Houston: TxDOT study recommendations reflect new reality

[MaxConcrete]

Recently TxDOT released the recommendations of studies for long-term improvements to the following
1. Interstate 45 north of Houston, from Beltway 8 to Conroe. (Beltway 8 is the north limit of NHHIP)
2. The full length of SH 225, and the section of Loop 610 from west of I-45 (Gulf Freeway) to north of Interstate 10 (East Freeway)

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/houston/i45n-pel-092623.html
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/houston/sh225-and-i610-pel-101723.html

These recommendations are from the "PEL" process, which is Planning and Environmental Linkages.

The new reality is that urban right-of-way acquisition for freeways is no longer politically feasible in Houston. In both cases elevated managed lanes were recommended to minimize and/or eliminate right-of-way acquisition.

Blocking any and all right-of-way acquisition is now the preferred anti-freeway tool for anti-freeway activists. Of course TxDOT can go up, which is what it now plans to do. But elevated lanes are more expensive, which means it will take longer to get done, or fewer projects can get done with available funding.

For the I-45 recommendation, there are numerous problems and I submitted the comments below. Realistically, I don't expect any managed lanes to be built until after NHHIP is complete, and NHHIP is scheduled to be completed at Beltway 8 in 2042. So this is a long way in the future. I may not even see it in my remaining life.

For the SH 225/Loop 610 recommendation, the presentation lacks details and is very incomplete, in my opinion.
1. No mention of where the managed lanes are actually needed. SH 225 is not known for having traffic congestion. Are the managed lanes mainly for Loop 610?
2. No mention of the interchange at Loop 610 and SH 225. This interchange was built with the assumption that SH 225 would extend westward, but of course that was canceled.
3. No mention of the interchange at Loop 610 and the Gulf Freeway. This interchange is probably the main problem spot in the entire study area, particularly backups on the Gulf Freeway south of Loop 610 caused by the interchange.
4. No mention of plans for the new Loop 610 ship channel bridge, or how managed lanes would be integrated into the bridge.
5. I think upgrading SH 225 to 4x4 for the full length would be sufficient and much less expensive. I think dismissing that option was a mistake. They justify it with a matrix which has an "x" for three objectives.
6. The Loop 610 bridge is most likely the only work which might proceed before 2040. It has a separate study which should launch soon.
7. So while I don't like the recommendations, these corridors are low priority compared to other needs in Houston, so it's fine with me that nothing will be done for a very long time.


Interstate 45 comments (submitted to TxDOT)

Alternative 2 (At Grade) would be better
I support the addition of managed lanes to Interstate 45. However, alternative 2 (add lanes at grade) would be a better preferred alternative because it
1. Provides better access to the managed lanes for drivers and emergency vehicles
2. Would probably be less expensive
TxDOT should consider a hybrid approach, bringing the managed lanes to ground level where it is feasible to acquire right-of-way. TxDOT should also recognize that the managed lanes will probably not be built before the 2040s, especially considering that NNHIP section 1 is scheduled to be completed in 2042. By the 2040s, the existing pavement may be nearing the end of its service life, so major reconstruction may be required, which would make adding lanes at grade a more feasible option.

Access to managed lanes is insufficient
For the recommended alternative, page 18 in the presentation script shows managed lane access at Beltway 8 and FM 2920. (The park and ride entrance/exit will not be suitable for most drivers.)
The distance between Beltway 8 and FM 2920 is 10 miles, which is an excessively long distance without access. As I suggest above, the managed lanes should be brought to ground level at some point in this section for access.

An additional general purpose lane can and should be added
Between Beltway 8 and FM 1960, the existing HOV is 20 feet wide, and 24 feet including barriers. The depiction on page 17 of the presentation script suggests that the support column is much narrower than 24 feet. This leaves unused space. The support columns for the managed lanes should be offset to one side, leaving sufficient space for the addition of one general-purpose traffic lane on the main lanes. This lane can be added to the northbound or southbound direction, whichever direction would get the most benefit from an additional lane.

The same principle applies north of FM 1960. The two diamond lanes use around 24 feet of width, and the elevated structure columns need only around 10 to 12 feet. The elevated structure should be offset to one side to allow the addition of a general purpose lane in one direction.

Grand Parkway Interchange
There is no mention of the Grand Parkway interchange in the presentation. Completion of the interchange including all missing connection ramps should be a short or medium-term priority. In fact, it should be among the highest priority projects.

Managed Lanes and Major interchanges
The presentation script page 17 states "Improvements at the interchanges with Beltway 8 North, State Highway 99, Hardy Toll Road, and State Highway 242 would be needed in order to accommodate the proposed elevated managed lanes."

It's not realistic and probably financially prohibitive to rebuild these interchanges. The managed lanes should go over the top of these interchanges so these interchanges can remain intact.

[intelati49]

Public transit please

[MaxConcrete]

Public transit please

Public transit in Houston is a financial and ridership disaster. In spite of massive spending and investments, ridership peaked in 2006 and has been in a downward trend ever since. In the most recent fiscal year, every time someone stepped on a Metro bus or train there was a taxpayer subsidy of $15.10.

[intelati49]

I should have been clearer. The increase in friction of road construction *should* be the impetus of increased population density necessitating improved public transit.

How well that's implemented is WAY outside my paygrade. The post above kind of puts a damper on that enthusiasm, but I hope/wish to see a transition to something resembling Seattle

[Rothman]

Public transit please

Public transit in Houston is a financial and ridership disaster. In spite of massive spending and investments, ridership peaked in 2006 and has been in a downward trend ever since. In the most recent fiscal year, every time someone stepped on a Metro bus or train there was a taxpayer subsidy of $15.10.

And how much have we received back from travelers on our roads?

[thisdj78]

I should have been clearer. The increase in friction of road construction *should* be the impetus of increased population density necessitating improved public transit.

How well that's implemented is WAY outside my paygrade. The post above kind of puts a damper on that enthusiasm, but I hope/wish to see a transition to something resembling Seattle

The challenge is that in order for public transit to be effective, it needed to be built and part of the infrastructure as the city was in its infancy of growth. Secondly, it's my opinion that the best transit systems are underground trains with multiple lines across the city (eg. like NYC or European cities). It's not feasible for Houston to do either, so people will stick with their cars and it will be hard to convince them otherwise.

[thisdj78]

And how much have we received back from travelers on our roads?

Houston has a significant amount of commercial and industrial traffic on their freeways. So the question could also be, what do we get back by easing the flow of commerce around the area? These folks can't transport goods and services via public transit.

[Rothman]

And how much have we received back from travelers on our roads?

Houston has a significant amount of commercial and industrial traffic on their freeways. So the question could also be, what do we get back by easing the flow of commerce around the area? These folks can't transport goods and services via public transit.

Then one must also account for the economic activity created by labor being able to get to their workplaces via transit.

Trying to pigeon-hole a one-sided analysis in such a comparison is a bad look.

[intelati49]

If the railroads get their heads out of their collective .. butts. More local services than the cross continental that is in vogue.

The new Trains magazine was hopeful. "On time" vs "maximize train length"

[thisdj78]

And how much have we received back from travelers on our roads?

Houston has a significant amount of commercial and industrial traffic on their freeways. So the question could also be, what do we get back by easing the flow of commerce around the area? These folks can't transport goods and services via public transit.

Then one must also account for the economic activity created by labor being able to get to their workplaces via transit.

Trying to pigeon-hole a one-sided analysis in such a comparison is a bad look.

True, but that brings us back to my point to intelati49: the workers need to be convinced that transit is a better option and I don't see that happening in a city like Houston. First - it's relatively cheap to drive a car in Houston vs cities on the east coast with better transit options: gas is cheaper, parking is cheaper and plentiful, cost of living overall is cheaper. Secondly: No matter what we build, it will be slower than driving a car. But in NYC for example, it's quicker to ride a subway to get across Manhattan than it would be to drive a car. Third: Houston is huge in terms of sq miles. Most transit options are going to serve a small portion of the population just due to the wide variety of locations people are traveling to and from in the area.

[Rothman]

And how much have we received back from travelers on our roads?

Houston has a significant amount of commercial and industrial traffic on their freeways. So the question could also be, what do we get back by easing the flow of commerce around the area? These folks can't transport goods and services via public transit.

Then one must also account for the economic activity created by labor being able to get to their workplaces via transit.

Trying to pigeon-hole a one-sided analysis in such a comparison is a bad look.

True, but that brings us back to my point to intelati49: the workers need to be convinced that transit is a better option and I don't see that happening in a city like Houston. First - it's relatively cheap to drive a car in Houston vs cities on the east coast with better transit options: gas is cheaper, parking is cheaper and plentiful, cost of living overall is cheaper. Secondly: No matter what we build, it will be slower than driving a car. But in NYC for example, it's quicker to ride a subway to get across Manhattan than it would be to drive a car. Third: Houston is huge in terms of sq miles. Most transit options are going to serve a small portion of the population just due to the wide variety of locations people are traveling to and from in the area.

Now we're talking.

[Bobby5280]

I've previously stated how I suspect policy-makers and activists who push an anti-roads agenda in favor of mass transit to be hypocrites. These people are driving their own personal vehicles or even being driven around via a private car service.

A lot of the stuff promoted in "New Urbanism" is just pure romantic fantasy. It's especially absurd when they talk about "everybody" living in the urban core -never mind the reality of any live-able properties being priced sky high. But I guess it's okay for the service industry worker bee types and anyone else not making "mad money" spending hours riding mass transit daily commuting to their shit jobs in that ideal urban core.

It is necessary for any big city to have a mass transit system. But let's be real. There is nothing fun about waiting at a bus stop, exposed to the weather. There's nothing fun about the constant stop-wait-go pace of riding a bus or subway/light-rail train and all the time it kills. It's a real pain in the ass if you have to carry anything on a bus or train, such as a couple bags of groceries. Nothing is convenient about that at all. There is a lot of real-life stuff the New Urbanists types don't include in their life style brochure.

A bunch of New York City's subway system is underground, but most of those tunnels were built several decades ago. Parts of it date back into the 1800's. Look how much the 2nd Avenue subway project is costing and how many years (or decades) it's going to take to get built.

I think I suggested it in another thread, but if politicians and activists in Houston want to block a lot of freeway improvements: FINE. TX DOT should spend those billions of dollars on roads ELSEWHERE in the state. They have dozens of major projects across the state, especially in rural areas, that are starved for funds. For what they're wanting to spend in Houston they could build out huge chunks of I-69 or the Ports to Plains Corridor.

[Chris]

I assume a return trip on Metro counts as two separate boardings (back and forth).

90 million boardings means an average of just under 250,000 per day. If you divide that by half to account for return trips, that is an average of 125,000 return trips per day. In reality it may be even less considering linked trips (bus + lightrail or bus + bus).

That's not much in a metropolitan area with a population of 7.3 million.

Ridership has declined even with investment in new services, plus the very large population growth of the region. And I believe Downtown Houston has also densified since 2001.

There seems to be a trend in U.S. cities where investment in lightrail has led to a decline in actual ridership. Maybe because bus services are cut?

[DNAguy]

For the SH 225/Loop 610 recommendation, the presentation lacks details and is very incomplete, in my opinion.
1. No mention of where the managed lanes are actually needed. SH 225 is not known for having traffic congestion. Are the managed lanes mainly for Loop 610?
2. No mention of the interchange at Loop 610 and SH 225. This interchange was built with the assumption that SH 225 would extend westward, but of course that was canceled.
3. No mention of the interchange at Loop 610 and the Gulf Freeway. This interchange is probably the main problem spot in the entire study area, particularly backups on the Gulf Freeway south of Loop 610 caused by the interchange.
4. No mention of plans for the new Loop 610 ship channel bridge, or how managed lanes would be integrated into the bridge.
5. I think upgrading SH 225 to 4x4 for the full length would be sufficient and much less expensive. I think dismissing that option was a mistake. They justify it with a matrix which has an "x" for three objectives.
6. The Loop 610 bridge is most likely the only work which might proceed before 2040. It has a separate study which should launch soon.
7. So while I don't like the recommendations, these corridors are low priority compared to other needs in Houston, so it's fine with me that nothing will be done for a very long time.

I lived in Houston and worked on the ship channel for close to 15-20 years.

I agree with almost the entirety of your statement.

Maybe I'd push back on #1 if I had to split hairs? But the traffic was always centered in / around the 225 / Beltway interchange or 225 and 610. So I believe you've captured that in your other bullet points.

My major issues with this are the following:

1.) Truck traffic isn't 'through' traffic on 225. The trucks are making stops. Whether it's to the many warehouses, to chemical facilities, etc, these guys aren't using 225 to go from Baytown to let's say downtown. They're going along 225 to a destination or possibly multiple ones. This leads me to believe then that any elevated truck lanes have to be on 610? But again, does that really solve the main driver of traffic on 610 between I10 and 610? No.

2.) Congestion on 610 heading south between I10 and I45 is mainly driven by:
a.) The design of the 610 bridge itself and the slope / incline of the bridge that causes major slowing down of heavy truck traffic and to personal vehicles. Rebuild the bridge with a much more gradual incline and you'd solve that issue IMO
b.) the 225 interchange (see my point 4 below)

3.) Traffic heading north on 610 from the ship channel is mostly slowed down due to inadequate I 10 interchange lanes.
a.) Addition additional lanes for the 610N to I10 east and I1o west would solve this greatly.
b.) In addition, a dedicated 610N to US90 east is also needed and would reduce the congestion further.

4.) Any solution for the 225 /610 interchange HAS to be coupled with the I45 / 610 interchange for it to adequately work / for it to reduce traffic.

TxDOT has to treat these 3 major highways essentially the same as it did with 290, 610, and I10 on the west side of Houston.

a.) You need to be able to exit I45 south to 225 east without ever 'getting on' 610 and the same goes for 225 west to I45 north or south.
b.) Heading south on 610, the bridge needs to be designed in a manner where you essentially choose to either continue on 610, exit for I45, or exit for 225 west WELL before you ever get to 225.

5.) 225s traffic between 610 and Lawndale rd is largely driven by the lack of frontage roads and forcing local traffic onto the freeway.

Real estate is tight there due to chemical storage tanks, but any real solution to the congestion here needs to either
a.) Add continuous frontage rds along 225 or
b.) Limit local access between 610 and Lawndale and essentially force the use of Lawndale as a frontage rd for that section of 225.

Where a lot of congestion in Houston may 'feel' higher priority as it touches more individuals, one can't underestimate the higher cost to the region in real $.
I say that due to the commercial aspect of congestion in this area is huge.
Traffic costs / delays to a white collar worker going home or commuting to work is not the same as having a truck with 4,000 lbs of refined petrochemicals stuck for 45 minutes in stand still traffic.
Congestion here at least 'feels' more expensive than that between Uptown and Katy.
IDK if that's true and I don't know how you prove that.

[intelati49]

IDK if that's true and I don't know how you prove that.

That's what you call routing analysis. It *can* be done using Google data if you're industrious enough.

[Rothman]

To be fair, a lot of core funds are ineligible for spending on transit, although certain transfers to FTA are allowable.

[MaxConcrete]

For the SH 225/Loop 610 recommendation, the presentation lacks details and is very incomplete, in my opinion.
1. No mention of where the managed lanes are actually needed. SH 225 is not known for having traffic congestion. Are the managed lanes mainly for Loop 610?
2. No mention of the interchange at Loop 610 and SH 225. This interchange was built with the assumption that SH 225 would extend westward, but of course that was canceled.
3. No mention of the interchange at Loop 610 and the Gulf Freeway. This interchange is probably the main problem spot in the entire study area, particularly backups on the Gulf Freeway south of Loop 610 caused by the interchange.
4. No mention of plans for the new Loop 610 ship channel bridge, or how managed lanes would be integrated into the bridge.
5. I think upgrading SH 225 to 4x4 for the full length would be sufficient and much less expensive. I think dismissing that option was a mistake. They justify it with a matrix which has an "x" for three objectives.
6. The Loop 610 bridge is most likely the only work which might proceed before 2040. It has a separate study which should launch soon.
7. So while I don't like the recommendations, these corridors are low priority compared to other needs in Houston, so it's fine with me that nothing will be done for a very long time.

I lived in Houston and worked on the ship channel for close to 15-20 years.

I agree with almost the entirety of your statement.

Maybe I'd push back on #1 if I had to split hairs? But the traffic was always centered in / around the 225 / Beltway interchange or 225 and 610. So I believe you've captured that in your other bullet points.

My major issues with this are the following:

1.) Truck traffic isn't 'through' traffic on 225. The trucks are making stops. Whether it's to the many warehouses, to chemical facilities, etc, these guys aren't using 225 to go from Baytown to let's say downtown. They're going along 225 to a destination or possibly multiple ones. This leads me to believe then that any elevated truck lanes have to be on 610? But again, does that really solve the main driver of traffic on 610 between I10 and 610? No.

2.) Congestion on 610 heading south between I10 and I45 is mainly driven by:
a.) The design of the 610 bridge itself and the slope / incline of the bridge that causes major slowing down of heavy truck traffic and to personal vehicles. Rebuild the bridge with a much more gradual incline and you'd solve that issue IMO
b.) the 225 interchange (see my point 4 below)

3.) Traffic heading north on 610 from the ship channel is mostly slowed down due to inadequate I 10 interchange lanes.
a.) Addition additional lanes for the 610N to I10 east and I1o west would solve this greatly.
b.) In addition, a dedicated 610N to US90 east is also needed and would reduce the congestion further.

4.) Any solution for the 225 /610 interchange HAS to be coupled with the I45 / 610 interchange for it to adequately work / for it to reduce traffic.

TxDOT has to treat these 3 major highways essentially the same as it did with 290, 610, and I10 on the west side of Houston.

a.) You need to be able to exit I45 south to 225 east without ever 'getting on' 610 and the same goes for 225 west to I45 north or south.
b.) Heading south on 610, the bridge needs to be designed in a manner where you essentially choose to either continue on 610, exit for I45, or exit for 225 west WELL before you ever get to 225.

5.) 225s traffic between 610 and Lawndale rd is largely driven by the lack of frontage roads and forcing local traffic onto the freeway.

Real estate is tight there due to chemical storage tanks, but any real solution to the congestion here needs to either
a.) Add continuous frontage rds along 225 or
b.) Limit local access between 610 and Lawndale and essentially force the use of Lawndale as a frontage rd for that section of 225.

Where a lot of congestion in Houston may 'feel' higher priority as it touches more individuals, one can't underestimate the higher cost to the region in real $.
I say that due to the commercial aspect of congestion in this area is huge.
Traffic costs / delays to a white collar worker going home or commuting to work is not the same as having a truck with 4,000 lbs of refined petrochemicals stuck for 45 minutes in stand still traffic.
Congestion here at least 'feels' more expensive than that between Uptown and Katy.
IDK if that's true and I don't know how you prove that.

Excellent observations. I might "sample" some of them when I submit my official nasty gram public comment!

I definitely agree with your recommendation for Loop 610 between SH 225 and I-45. The problem is that the right-of-way is very narrow and major clearance is needed for a design like Loop 610 between I-10 west (Katy Freeway) and US 290. (A very major clearance was needed for the northwest Loop at US 290.) If ROW acquisition is not allowed, it could be done with elevated connectors but may be expensive, complicated and sub-optimal.

As you mention, most problems can be addressed with solutions much less expensive than elevated managed lanes. The available funding should go to the new Loop 610 bridge and the section of Loop 610 between SH 225 and I-45.

The new ship channel bridge will have a higher clearance, presumably 175 ft vs. the existing 135 feet. Combine the higher clearance with lower incline and the approaches are going to be much longer than the existing approaches. On the south side the approach will extend nearly all the way to SH 225. This shouldn't cause any problems except that the existing on/off ramps at Manchester on the south side will no longer be possible.

[Anthony_JK]

Wouldn't any realigned connection between 610, 45, and 225 also be complicated by the new 35 freeway extension planned to Alvin?


Also, wouldn't extending and expanding the 146 freeway through Kemah and Seabrook to connect with 45 South and perhaps even the Grand Parkway provide some relief to 225 and even possibly 610?

[DNAguy]

Wouldn't any realigned connection between 610, 45, and 225 also be complicated by the new 35 freeway extension planned to Alvin?


Also, wouldn't extending and expanding the 146 freeway through Kemah and Seabrook to connect with 45 South and perhaps even the Grand Parkway provide some relief to 225 and even possibly 610?

I don't think so from an engineering standpoint as the 'New' 35 alignment is going to be ~ 5-6 miles from I45 along 610.

But if you mean from a 'policy' or 'pay for' then possibly.

The extension from UH to 610 provides an alternative to I45 in and around this area.

I could see an argument that says we're not going to acquire a bunch of ROW and put in all these direct to 45 connectors after we spent this money extending 35 and we'll just rely on traffic bypassing the 45 exchange when congestion is bad enough and use 35 instead towards downtown instead.

That, however, would ignore human nature IMO.

[MaxConcrete]

I posted a commentary about the recent TxDOT recommendations on the Houston Strategies blog.

My detailed public comments about each study are visible by expanding the links in the commentary.

[kalvado]

And how much have we received back from travelers on our roads?

Houston has a significant amount of commercial and industrial traffic on their freeways. So the question could also be, what do we get back by easing the flow of commerce around the area? These folks can't transport goods and services via public transit.

Then one must also account for the economic activity created by labor being able to get to their workplaces via transit.

Trying to pigeon-hole a one-sided analysis in such a comparison is a bad look.

In NY has taxes amount to something like 2 cents a mile. You may talk about that not covering highway fund expenses, but it is not 10% as well. And 10% is a typical number for US transit system not called MTA

[Perfxion]

Houston needs both highways and public transportation. But one major problem of public transportation is that outside of the core downtown is a lack of sidewalks. Houston metro isn't walkable. Its dangerous just getting from Willowbrook Mall to the best Buy 1000 yards away by foot. Beltway to Conroe is much needed of improvements, I just don't see them happening until 2060 at this rate. Also annoyed how Grand Parkway and 45 doesn't have direct connections. I shunpike it if I am going to 45 south. Why bother using it to have to go through 4 lights to get on 45 at the same spot if one can just stay on FM 2920 the whole way for free?