North Houston Highway Improvement Project (project resumed March 2023)

[Bobby5280]

The "High 5" in Dallas (US-75 I-635) was over a billion a decade ago...

No. The High Five project in Dallas was built for around $260 million. Not a billion. I remember following progress of that project and even checking out the site in person a couple different times before it was finished.

(Edit: Just now seeing J N Winkler's response)

If you look at what they're doing, $1 billion isn't that shocking. They are straightening out both freeways and creating an immensely complicated spaghetti junction.

I can understand why the entire I-45/I-10/I-69 project around downtown Houston would run into the billions of dollars. That's a lot of new roadways running on elevated structures for pretty long distances around the downtown zone. But one interchange is just one interchange. And if TX DOT is forced to cancel or scale-back a lot of the plans then a new I-45/I-10 interchange would have to be affected just as much.

[bwana39]

The Houston Business Journal is reporting strong support for the new downtown design from the downtown business community. This support is crucial because those interests have political influence. Strong support could also move it to construction sooner, especially with the likelihood of a substantial increase in TxDOT's budget.

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/blog/breaking-ground/2015/04/houston-real-estate-heavyweights-all-for-downtown.html

Houston real estate heavyweights all for downtown highway transformation
Apr 30, 2015, 11:41am CDT


A plan to decommission a portion of I-45 running through downtown Houston could increase development and connectivity downtown, real estate experts say.

A Texas Department of Transportation proposal to realign Interstate 45 downtown with Highway 59 would render the Pierce Elevated, a portion of I-45 that runs along Pierce Street through the central business district, unused. At a recent Urban Land Institute panel on downtown Houston, real estate experts were united in support of the plan to demolish or transform the Pierce Elevated.

The group of panelists, representing various sectors of the real estate industry including office, multifamily and retail, all agreed that the plan would lessen or remove a barrier between areas of downtown that could result in improved connectivity and more development.

"I couldn't be more enthusiastic about it," said Sanford Criner, vice chairman at CBRE with more than 40 years' experience with office leasing and development. "Mobility is always important, but our problem isn't getting people downtown, it's what can we do with them when they're here?

....
 

If this is what downtown Houston wants good for them. I will make one comment here. The Pierce elevated doesn't physically separate anything. EVERY street crosses (under) it. It may very well create an emotional barrier, but that said, if they just commenced building one block west of it, the continuity of downtown would happen.

As much of the problem with the elevated is what goes on under it. Houston as much as many other major cities has a homeless problem. The one problem getting rid of the elevated freeway would actually solve is there would probably not be a convenient place for the homeless to camp. I am not sure of the solution to homelessness, but getting rid of a freeway just moves the homeless encampments to another location. It does nothing for the homeless people.

[MaxConcrete]

I just became aware of this document published by the downtown Houston TIRZ (tax increment reinvestment zone) on March 8
NHHIP exhibits start on page 26
http://www.downtowntirz.com/downtownhouston/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Board-Book-FINAL-3.8.22.pdf

According to page 29 (exhibit page 11), "TxDOT is providing a 30-acre concrete cap over the trenched highways." That statement isn't clear to me. Does it mean TxDOT is providing it in the design (without paying for it), or is TxDOT actually paying for its construction?

A 30-acre deck will increase the cost by at least $500 million, and probably much more. If TxDOT pays for the NHHIP deck, it means TxDOT will also need to pay for decks in Austin (IH-35) and Dallas (IH-345 and IH-30), which could be another $1 billion in expense.

Looking at the document, including the added work of the deck park, reinforces that NHHIP is a tremendously ambitious project. The presentation doesn't even cover a potential Pierce Elevated park. And of course the NHHIP section north of downtown is highly ambitious, if it can move forward.

[Thegeet]

Here's an article I found just now: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Opponents-deluge-TxDOT-officials-with-calls-to-17107221.php

[kernals12]

Pretty obvious astroturfing

[Anthony_JK]

If Houston is that opposed to this project, then may as well just pull it.

Extend the Hardy Toll Road down to the 69/10 interchange and let that serve as the 45 reliever.

Extend the Westpark Tollway west to a connection with I-10 west of Katy and use that to relieve I-10/Katy Tollway.

Complete the SH 146 connection to I-45 South and the eastern semicircle of the Grand Parkway.

Use alternative public transport (buses, expanded light rail) for the rest.

Either that, or allow the New Urbanists to blow up/tear down every freeway inside of 610.

[bwana39]

We keep talking about the infeasibility of a tunnel, but the fact is they are going to build a fully depressed roadway (with the goal of putting a deck park above it.) While it will only be about 20 to 25 feet below grade, it is still a tunnel for all practical purposes subject to the same flooding that a true tunnel would be. Arguments against a tunnel however well founded or not are moot.

As to the practical application, the Washburn Tunnel has stood since the fifties without flooding being a problem.  The Baytown tunnel had its problems, but flooding was not one of them. I will admit that the depressed portion of the Southwest Freeway DID flood during a hurricane some years ago, but it remains in the same depressed canyon.

Way back here we discussed the deck parks. We may not have discussed whom is paying for them, but we did discuss them.

As to funding a different project.....

The Deck park expansion on Woodall Rogers in Dallas was bid by TXDOT.... https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30808.msg2695994#msg2695994

[abqtraveler]

We keep talking about the infeasibility of a tunnel, but the fact is they are going to build a fully depressed roadway (with the goal of putting a deck park above it.) While it will only be about 20 to 25 feet below grade, it is still a tunnel for all practical purposes subject to the same flooding that a true tunnel would be. Arguments against a tunnel however well founded or not are moot.

As to the practical application, the Washburn Tunnel has stood since the fifties without flooding being a problem.  The Baytown tunnel had its problems, but flooding was not one of them. I will admit that the depressed portion of the Southwest Freeway DID flood during a hurricane some years ago, but it remains in the same depressed canyon.

Tunnels that are properly designed to withstand...say a 500-year flood event would incorporate design elements such as drainage systems, pumps, and bulkhead doors that can keep the entire tunnel system dry, or at the very worst, isolate flooding to the smallest area possible during a major flood event. Other cities that are prone to flooding have successfully tunneled freeways below their urban cores with designs where the tunnels stay dry during such floods. It can be done in Houston as well.

Way back here we discussed the deck parks. We may not have discussed whom is paying for them, but we did discuss them.

As to funding a different project.....

The Deck park expansion on Woodall Rogers in Dallas was bid by TXDOT.... https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30808.msg2695994#msg2695994

[cbalducc]

Now the Houston interstate revolt has made news in Great Britain.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/29/texas-highway-expansions-project-displacements-protests

I think the best way of this revolt succeeding is to elect a mayor who is against the project.

[cbalducc]

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.
[/quote]
Doesn't urban land decrease in value if it is located in an area that is no longer desirable?

[MaxConcrete]

Demolition of the large warehouse just east of Main Street is in progress. These photos were taken today. This is the largest building by land area to be demolished so far, and probably the largest in square footage. (A large three-floor office building was demolished just east of this location, possibly more square footage than the warehouse but probably not.)

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20220501-NHHIP-ROW-b.jpg


http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20220501-NHHIP-ROW-a.jpg


The image below shows the warehouse location at the end of Naylor Street. This location is actually a right-of-way squeeze point. Due to the railroad on the north and the historic building on the south (the long rectangular building on Naylor Street), the available right-of-way is only 360 feet wide. The Interstate 10 main lanes are stacked on top of the frontage roads. At the warehouse location, all freeway lanes will be transitioning from depressed (eastward) to superelevated (westward) to go over the elevated light rail along Main Street. Interstate 45 (yellow lanes) are an extra level up.

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/warehouse-location.jpg

[brad2971]

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.

This might be correct when talking about numbers of dollars paid. If we are talking about the inflation-adjusted value of urban or rural land, vast swaths of the Midwest and Great Plains states vehemently disagree with the idea that "Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.)." This chart shows the 25-year dip in  inflation adjusted value of ag land just since 1970:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-value-tenure/farmland-value/

And if we're discussing urban land, Detroit, Gary, Muncie, Cleveland, even Buffalo have some things to say about "Land NEVER reduces in value" as well.

[kernals12]

I just found something hilarious on the website of one of the groups opposing this


They claim that public transit is superior in every way then they immediately start complaining about the problems caused by trains
Edit: also, their grammar leaves much to be desired

[Plutonic Panda]

And if we're discussing urban land, Detroit, Gary, Muncie, Cleveland, even Buffalo have some things to say about "Land NEVER reduces in value" as well.

Unless some unfortunate circumstance manifests that reduces the human population by double digit percentage points, even the land in the cities you mentioned will eventually become more and more expensive. That is the point; that land almost will certainly increase in value over time. Maybe in the short term they may drop in value but they will increase in the future.

[bwana39]

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.

This might be correct when talking about numbers of dollars paid. If we are talking about the inflation-adjusted value of urban or rural land, vast swaths of the Midwest and Great Plains states vehemently disagree with the idea that "Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.)." This chart shows the 25-year dip in  inflation adjusted value of ag land just since 1970:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-value-tenure/farmland-value/

And if we're discussing urban land, Detroit, Gary, Muncie, Cleveland, even Buffalo have some things to say about "Land NEVER reduces in value" as well.

I am going to own this one. I agree if you do detailed current value versus inflation you are 100% correct. All types of properties may fail to keep up with (or outperform) inflation. My original statement was probably ambiguous. I should have said previous price point as opposed to previous price.

I might add that part of the reason those rustbelt cities have structures that are falling in is one or both of two reasons. 1) Owners hold onto them because they will not take a loss. 2) The worth of the land is (viewed as) worth more than the reduced value of the structure with land.  People don't take losses on real properties unless they have NO other alternative.

[Anthony_JK]

I just found something hilarious on the website of one of the groups opposing this


They claim that public transit is superior in every way then they immediately start complaining about the problems caused by trains
Edit: also, their grammar leaves much to be desired

I believe they are talking more about heavy freight rail lines passing through neighborhoods: they would favor converting arterials and freeway ROW for passenger freight (light rail and commuter rail).

What they forget about freeways is that they are not necessarily for urban sprawl; they also provide direct service to downtown business districts as well as large venues within the inner city itself (in Houston's case, Minute Maid Park, for example). The fact that they were originally built over mostly poor neighborhoods of color without any thought of their residents was a crime and a tragedy, but that doesn't mean that they can't be better integrated within such neighborhoods in a less intrusive and more integrated form. That may be a small comfort for those who would rather oppose them on NIMBY grounds alone, but it is possible to build freeways that can move traffic as well as be much friendlier to the neighborhoods. Obviously, it wouldn't hurt to balance it out with more public transit and even some rail-based transit. That's a far cry, though, from the "FREEWAYS SUCK, TEAR THEM ALL DOWN AND FORCE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS, AND DON'T LET THEM POLLUTE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS!!!" mentality of some of the more rabid New Urbanists.

[kernals12]

Any news on the project from today's TTC meeting?

[MaxConcrete]

Any news on the project from today's TTC meeting?

The powerpoint presentation is posted. I missed the livestream. Video should be posted Friday or Monday. More details are surely available in the discussion.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2022/0526/7c.pdf

Key items in the presentation

Status - May 2022
— FHWA completing its fact-finding phase
— Anticipate a formal FHWA response soon
— Expect discussion to finalize TxDOT's Voluntary Resolution Agreement

If pause were lifted today:
» Results in a minimum three-year delay for construction start
» 3A: let in 2024 at the earliest
» 3B: let in 2025 at the earliest

Sections 3A and 3B are on IH-69 south of IH-45. It looks like a decision is expected soon. The "Voluntary Resolution Agreement" appears to be the solution. The question is, how much downsizing will it involve?

[Anthony_JK]

That would probably mean that the I-45 transfer to I-69 and I-10 is now DOA, right?

If so, what does that mean for the Pierre Elevated portion of I-45? Is it still scheduled to be removed and converted into a surface connection to local streets?

Also, what does that mean for the improvements to I-45 from I-10 to I-610? I still say that extending the Hardy Toll Road to I-69/I-10 would be a more feasible and less extreme option.

[MaxConcrete]

That would probably mean that the I-45 transfer to I-69 and I-10 is now DOA, right?

If so, what does that mean for the Pierre Elevated portion of I-45? Is it still scheduled to be removed and converted into a surface connection to local streets?

Also, what does that mean for the improvements to I-45 from I-10 to I-610? I still say that extending the Hardy Toll Road to I-69/I-10 would be a more feasible and less extreme option.

I don't know anything about the terms of the ""Voluntary Resolution Agreement". I was just speculating that FHWA is going to need some concessions for the project to proceed. But I really don't know.

The terms of the agreement could be minimal to the project design, or could be drastic.  We'll find out when the agreement is disclosed.

[kernals12]

Maybe TxDOT will just need to build replacement housing, put in soundwalls, and build more electric car chargers.

[kernals12]

Also: how come they can expand I-35 in San Antonio with elevated express lanes, but not do the same in Houston?

[MaxConcrete]

Also: how come they can expand I-35 in San Antonio with elevated express lanes, but not do the same in Houston?

San Antonio has historically been willing to accept elevated lanes, mainly the elevated lanes on Interstate 10 and around downtown. San Antonio appears to have concluded that elevated lanes are not harmful and are preferred over displacements. San Antonio is much smaller in population than DFW and Houston, so they're wise enough to know that their funding allocations are much smaller and they need to stretch their funding as far as possible by avoiding very expensive designs like trenches and deck parks.

Elevated lanes were considered for most of the length of NHHIP including another deck above the Pierce Elevated and along IH-45 north of downtown. Most elevated lanes options were rejected. I was not in Houston at the time of that planning phase around 2010, but I believe they were rejected due to opposition due to perceived community impacts, and the only new elevated lanes in the final design are on the north side of downtown.

[kernals12]

Also: how come they can expand I-35 in San Antonio with elevated express lanes, but not do the same in Houston?

San Antonio has historically been willing to accept elevated lanes, mainly the elevated lanes on Interstate 10 and around downtown. San Antonio appears to have concluded that elevated lanes are not harmful and are preferred over displacements. San Antonio is much smaller in population than DFW and Houston, so they're wise enough to know that their funding allocations are much smaller and they need to stretch their funding as far as possible by avoiding very expensive designs like trenches and deck parks.

Elevated lanes were considered for most of the length of NHHIP including another deck above the Pierce Elevated and along IH-45 north of downtown. Most elevated lanes options were rejected. I was not in Houston at the time of that planning phase around 2010, but I believe they were rejected due to opposition due to perceived community impacts, and the only new elevated lanes in the final design are on the north side of downtown.

Really? People actually preferred hundreds of residential and business displacements just because elevated lanes look kind of ugly?

[TXtoNJ]

Also: how come they can expand I-35 in San Antonio with elevated express lanes, but not do the same in Houston?

San Antonio has historically been willing to accept elevated lanes, mainly the elevated lanes on Interstate 10 and around downtown. San Antonio appears to have concluded that elevated lanes are not harmful and are preferred over displacements. San Antonio is much smaller in population than DFW and Houston, so they're wise enough to know that their funding allocations are much smaller and they need to stretch their funding as far as possible by avoiding very expensive designs like trenches and deck parks.

Elevated lanes were considered for most of the length of NHHIP including another deck above the Pierce Elevated and along IH-45 north of downtown. Most elevated lanes options were rejected. I was not in Houston at the time of that planning phase around 2010, but I believe they were rejected due to opposition due to perceived community impacts, and the only new elevated lanes in the final design are on the north side of downtown.

Really? People actually preferred hundreds of residential and business displacements just because elevated lanes look kind of ugly?

You been to Houston?