North Houston Highway Improvement Project (project resumed March 2023)

[bwana39]

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

I-40 isn't the only freeway in Oklahoma City, you know.

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you. ODOT saw the opportunity to rid itself of the liability of maintaining an elevated structure, and also added four lanes to the freeway to boot. And the realigned freeway is still in an urban area (it's within walking distance of the old right-of-way, actually).

This is pretty much the same thing they did with I-30 in Fort Worth when they tore down the Lancaster Elevated and moved i-30 to a new path just a short distance farther south.

[kernals12]

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

I-40 isn't the only freeway in Oklahoma City, you know.

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you. ODOT saw the opportunity to rid itself of the liability of maintaining an elevated structure, and also added four lanes to the freeway to boot. And the realigned freeway is still in an urban area (it's within walking distance of the old right-of-way, actually).

This is pretty much the same thing they did with I-30 in Fort Worth when they tore down the Lancaster Elevated and moved i-30 to a new path just a short distance farther south.

And in Providence when they moved I-195 south from its old location between Downtown and the Jewelry District.

[Bobby5280]

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you.

The old Crosstown elevated highway was badly outdated. I think it was also an eye-sore. The re-location of I-40 a few blocks farther South was badly needed. The re-location was not a freeway removal (like what is being proposed in some places). It was actually a freeway expansion. I think the design of the re-located Crosstown Expressway actually makes it easier to visit downtown OKC by auto. And that was before the at-grade Oklahoma City Blvd in the space of the old Crosstown was completed. That further improves the ease of getting in/out of Bricktown by car.

It's worth noting that Houston does have other planning tools in use, just not zoning.  So it's not actually a free for all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k&t=185s

Thanks for posting that video from the City Beautiful YouTube channel. I knew Houston had a lot of tools to control what kinds of buildings get built in specific locations, even if it isn't technically called zoning. The various tools listed in the video achieve the same effect.

Here's another video related to Houston from the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel:
"Why City Design is Important (and Why I Hate Houston)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54

The video is fairly long, but interesting. I don't entirely agree with all the points in the video. The author is very pro mass transit and anti car culture. But walk-ability and the missing middle in housing types within many American metros is still a very serious problem. The video's author doesn't bash Houston entirely. He gives the city credit for dramatically improving its bus service and building some new dedicated bike paths and pedestrian facilities in certain areas.

[Scott5114]

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you.

The old Crosstown elevated highway was badly outdated. I think it was also an eye-sore. The re-location of I-40 a few blocks farther South was badly needed. The re-location was not a freeway removal (like what is being proposed in some places). It was actually a freeway expansion. I think the design of the re-located Crosstown Expressway actually makes it easier to visit downtown OKC by auto. And that was before the at-grade Oklahoma City Blvd in the space of the old Crosstown was completed. That further improves the ease of getting in/out of Bricktown by car.

I don't necessarily agree with it being an eyesore–I kinda liked it for its '60s utilitarian aesthetic–but that's probably a function of my nostalgia for the thing, since we didn't go downtown all that often when it was around. I got to go to both the grand opening of the new highway and the open house immediately before demolition of the old one (I actually have the cover off of one of the junction boxes for the Crosstown's lighting system in my living room).

But it was both very outdated and in very bad shape, so it needed to be demolished and rebuilt; the only question was whether to use the existing right of way or not. The realignment simply made more sense because it allowed for a non-elevated structure and provided more room for expansion.

A lot of the urbanist types were left fuming after the project was completed, because, in their eyes, Oklahoma City Boulevard isn't much better than the freeway it replaced, other than the area immediately surrounding the Thunder arena and Scissortail Park. They were hoping the City of OKC would immediately tear it out and restore the grid once they got the keys to it. OKC doesn't seem to have much interest in doing that, though, probably because it would be a much bigger expense than the city wants to take on, and there's plenty of infrastructure that has more wrong with it than being not to a vocal minority's liking.

[Chris]

'Why I hate Houston'.

Houston is one of the fastest-growing cities in the U.S. It's interesting to observe that ordinary people like the cities which urbanists hate the most.

The same is true for much of the Sunbelt, this is the fastest growing area of the U.S., despite all the urbanist objections about how sprawling and bad it is supposedly is. Apparently, it is what people prefer.

[triplemultiplex]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

[Bobby5280]

A lot of the urbanist types were left fuming after the project was completed, because, in their eyes, Oklahoma City Boulevard isn't much better than the freeway it replaced, other than the area immediately surrounding the Thunder arena and Scissortail Park. They were hoping the City of OKC would immediately tear it out and restore the grid once they got the keys to it. OKC doesn't seem to have much interest in doing that, though, probably because it would be a much bigger expense than the city wants to take on, and there's plenty of infrastructure that has more wrong with it than being not to a vocal minority's liking.

I can't imagine what else the city could have done with the new at-grade OKC Blvd than what they built. A bunch of lots in and around the old elevated highway to the West of downtown are still pretty run down or industrial looking. There would not have been a big rush to develop lots left vacant where the old elevated Crosstown once stood.

The Western end of OKC Blvd between I-40 and Klein Ave functions like a freeway, one that is not Interstate quality. The East end from the front of Toby Keith's restaurant to the I-40/I-235 interchange is pretty much a freeway on/off ramp. However, OKC Blvd is flanked by sidewalks starting at the Riverwalk and going a dozen or so blocks West to Classen. The Blvd is at the front of Scissortail Park. The OKC Streetcar system has a stop there. It's a short walk from there to the Skydance Bridge. Almost all the surface streets crossing the new I-40 have pedestrian access. Shields Blvd is one exception. Overall, it's not difficult to get around downtown OKC by foot or bicycle. The critics up there should be glad they don't live here in Lawton!

The same is true for much of the Sunbelt, this is the fastest growing area of the U.S., despite all the urbanist objections about how sprawling and bad it is supposedly is. Apparently, it is what people prefer.

I don't like the either-or, zero sum game that is preached by some New Urbanists: replace roads with sidewalks and bike paths. That's not going to work. But the cars only approach doesn't work so well either. A balance of BOTH is needed.

We have this ridiculously dangerous situation here in Lawton with the intersection of I-44 and Gore Blvd. The problem has existed for many years and has been growing worse. That point is very much the main gateway between the East and West sides of Lawton. The intersection is a choke point for motor vehicles. There are 3 traffic signals in short succession there. The location is a dangerous hurdle for anyone trying to use Gore Blvd to cross over I-44 on foot or on a bicycle. There are NO sidewalks on Gore Blvd crossing I-44. There are no sidewalks along Gore in that vicinity either. Some of the complaints from the Just Not Bikes guy about his Houston walking adventure are more extreme here. If you're going to walk along Gore Blvd to cross over I-44 you have to tread very carefully and hope you don't get clipped by a side view mirror of a passing car. The situation is bad enough that some people choose to walk down the hill and jay-walk across the main lanes of I-44 instead. Several pedestrians have been hit and killed on the Interstate over years. But obviously not enough deaths to get any solutions in the works on that matter.

Any complaints about this down here are dismissed with excuses. "Well, he should have been driving in a car." Not everyone can drive a car. Some can't afford it. Some don't have the ability due to old age or other disabilities. Yet they're on their own, on foot. It almost feels like there is a political ideology tied up in this. Building pedestrian bridges over highways or adding sidewalks to streets are seen as acts of socialist communism by some.

We have a lot of lower wage, service industry workers in Lawton. And I see plenty of them on foot there on Gore Blvd trying to cross that damned intersection. There is a fair amount of casino customers doing the same thing.

[Plutonic Panda]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

[Scott5114]

I can't imagine what else the city could have done with the new at-grade OKC Blvd than what they built. [...] The Western end of OKC Blvd between I-40 and Klein Ave functions like a freeway, one that is not Interstate quality.

And that's their problem–the portion west of Klein is just as bad as I-40 was in their eyes, despite the fact that it's no longer Interstate quality. I remember seeing design concepts that suggested having a big roundabout at OKC Blvd/Classen/Western instead of the overpass that is there now (and perpetually has a lot of homeless people sheltering under it). Another option that they like was building nothing at all on the old alignment and just reconnecting streets that had been cut off by the right-of-way.

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

I think he's saying basically that people may choose to live in Houston in spite of, not because of, the sprawling nature of the city. That is, the city's growth is due to other factors than people simply liking the sprawl.

[Henry]

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

I-40 isn't the only freeway in Oklahoma City, you know.

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you. ODOT saw the opportunity to rid itself of the liability of maintaining an elevated structure, and also added four lanes to the freeway to boot. And the realigned freeway is still in an urban area (it's within walking distance of the old right-of-way, actually).

This is pretty much the same thing they did with I-30 in Fort Worth when they tore down the Lancaster Elevated and moved i-30 to a new path just a short distance farther south.

And in Providence when they moved I-195 south from its old location between Downtown and the Jewelry District.

Also in Denver when they buried I-70 next to the old viaduct.

[kernals12]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

If the restaurant is only selling coke, then it's because most people prefer coke. It's why Detroit has all but given up on passenger cars in favor of SUVs.

[TXtoNJ]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

If the restaurant is only selling coke, then it's because most people prefer coke. It's why Detroit has all but given up on passenger cars in favor of SUVs.

It might be that coke is more profitable than other choices for the owner, and the owner's got a deal with city hall to make sure no other restaurants open in town.

[Rothman]

I would like Coke and a car, please.

[triplemultiplex]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

[ethanhopkin14]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

If the restaurant is only selling coke, then it's because most people prefer coke. It's why Detroit has all but given up on passenger cars in favor of SUVs.

Not necessarily.  Restaurants have soft drink deals so that they only sell Coke products or Pepsi products.  It makes a very unrealistically skewed sample.  This may seem like I am going on a tangent, but I think this is the meaning behind the original question.  If the restaurant is only selling coke, that doesn't mean most people prefer Coke, its just what their option is because the restaurant struck a deal with Coke to sell their product.  The test only really 100% works if you give the public every soft drink to chose from and you run the numbers every time each product is selected.

People who lived in dictatorships loved the dictator!  The reality was they didn't have a choice to like anything but the dictator. 

[Plutonic Panda]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

But in this case alternatives do exist even in Houston. Shitty service but it's there. We need to focus on increasing transit connections, better service, and more cycling infrastructure along with expanding infrastructure for cars.

[TXtoNJ]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

But in this case alternatives do exist even in Houston. Shitty service but it's there. We need to focus on increasing transit connections, better service, and more cycling infrastructure along with expanding infrastructure for cars.

The issue isn't so much the infrastructure so much as the development it incentivizes - hugely-profitable single-family detached suburban housing on greenfields, that subsequently require more car infrastructure for the traffic this land use generates.

It's like using Afrin for nasal congestion - yes, there's a temporary relief, but do it too much and you can't get off of it without the congestion being worse than before.

[bwana39]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I’m not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

But in this case alternatives do exist even in Houston. Shitty service but it’s there. We need to focus on increasing transit connections, better service, and more cycling infrastructure along with expanding infrastructure for cars.

The issue isn't so much the infrastructure so much as the development it incentivizes - hugely-profitable single-family detached suburban housing on greenfields, that subsequently require more car infrastructure for the traffic this land use generates.

It's like using Afrin for nasal congestion - yes, there's a temporary relief, but do it too much and you can't get off of it without the congestion being worse than before.

The issue is that the only way to keep the sprawl in check is to build multi-family housing to replace slums and clear the slums and build replacement single family housing communities.  We know how that frames in the political correct 2020's. That leaves the choices are simply greenfield building versus gentrification.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah there's a lot of moving parts to this. They're also exist at it to suggest that people do generally want cars as opposed to taking alternative transportation. Count me in as someone that prefers suburban sprawl over dense urban development with trains and cycleways. Though I do think we need more of the latter.

[TXtoNJ]

If the restaurant only sells Coke and most people get Coke, does that mean everyone prefers Coke?

I'm not understanding this analogy.

If the consumer is only limited to one option, then how can one make a statement about their preference?  That's what I mean.

But in this case alternatives do exist even in Houston. Shitty service but it's there. We need to focus on increasing transit connections, better service, and more cycling infrastructure along with expanding infrastructure for cars.

The issue isn't so much the infrastructure so much as the development it incentivizes - hugely-profitable single-family detached suburban housing on greenfields, that subsequently require more car infrastructure for the traffic this land use generates.

It's like using Afrin for nasal congestion - yes, there's a temporary relief, but do it too much and you can't get off of it without the congestion being worse than before.

The issue is that the only way to keep the sprawl in check is to build multi-family housing to replace slums and clear the slums and build replacement single family housing communities.  We know how that frames in the political correct 2020's. That leaves the choices are simply greenfield building versus gentrification.

You mainly need to upscale SFD housing in central areas where land values are high, and that's where the NIMBYs start shrieking bloody murder. Slums generally have higher density by necessity, even if it's of the informal variety.

The real problem is that upper-middle class landholders in desirable areas don't want their neighbors cashing out and converting their houses to 2 to 4-plexes, because they feel it will decrease property values, or increase traffic, even if that's demonstrably not the case. Press further, and you get the "change the character of the neighborhood" - in reality, they don't want to associate with owners or renters they feel are beneath their social class.

Houston's actually been one of the better areas to address these issues, but a lot of that has been an accident of history - inside the loop north of Buffalo Bayou was so depressed, for so long, that most of the landowners were renting their houses out. They didn't mind cashing out whole blocks to put up "townhouse farms". However, 15 years onward from when the density boom really picked up, you're hearing the NIMBY lines of complaint that wouldn't be out of place in Austin.

[kernals12]

The massive infill development in Houston's core is the entire reason for the project that is the subject of this thread. Studies have shown that reduced VMT in denser areas is largely self-selection bias, i.e. people who don't like driving tend to live in denser areas. These urbanites don't stay in the city, they have relatives to visit and jobs to go to in the suburbs.

[Plutonic Panda]

The massive infill development in Houston's core is the entire reason for the project that is the subject of this thread. Studies have shown that reduced VMT in denser areas is largely self-selection bias, i.e. people who don't like driving tend to live in denser areas. These urbanites don't stay in the city, they have relatives to visit and jobs to go to in the suburbs.

I think there is some truth. It's hard to prove a false negative(is that the correct term?). To say that someone could be doing something they aren't but would if x was true isn't easy to prove. Not really sure if any study has been taken to try and look into that.

If you gave someone the option to have a condo the same size as their suburban home, quick parking, a private large patio/yard(something only seen in ultra luxury units), high quality schools, right next to a transit stop, at the same price of their current house, but the catch is it becomes super inconvenient to drive, would they take it? I know many people that wouldn't because they like living in suburbs. That is their preference. Anecdotal, I know. But I am largely the same way. I'd love living in the far flung reaches of the Phoenix metro with a fleet of cars over anywhere in the center of any major city. I would never take transit unless I was out for a night of drinking.

[Bobby5280]

I think money drives the decisions on where to live more than anything else. The conventional thinking is you get much more house for the money out in the suburbs than you do in the city center. People move farther and farther out trying to find a better balance of affordability weighed against commute times/costs/difficulty. City centers and suburbs have their other pros and cons. But money is the main thing that matters.

[TXtoNJ]

I think money drives the decisions on where to live more than anything else. The conventional thinking is you get much more house for the money out in the suburbs than you do in the city center. People move farther and farther out trying to find a better balance of affordability weighed against commute times/costs/difficulty. City centers and suburbs have their other pros and cons. But money is the main thing that matters.

You're 100% correct. The bigger questions are around why greenfield construction leads to cheaper housing options than densifying existing stock. Ultimately, it comes down to public policy.

[bwana39]

I think money drives the decisions on where to live more than anything else. The conventional thinking is you get much more house for the money out in the suburbs than you do in the city center. People move farther and farther out trying to find a better balance of affordability weighed against commute times/costs/difficulty. City centers and suburbs have their other pros and cons. But money is the main thing that matters.

You're 100% correct. The bigger questions are around why greenfield construction leads to cheaper housing options than densifying existing stock. Ultimately, it comes down to public policy.

No, it comes from an economic precept. Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.). Which means in practice that urban land is worth more than rural land because it has an established price that is more. Even when a seller incurs a loss, it is because he overpaid for it initially not because it actually is worth less now.  The cost of raw land will hardly ever be less than the previous sale even when significant remediation or structure removal costs are going to incurred.