consisting of some wholly new right of way and considerable straight-
ening and widening of existing right of way, would provide a most
valuable east-west connection across the central part of the north side.
It would serve to feed traffic into both the Hempstead and Katy high-
ways on the west and to the Beaumont highway on the east. Its devel-
opment would also tend to remove some of the present traffic going
through on Washington, Franklin, and Navigation.

12

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

MAJOR STREET

RIGHTOFWAY ACQUISITION

1941

City Planninj Conmission
of Houslonjexas

NOTE
THE FIRST EIGHT PROJECTS
WERE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL
AND $600,000 IN BONDS WE RE
VOTED FOR ACQUISITION OF
RIGHT OF WAY FROM 1941-1943

WAUGH DRIVE — With a reasonable amount of development,
Waugh Drive could become a much more convenient and efficient
thoroughfare, capable of handling increased traffic loads. Of particular
importance is the elimination of the present jog between Waugh and
Yale at Washington Avenue and the widening of right of way be-
tween Nevada and Westheimer, and between Washington Avenue and
Cleveland Park.

KJRBY DRIVE — Kirby Drive forms an extension of Buffalo Drive
and if further extended on the south would provide a very desirable
north-south route. It has an existing right of way one hundred feet
wide south to Westheimer, and this width could be extended to Bis-
sonnet with little difficulty. However, Kirby Drive should be widened
on south from Bissonnet and carried across Brays Bayou into South
Main. Kirby Drive would adapt itself ideally as a boulevard for
passenger traffic only. This possibility will, no doubt, be indicated on
a Plan for Parkways and Boulevards now being considered.

WASHINGTON- ROTHWELL CONNECTION — This project
would involve an extension from Washington Avenue, near its junction
with Preston, in a northeasterly direction into Dart and an extension
from Dart across White Oak Bayou into Shea to connect with the
proposed Rothwell-Market development. An overpass over the South-
ern Pacific tracks and an overpass from Dart over the Bayou, Katy
tracks, and North Main would be necessary. The expense of this
development would be offset by the provision of a route along the
north side of the Bayou similar to the Washington-Franklin-Naviga-
tion connection which would serve to relieve traffic through the north
part of the downtown area.

SCOTT-MILBY — ^The development of this connection would involve
the elimination of a jog in Scott at Griggs, and its extension into Milby
between Holman and Francis. Milby would also need to be widened,
and several smaller gaps require opening. This development would
provide an outlet from the University of Houston to the northeast part
of the city and also provide access through an area that is now inade-
quately served.

STUDEWOOD-LINCOLN-MONTROSE— The extension of Stude-
wood south to Washington Avenue was previously recommended, and

13

this proposed extension would carry it on south, of Washington, across
Buffalo Bayou into Lincoln and into Montrose Boulevard, eliminating
the present jog at Westheimer. Between Washington Avenue and
West Dallas totally new right of way would be involved, while Lincoln
would need to be widened throughout its length. Though an expen-
sive project, a glance at the Major Street Plan will show the conven-
ience of this connection between North and South Main.

HOUSTON AVENUE-FULTON CONNECTION— This project
would involve the widening of Houston Avenue between Woodland
Park and North Main and a connection through to Fulton on East
Montgomery at Erin. At present, traffic from East Montgomery and
Irvington Boulevard feeds into Fulton with inadequate outlets to the
south. The proposed connection would drain considerable of this
traffic into Houston Avenue, which could more adequately carry the
extra load as a result of the proposed Houston-McKinney connection
mentioned above.

14

lC«0S6TI^1B^ H^"c

■=^^^

-„:±

'L.

LJ

I

mCMULUfl M-iHI

colli!

PARK_PR.

I-

&1 IFF PP.-

Si^ <l

^^R liBirn BO*0

ADOPTED BY
HOUSTON CITy PLANNING COMMISSION

• OKlllt^ rut ^unilM HUHDMO fOUTT 1W0

jj^.Y''^^

MEMBERS OF

J esse «I<DI)(«S. CHAiaUAN
MSETHCIBMSIUS HILTON UCGIMT*
LtWIS CUTSCB J TOBIIEY

»t» ' e J t s'to u t »«lteb

PLAN CO*! ' ■
Of HOUST
IN COLL*-

HUCO
COUI.'

.^'

- OElTfRU

icjljil:

1

MAJOR STUEET
PLAN

HOUSTON

AND VICINITY

MT^ftKET

7

^

.^ 'ss^;

-5.

.<^ •!

V.

^

%.

^.

^:

»c.^4ft \

r'

t^

^ i

I
s

#

■y,'

^

K>— !

.ii&^ — .

CITY PLANNING
COMMI S S ION

R. S CLLIfRIT HARE AND MARE

PUNNING ENCR consultants

DUST RIAL ^~^, ,

nk"

<^ip^f^

n

<^

>

•^^..

SUmcitNI WIDTH

CITY LIMITS

m

~f-

!.♦ I.' '

I I

't^M

RpiRt

i::>'

— Lu:

/

^.

-"?^

TH

m

j^A^ ft a

-U

I

?^

^til::

.0 I I

3-'

L.li/>

'z^-

^

»«^

1'

GA^jC];^^^

<<^

,c3«='""0

«='=^^

tiJ'

•>^-

^' n

.<^

I

^VWINKLER

,^

^

"^=Jr

w.MCMvu. ArRPOST J SOUTH HIOUSTOf^'

:__llr-

i^^-

\

•^^

X>--

=«=pi

x^.

VK

1^

'say :^r<^ -^- A .^

P

\ !

mj_ PA$_ADEN ^ BL m

if - •■ -^ I ^

^

D I

M !

^=\

\1

n^

.L.

\

1 1