North Houston Highway Improvement Project (project resumed March 2023)

[Plutonic Panda]

It's been less than a year with the new admin and we have 3 major projects around the country essentially canceled now. FHWA "halted"  work on the 710 in LA and now Houston. The 495/270 P3 had been progressing for years and all the sudden has local MPO vote against it. I wonder what's next in this lovely trend.

[bwana39]

It's been less than a year with the new admin and we have 3 major projects around the country essentially canceled now. FHWA "halted"  work on the 710 in LA and now Houston. The 495/270 P3 had been progressing for years and all the sudden has local MPO vote against it. I wonder what's next in this lovely trend.

I doubt these will be the only ones. The current administration is anti-car which extrapolates to anti-highway.  Realistically they are unsure of what direction they want to go.  I think these stop work orders are as much about figuring out how to actually proceed as opposed to a true desire to not eventually do the work.

Sort of like We don't think this has been considered through the lens of how we think as opposed to them actually opposing it. (We being the administration)

I think time will tell.  Not sure it will be good, but it might not be as bad as we fear. (It could be even worse)

[Plutonic Panda]

It's been less than a year with the new admin and we have 3 major projects around the country essentially canceled now. FHWA "halted"  work on the 710 in LA and now Houston. The 495/270 P3 had been progressing for years and all the sudden has local MPO vote against it. I wonder what's next in this lovely trend.

I doubt these will be the only ones. The current administration is anti-car which extrapolates to anti-highway.  Realistically they are unsure of what direction they want to go.  I think these stop work orders are as much about figuring out how to actually proceed as opposed to a true desire to not eventually do the work.

Sort of like We don't think this has been considered through the lens of how we think as opposed to them actually opposing it. (We being the administration)

I think time will tell.  Not sure it will be good, but it might not be as bad as we fear. (It could be even worse)

Very good take on it.

[Chris]

As an outsider, I'm trying to understand the legal situation.

As I understand, the federal government can make rules about the environmental approval process if federal funding is involved, right? I've read about projects not taking up federal funding to avoid a lengthier process using EPA regulations.

How is this situation with I-45 in Houston? Is there federal involvement in funding or construction? If not, can the federal government overrule the state in approving and executing highway projects?

[sprjus4]

^ I believe it has to do with federal funding. Certainly a project of this size and scope would have some percentage of such.

[J N Winkler]

As I understand, the federal government can make rules about the environmental approval process if federal funding is involved, right? I've read about projects not taking up federal funding to avoid a lengthier process using EPA regulations.

AIUI, it is not possible to avoid federal involvement through 100% state/local funding if the project affects interests that are within federal jurisdiction, such as "waters of the United States" (a legal term of art that encompasses not just surface water but also any area with hydric soils, such as wetlands), properties of unusual cultural or historical interest, land owned directly by the federal government, etc.  This is because in order for construction to happen, the relevant federal agency must grant a permit, and this is considered an "action" that triggers a requirement for environmental review.

Declining federal funding for a controversial project is usually more about changing the shape of the federal review that happens than it is about avoiding it altogether.  For example, when Kansas DOT compiled a supplemental EIS for the South Lawrence Trafficway, the US Army Corps of Engineers served as the lead federal agency, rather than FHWA.  By planning to use 100% state funding for the project, KDOT pared back federal review to that required for a wetlands permit, which is within USACE jurisdiction.

How is this situation with I-45 in Houston? Is there federal involvement in funding or construction? If not, can the federal government overrule the state in approving and executing highway projects?

I don't know the specifics for the NHHIP, but I would expect at minimum some involvement in permitting.  Even if a state chooses to decline federal funding, the federal government can put the state DOT in a world of hurt for building a project (or indeed undertaking any form of construction activity) when any necessary federal permits are not obtained.

[bwana39]

As I understand, the federal government can make rules about the environmental approval process if federal funding is involved, right? I've read about projects not taking up federal funding to avoid a lengthier process using EPA regulations.

AIUI, it is not possible to avoid federal involvement through 100% state/local funding if the project affects interests that are within federal jurisdiction, such as "waters of the United States" (a legal term of art that encompasses not just surface water but also any area with hydric soils, such as wetlands), properties of unusual cultural or historical interest, land owned directly by the federal government, etc.  This is because in order for construction to happen, the relevant federal agency must grant a permit, and this is considered an "action" that triggers a requirement for environmental review.

Declining federal funding for a controversial project is usually more about changing the shape of the federal review that happens than it is about avoiding it altogether.  For example, when Kansas DOT compiled a supplemental EIS for the South Lawrence Trafficway, the US Army Corps of Engineers served as the lead federal agency, rather than FHWA.  By planning to use 100% state funding for the project, KDOT pared back federal review to that required for a wetlands permit, which is within USACE jurisdiction.

How is this situation with I-45 in Houston? Is there federal involvement in funding or construction? If not, can the federal government overrule the state in approving and executing highway projects?

I don't know the specifics for the NHHIP, but I would expect at minimum some involvement in permitting.  Even if a state chooses to decline federal funding, the federal government can put the state DOT in a world of hurt for building a project (or indeed undertaking any form of construction activity) when any necessary federal permits are not obtained.

TXDOT has an arrangement where they conducted the EI studies in house. One of the possibilities is the Fed may want to reclaim the EIS processes.  (Results were submitted to the Feds for concurrence.) Seldom was there pushback.

[jadebenn]

FHWA has officially halted virtually all work on the project. This appears to be separate and independent of the lawsuit against the project.

https://abc13.com/i-45-houston-downtown-project-north-highway-improvement-txdot/10824254/
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Federal-officials-tell-TxDOT-again-to-slow-down-16268146.php

Now we need to see if the TxDOT commission will leave funding in place, or if NHHIP will be defunded and the funds distributed elsewhere. At the June 10 NCTCOG meeting director Morris said "We have a major push working with TxDOT headquarters to advance projects in Dallas-Fort Worth as other big projects in the rest of the state do not move forward. So, [name] and Mo and Carl and John and our office are working hard to get really big projects slotted for any opportunities that either Washington or Austin wish to advance (transportation projects)."

I just found out about this today.

My guess is that's exactly what's going to happen. TxDOT's going to take the money and redistribute it elsewhere.

[Plutonic Panda]

So the downtown portion is canceled as well?

[MaxConcrete]

So the downtown portion is canceled as well?

Nothing is officially canceled at this point. Everything is on hold and under review. I think the downtown work has the best chance of proceeding since it appears to have less opposition and also has features the anti-freeway folks like, such as retirement of the Pierce Elevated and sinking two miles of freeway below ground.

Also, right of way acquisition so far has focused on the downtown work. For example, demolition of the large office building along Interstate 10 is nearly complete.


Above: November 6, 2020


Above: June 26, 2021

[TXtoNJ]

My guess is that the downtown work proceeds as planned, and everything else will be reduced to no capacity added work, possibly looking something like the US 75 Central Expressway in Dallas.

[Plutonic Panda]

If TxDOT doesn't add any capacity due to neighboring opposition than they ought to add tolls to this stretch of Highway alone and toll it accordingly to keep it free flowing. Maybe the neighbors who put up such a stink will like that.

[jadebenn]

It would never, ever in a million years happen politically, but I'd honestly be in favor of repealing the gas tax and replacing it with tolls. The idea that the gas tax has served as an effective user fee hasn't been true for decades now, if it was ever.

[TXtoNJ]

It would never, ever in a million years happen politically, but I'd honestly be in favor of repealing the gas tax and replacing it with tolls. The idea that the gas tax has served as an effective user fee hasn't been true for decades now, if it was ever.

Keep the gas tax, but recategorize it as a kilowatt-hour tax, apply equally to all energy forms.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm honestly not a fan of tolls as I've said multiple times on this forum however I'd fully be in favor of TxDOT not adding a single lane on the north stretch where the most opposition was and adding tolls. It isn't to retaliate against the nearby opposition but if they don't want to support anything else besides saying no and being "unconstructive"  and TxDOT in good faith has presented multiple alternatives then fuck it. Add congestion pricing.

Another option is adding tunnels or a roadway beneath I-45 in similar fashion to the 635 expansion in Dallas. Although that'd likely be a multi billion dollar venture in its own requiring a completely new EIS and become its own separate project.

[kernals12]

It would never, ever in a million years happen politically, but I'd honestly be in favor of repealing the gas tax and replacing it with tolls. The idea that the gas tax has served as an effective user fee hasn't been true for decades now, if it was ever.

I think we're going to wind up with a per mile fee. Connecticut already has passed a law creating one for trucks.

[kernals12]

It would never, ever in a million years happen politically, but I'd honestly be in favor of repealing the gas tax and replacing it with tolls. The idea that the gas tax has served as an effective user fee hasn't been true for decades now, if it was ever.

Keep the gas tax, but recategorize it as a kilowatt-hour tax, apply equally to all energy forms.

Why?

[TXtoNJ]

It would never, ever in a million years happen politically, but I'd honestly be in favor of repealing the gas tax and replacing it with tolls. The idea that the gas tax has served as an effective user fee hasn't been true for decades now, if it was ever.

Keep the gas tax, but recategorize it as a kilowatt-hour tax, apply equally to all energy forms.

Why?

The only people who benefit from user fees that aren't energy taxes are the trucking companies who are already heavily subsidized for the road use, based on the relative damage done to the road surface. With the increase in EV use, converting the gas tax to an overall energy tax ensures that infrastructure funding declines evenly, rather than starkly, until we get to the point that energy taxes can be raised to fully cover the cost of maintenance and expansion.

[In_Correct]

If TxDOT doesn’t add any capacity due to neighboring opposition than they ought to add tolls to this stretch of Highway alone and toll it accordingly to keep it free flowing. Maybe the neighbors who put up such a stink will like that.

I am delighted that you typed this.

It would never, ever in a million years happen politically, but I'd honestly be in favor of repealing the gas tax and replacing it with tolls. The idea that the gas tax has served as an effective user fee hasn't been true for decades now, if it was ever.

Not necessary to repeal the Gas Tax. How ever, there must be a National Toll Road Authority. They can convert every Superhighway into Beautiful Toll Roads.

[Plutonic Panda]

If TxDOT doesn't add any capacity due to neighboring opposition than they ought to add tolls to this stretch of Highway alone and toll it accordingly to keep it free flowing. Maybe the neighbors who put up such a stink will like that.

I am delighted that you typed this.

It would never, ever in a million years happen politically, but I'd honestly be in favor of repealing the gas tax and replacing it with tolls. The idea that the gas tax has served as an effective user fee hasn't been true for decades now, if it was ever.

Not necessary to repeal the Gas Tax. How ever, there must be a National Toll Road Authority. They can convert every Superhighway into Beautiful Toll Roads.

I figured you'd get a kick out of that. Absolutely no way it happens ever in Texas– converting a free road to a toll road. In this case I'd support it.

If a nationwide toll system is ever realized in a replacement to the gas tax then all fuel taxes should be banned and the expectation of quality should go way up. Many roads like I-40 and I-70 should have their speed limits removed after upgrades are made to rural parts creating no speed limit zones. This should coincide with a more strict driver license testing rules.

[vdeane]

It would never, ever in a million years happen politically, but I'd honestly be in favor of repealing the gas tax and replacing it with tolls. The idea that the gas tax has served as an effective user fee hasn't been true for decades now, if it was ever.

Keep the gas tax, but recategorize it as a kilowatt-hour tax, apply equally to all energy forms.

Why?

Because it's the best, most efficient way to structure things?  Taxes should be as invisible and painless as possible.  Slapping a bill on motorists once a year goes against that.  They should also be minimally invasive.  The way tolls slap a bill on people and lead to issues like transponder discrimination and lack of interoperability are self-evident.  Regarding a mileage tax, you're building a whole new bureaucracy to administer this thing and slapping a big bill on motorists once a year.  Not every state has annual inspections, so this would have to be filed annually, like taxes.  Do you know anyone who likes doing taxes?  I don't.  And how do you propose to solve the issue of people faking odometer readings?  Or the issue of driving out of state?  I don't want a GPS in my car tracking my every move.

[hotdogPi]

Or the issue of driving out of state?

I've never understood why this is an issue. Can't they just make the tax go to the home location (state/province/etc.) regardless of where the driving was?

[Revive 755]

How is this situation with I-45 in Houston? Is there federal involvement in funding or construction? If not, can the federal government overrule the state in approving and executing highway projects?

FHWA gets greater say on projects involving most interstates no matter the funding.  The one exception I am aware of being the tollways signed as interstates in Illinois.

[vdeane]

Or the issue of driving out of state?

I've never understood why this is an issue. Can't they just make the tax go to the home location (state/province/etc.) regardless of where the driving was?

If I'm driving across the country, why should New York get the money for all those miles?

This is going to be a particular issue for pass-through states and areas with significant cross-state commuter traffic.

[bwana39]

I know this is a non-starter, but the motor fuels tax is too low. It has not increased in years . All the while, the overall fuel economy has gotten better. Which means the only reason it is up at all is the increase of miles driven. The fuel tax cost per vehicle mile is actually down significantly.

The state motor fuels tax  historically was a premium tax similar to hotel / motel, car rental, or the Texarkana , Arkansas' 12% tax on restaurant meals. It should be at least as much as the regular sales taxes. In Texas, based on $3.00 per gallon, that should be just under 27 cents per gallon.  About 1/3rd more.

As to the shift to electric vehicles, in the long run, there is going to have to be allowance for that in the tax model. In the short run, perhaps to encourage the adaption of these (supposedly) less polluting vehicles, there should be just a nominal fee per year. After they gain in popularity, then the tax equation should be tweaked.  I know no-one loves a free-rider, but there are lots of them on the tax landscape. Some exemptions / credits are helpful and others solely benefit the receiver of the benefit.