North Houston Highway Improvement Project (project resumed March 2023)

[STLmapboy]

It is going to displace communities. It SHOULD place the displaced residents in better housing, better neighborhoods, adn better prospects fo rthe future.

I'd rather see "equivalent" in place of "better".  I don't consider it to the job of the DOT to provide upward mobility at taxpayer expense.

Yeah. I believe one of the projects will be demolished for this.

[silverback1065]

i would think they would be happy for this. it removes a massive stretch of highway and will reconnect so much. what's not to like about that?

[bwana39]

It is going to displace communities. It SHOULD place the displaced residents in better housing, better neighborhoods, adn better prospects fo rthe future.

I'd rather see "equivalent" in place of "better".  I don't consider it to the job of the DOT to provide upward mobility at taxpayer expense.

Yeah. I believe one of the projects will be demolished for this.

By better, I don't think I mean fancier. I think what I mean is better maintained in a place with better schools and opportunities.  The point is to replace the substandard housing with units that meet the minimal standards for decency.

The biggest problem in our cities is the failure to maintain properties. As housing standards go down, crime goes up. I get that this problem does not belong to the DOT, at the same time getting rid of substandard housing is desirable regardless of how it is attained.

[kphoger]

The point is to replace the substandard housing with units that meet the minimal standards for decency.

This I can get behind.

in a place with better schools and opportunities.

This I cannot.

getting rid of substandard housing is desirable regardless of how it is attained.

This I'm not sure about.

[webny99]

It is going to displace communities. It SHOULD place the displaced residents in better housing, better neighborhoods, and better prospects for the future.

I'd rather see "equivalent" in place of "better".  I don't consider it to the job of the DOT to provide upward mobility at taxpayer expense.

Agree as a general rule, but the problem is that "equivalent" can be hard to measure, as where do you draw the line between "equivalent" and "worse"?

[MaxConcrete]

An updated animated rendering was posted today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpP0HrHrlRs

This rendering is consistent with the December 2019 schematic. The main changes are the elimination of the connections to Chenevert at the 69/288 interchange, sinking the south end of the downtown connector into a trench, and some tweaking of the eastbound frontage road on the southwest side of the 69/10/45 interchange.

I don't see changes to the design since the December 2019 schematic. When the the City of Houston published its measured opposition to the project earlier this year, it included a wish list of changes in the downtown area (but no major downsizing was requested in the downtown area).

An H-GAC committee is currently studying the project and how to handle the CoH requests for changes. My best guess is that they needed the TxDOT design to be accurately shown in the rendering, so it was updated. I'm thinking that changes are still possible and likely depending on the committee recommendation.

The animation still does not cover the 45/10 multiplex on the northwest side of downtown, which is one of the more interesting sections of the project.

[bwana39]

The title on thread states a fallacy. TXDOT did not recommend this. TXDOT said I-45 through downtown needed rebuilt. Their original goal was to replace it in the same basic footprint as it currently occupies. Urbanists demanded that the current I-45 route be abandoned. The city of Houston supported the Urbanist initiative.  TXDOT has proposed a road that accomplishes both goals. IE .."This is what Houston asked for"

From an Urbanist perspective;the cross country freeways should barely cross the  outskirts of the metro area. Then PERHAPS freeways leading TO downtown but not through it or even around it. Arterials would route traffic into and out of downtown and discourage thru traffic.

Not sure it is a win for the Urbanists. Between the pain of construction on ALL THREE of the downtown interstates, it may take 2 decades to ever settle in from the construction.  About the only saving grace is that I-45 on the west side of downtown is slated to stay to after the mid-point of the project.

[Plutonic Panda]

The project as currently proposed is absolutely incredible and will do wonders for Houston. It's beautiful and I hope it is built. Houston will be a better city once this is built.

[Bruce]

God this whole thread makes me want to puke.

All this money could be used to fix some of Houston's more pressing needs, like having a functional drainage system or rail transit.

[sprjus4]

God this whole thread makes me want to puke.

All this money could be used to fix some of Houston's more pressing needs, like having a functional drainage system or rail transit.

Meanwhile traffic on the existing interstates, which is already terrible, will continue to get significantly worse in future years. The rebuild was needed 20 years ago.

Have you ever driven I-10 / I-45 / I-69 around Downtown during rush hour?

[Bruce]

God this whole thread makes me want to puke.

All this money could be used to fix some of Houston's more pressing needs, like having a functional drainage system or rail transit.

Meanwhile traffic on the existing interstates, which is already terrible, will continue to get significantly worse in future years. The rebuild was needed 20 years ago.

Have you ever driven I-10 / I-45 / I-69 around Downtown during rush hour?

No, but I've seen plenty of credible data to suggest that wanton freeway expansion in Houston has resulted in more traffic, not less: Reducing congestion: Katy didn't (uses Transtar data).

A smart strategy of easing chokepoints and investing in real alternatives (and thinking beyond just the pandemic) like public transit would actually work.

[sprjus4]

No, but I've seen plenty of credible data to suggest that wanton freeway expansion in Houston has resulted in more traffic, not less: Reducing congestion: Katy didn't (uses Transtar data).

Ah, the induced demand fallacy.

A smart strategy of easing chokepoints and investing in real alternatives (and thinking beyond just the pandemic) like public transit would actually work.

Not against having public transit, but there's little to suggest that it would do much to actually ease congestion. Most people are going to continue to prefer to drive, despite what RE/T groups may believe.

Did it ever occur that not all traffic is local? Houston is the junction of 3 major interstate highways that carry a significant amount of through traffic. Expanding light rail and transit isn't going to result in rush hour becoming free flowing on the interstates. Expansion of roads is necessary and will continue as planned.

Are you suggesting I-35 in Downtown Austin is adequate and shouldn't be expanded?

[rte66man]

God this whole thread makes me want to puke.

All this money could be used to fix some of Houston's more pressing needs, like having a functional drainage system or rail transit.

Rail transit in Houston won't work because the major business areas are too diffused. Downtown, Airport, Galleria, Spring, the Woodlands etc. plus all the reverse commutes. But the biggest reason is the car culture is too entrenched. Mass transit works better where business is far more concentrated.

I see you are from the greater Seattle area. If Houston was laid out all strung out from north to south like that, then public transit might work. Houston is like a giant wagon wheel with expansion on all 4 sides (only constricted by Galveston Bay). Rail transit would be prohibitively expensive to build out.

[Plutonic Panda]

God this whole thread makes me want to puke.

All this money could be used to fix some of Houston's more pressing needs, like having a functional drainage system or rail transit.

Meanwhile traffic on the existing interstates, which is already terrible, will continue to get significantly worse in future years. The rebuild was needed 20 years ago.

Have you ever driven I-10 / I-45 / I-69 around Downtown during rush hour?

No, but I've seen plenty of credible data to suggest that wanton freeway expansion in Houston has resulted in more traffic, not less: Reducing congestion: Katy didn't (uses Transtar data).

A smart strategy of easing chokepoints and investing in real alternatives (and thinking beyond just the pandemic) like public transit would actually work.

The overwhelmingly majority of people there use the car. This is an amazing project. Houston can have a rail expansion with this project.

FYI, this project will support BRT, improve walkability/biking infrastructure, build parks, and improve operations to the red line.

[Chris]

No, but I've seen plenty of credible data to suggest that wanton freeway expansion in Houston has resulted in more traffic, not less: Reducing congestion: Katy didn't (uses Transtar data).

The population of Greater Houston has grown by nearly 2.5 million people since 2000. That's similar to the entire metro area of cities like Austin, Kansas City, Portland, Sacramento or Las Vegas added in just 20 years.

[bwana39]

A smart strategy of easing chokepoints and investing in real alternatives (and thinking beyond just the pandemic) like public transit would actually work.

Getting people from the Houston suburbs on mass transit?   Even if you could relatively cover all directions, the mindset just isn't there 

[rte66man]

Went back and forth a few times on the TxDOT conceptualization as it relates to the Hardy Connector.  From what I saw, no connection from WB 10 to NB Hardy and I wasn't able to see under the deck by the convention center but there wasn't a connection for SB Hardy to EB 45. If true, that is really unfortunate.

[bwana39]

i would think they would be happy for this. it removes a massive stretch of highway and will reconnect so much. what's not to like about that?

The developers are happy about it. The urbanists are still unhappy. Their goal for freeway removal is removal WITHOUT replacement. This replacement actually will clear out moderate and lower income people, street level businesses, and lots more.  This may even be a LOSS for the urbanists as there will be more lane miles downtown after it is finished than there currently are.

[Bobby5280]

The New Urbanists need to get themselves caught up with some current events (along with some other key groups of people involved in urban planning and development).

These trendy yet high cost of living urban centers are facing an existential threat brought on by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, resulting economic downturn and the various yet persistent states of lock-down. Businesses and residents are both figuring out they don't really have to live and work in the hard to afford urban center. Improvements in technology and leaps in Internet speeds are making it possible for them to leave for less costly locations with far shorter commute times (or no drive time at all).

There is suddenly a lot more empty offices in these urban centers. And there is a growing number of changed minds and attitudes about people working remotely from home, after the pandemic forced many businesses to try it. Tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs. A big wave of rental evictions and property foreclosures will start rolling any day now. These urban Whole Foods Utopias are going to get hurt.

Even for people living in urban centers who are still doing well financially they've seen their quality of life get hit by this pandemic. Many outlets of leisure, entertainment and nightlife are still closed or only partially re-opened with restrictions. We may eventually get a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. But how long will it be until the next pandemic hits? There is no guarantee life will go 100% back to "normal" anytime soon. How many people will still want to pay a high premium to live in an urban center that's as dull as any small town?

Houston doesn't have a living cost problem quite as absurd as New York City or San Francisco. But it's not exactly cheap either. The suburbs in the Houston metro have exploded in size due in large part to people looking for more home for their bucks. A great deal of decentralization has happened. The downtown area of Houston doesn't have a monopoly on high rise office space or even culture and nightlife. The consequences of this pandemic will make it more obvious.

If TX DOT wants to do a big overhaul of the downtown Houston freeway network I think they'll eventually be able to do what they wish. Given the current circumstances and likely trends going forward, the New Urbanists won't be able to block this project forever, much less sustain their philosophy for the long term either. Factors like income inequality, falling fertility rates and now these pandemics just fowl up that whole idea. Social Distancing may give way to Living Distancing

[Chris]

A great deal of decentralization has happened. The downtown area of Houston doesn't have a monopoly on high rise office space or even culture and nightlife.

I've read this interesting statistic about I-35E in Dallas (in relation to the Horseshoe Project), that when I-35E was built 80% of traffic on it had a destination or origin in downtown Dallas. Nowadays, 80% just passes by, to another point in the metro area.

The problem with 'new urbanism' and transit advocates is that they still think in terms of everything must go to downtown, as if we are still in the 1950s. Rail services are still mostly catering to that, but that has become a small minority of all commuting and non-commuting trips in an urban area.

The same goes for criticism about sprawl, it's still measured in distance from downtown while someone living in the Katy or Woodlands area isn't even that likely to travel all the way to downtown Houston on I-10 or I-45. The highest traffic volume on I-10 is way west of downtown, traffic volumes actually go down as you approach downtown, contrary to 'conventional wisdom' that there is an ever larger flow of traffic joining the freeway on their way to downtown. That's how rail transit work, but that's not how road transportation works anymore.

[Bobby5280]

The problem with 'new urbanism' and transit advocates is that they still think in terms of everything must go to downtown, as if we are still in the 1950s. Rail services are still mostly catering to that, but that has become a small minority of all commuting and non-commuting trips in an urban area.

I think the New Urbanist mindset is even more outdated than that. One thing many of them like to do is point to European cities, where there is a far greater level of density, mixed use properties, walk-ability, use of mass transit and longer distance rail transit. They want American cities to function more like these European cities. But they conveniently overlook the fact those European cities were built-out long before automobiles became popular. In some cases the street layouts pre-date automobiles by hundreds of years.

Rail travel made the first form of urban sprawl possible. Cities like London and Paris or even New York City and Boston here in the US used rail travel to grow out to their current boundaries. Some of these rail corridors are just as big and disruptive as a major highway. Many old cities have one or more major railroad stations built in the city centers. There's no doubt those train stations and rail corridors going to them displaced a lot of homes in order to be built. Prior to rail everyone was on foot, on a horse or in a horse-drawn carriage. Cities were far smaller in geographical size and far more densely packed with population.

Back in the 1980's metro areas like Dallas-Fort Worth and the Northern Virginia suburbs of DC began to change the relationship of downtown urban centers and the suburbs. The old idea was big business needed to locate its operations in a skyscraper downtown and let the employees commute in from the suburbs. JCPenney's move from Manhattan to the Dallas area was a key example. Rather than renting space in a tower downtown they built a new HQ campus miles away in Plano. JCPenney chose to build its HQ closer to where its employees would likely be living.

The Manhattan commercial real estate market was still able to thrive in the last 30 years. But a lot of that has been supplemented by international customers and speculators. The commercial real estate market in Manhattan is now in a deep tail-spin. And not all of the down-turn is COVID-19 related. Meanwhile the DFW market is currently the hottest commercial real estate market in the nation, followed by Austin.

[Chris]

Most American urbanists also seem to have a romanticized idea of transportation in Europe. The share of driving is around 80% in most EU countries, fluctuating between 75 and 90% in most countries. Yes you can get around by public transport, but if your destination is not in a city center it is time-consuming and impractical, so most people drive.

These people tend to overlook the fact that traveling as a tourist is very different from regular daily commuting, where the vast majority of trips do not start and end in a historic, dense city center.

And unlike U.S. cities, European downtowns tends to have far less office employment. A large chunk of city center employment is in the hospitality, retail and tourist sector, which are mostly low-paying jobs in areas with a high cost of living, effectively creating some kind of an urban / suburban-periphery divide in terms of socio-economics but also transportation patterns.

[bwana39]

Here is a simple fact. As far as disruption goes, it would be less disruptive to close the Pierce elevated  and tear it down then Dig a cut and cover tunnel for I-45 along its current route.  Close the tunnel in. Build the streetscape that the various downtown groups want on the surface.  Do little or nothing to the fairly recently constructed or revamped (current) I-10 and I-69.

They should leave I-10 and I-69 as is and build the tunnel. The disruption of the (extra) traffic  detoured around downtown probably would be similar to the disruption from rebuilding I-69 and I-10 even with the current I-45 still open.  It might be less. Undoubtedly it would NOT be more.

Flooding.  Come on... The Washburn tunnel in Pasadena has been there 60 years. The Baytown Tunnel was there for 40+. The Belle Chase Tunnel  and the Harvey Tunnel in metro New Orleans , there is even a tunnel in Houma LA. The tunnels in Mobile are way closer to the gulf than this.  The cut and cover proposed  over I-69 / I-45 is going to be in effect tunnel.  (Much like the Woodall Rogers Freeway in Dallas.)

They are going to build a tunnel regardless of where I-45 is routed.  Frankly it has the same likelihood of flooding as Central Expressway in Dallas (the below grade sections north of downtown)  if they use similar drainage techniques. https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/06/hurricane-harvey-floods-houston-water-tunnel/  (Central drains using a similar algorithm.)     Remember when the Southwest freeway flooded and boats were floating down it.   Any roadway in Houston (or even less flood prone areas) is going to require flood mitigation of one sort or another if it is significantly below grade. 

The only advantage of the proposed east / north loop over a tunnel along the current route of I-45 is if developers wanted to build another set of skyscrapers down the (current) R.O.W. once I-45 is removed.

One other advantage to keeping the current I-45 alignment: 1 wreck on the proposed roadway could completely shutdown two or even all three freeways. I know Houston police do a better job of getting traffic going after a wreck than others (especially DALLAS) but.....

[Bobby5280]

Most American urbanists also seem to have a romanticized idea of transportation in Europe.

I suspect at least some are transportation hypocrites. That really goes for people in positions to actually change policy, like politicians and other community leaders. They'll recommend the "average person" strap-hang on a city bus or subway train. Meanwhile those New Urbanists are actually driving, using a taxi cab or even a private car service. 30 years ago when I lived in NYC it seemed like a status symbol to not have to use mass transit.

The only thing I miss about commuting in New York City: the Staten Island Ferry. The scenery was pretty cool. However I do not miss waiting on the ferry in the terminals, having to stand due to all the homeless people sleeping (and peeing) on the benches. I don't miss riding the bus or the subway.

Here is a simple fact. As far as disruption goes, it would be less disruptive to close the Pierce elevated  and tear it down then Dig a cut and cover tunnel for I-45 along its current route.

Building a cut and cover tunnel in downtown Houston is a non-starter. First: there is no such thing as anyone building a super highway tunnel in the US without it costing an absolutely insane amount of money. Second: Houston is badly flood prone. Some of their freeways can act like bath tubs to hold flood water. Tunnels don't hold up so well to that.

[bwana39]

Here is a simple fact. As far as disruption goes, it would be less disruptive to close the Pierce elevated  and tear it down then Dig a cut and cover tunnel for I-45 along its current route.

Building a cut and cover tunnel in downtown Houston is a non-starter. First: there is no such thing as anyone building a super highway tunnel in the US without it costing an absolutely insane amount of money. Second: Houston is badly flood prone. Some of their freeways can act like bath tubs to hold flood water. Tunnels don't hold up so well to that.

"A seven-block “cap” will cover the freeway behind the GRB, creating the possibility of a park that reconnects Downtown to EaDo. South of Downtown, TxDOT will change I-69 from elevated to depressed,..." (https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2019/06/03/experts-share-what-txdots-i-45-project-means-houston)

This will in effect be a tunnel! As to tunnel cost, the tunnels we have built in the major cities of late have been bored tunnels. I am talking cut and cover. Just like the depressed / deck park sections would functionally be. Don't say a tunnel won't work all the while you plan on building a tunnel. The expense of the proposed I-45 (and rebuilt I-69 and I-10)would far outweigh a cleanly built tunnel along the current I-45 route if it is closed for the duration.

I said tunnel. I guess I should have said depressed freeway with a continuous cap?