North Houston Highway Improvement Project (project resumed March 2023)

[The Ghostbuster]

That worked! Thanks kernals12.

[In_Correct]

East End affordable housing project receives approval from Houston city council

April 14, 2021
Updated: April 14, 2021 12:23 p.m.

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/17/46/37/20867041/3/1200x0.jpg



A piece of vacant land (center) owned by the Houston Housing Authority on sits across the street from new housing developments and original older houses in Second Ward on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, in Houston. City Council on Wednesday OK'd plans for the first phase of what will be a 900-unit mostly affordable housing complex.

Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle / Staff photographer

City Council on Wednesday approved a 400-unit affordable housing project in the East End, clearing the way for construction despite concerns raised about potential environmental health risks at the property.

The project at 800 Middle St. will house low-income residents, including those expected to be displaced from the nearby Clayton Homes housing complex that the Texas Department of Transportation plans to demolish to make way for its expansion of Interstate 45. The Houston Housing Authority, which is overseeing the project along with an Ohio-based private developer, sold Clayton Homes to the state transportation agency in 2019 and used a portion of the proceeds to buy the land at 800 Middle St.

The land is located east of downtown along the southern shore of Buffalo Bayou, less than a mile from Clayton Homes.

City Council approved the project on a unanimous vote, without any discussion.

About three-quarters of the 400 proposed units will be for households earning up to 60 percent of the area median income, defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as roughly $45,000 for a family of four. The remainder would be for households with incomes up to 30 percent of the area median income. Housing officials ultimately plan to build 900 units at the site, some of which would be offered at market rate.

The project will be partially subsidized through a federal tax credit for low-income housing projects funded by tax-exempt bonds.

The proposed development has come under scrutiny from local developer Alan Atkinson, who has filed a federal lawsuit in which he argues the property is unsuitable for development due to its location next to a lead processing facility and its prior use as an ash landfill site for city garbage incinerators decades ago. Atkinson has alleged the previous landowner and the city housing authority misrepresented the environmental status of the land in inspection reports submitted to state and federal officials.

The city has denied Atkinson's charges, arguing in court filings that the land had no "known environmental issues"  until storm weather caused part of the property to erode along the bank of Buffalo Bayou in early 2020.

Those who support the project, including Councilmember Karla Cisneros, say the new apartment complex will provide needed affordable housing in a gentrifying area of the city. They also argue it will help ensure Clayton Homes residents are relocated nearby their current residences.

jasper.scherer@chron.com

They should have not built that subdivision to begin with if they knew it would be flooded all the time.

[kernals12]

East End affordable housing project receives approval from Houston city council

April 14, 2021
Updated: April 14, 2021 12:23 p.m.

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/17/46/37/20867041/3/1200x0.jpg



A piece of vacant land (center) owned by the Houston Housing Authority on sits across the street from new housing developments and original older houses in Second Ward on Tuesday, April 13, 2021, in Houston. City Council on Wednesday OK'd plans for the first phase of what will be a 900-unit mostly affordable housing complex.

Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle / Staff photographer

City Council on Wednesday approved a 400-unit affordable housing project in the East End, clearing the way for construction despite concerns raised about potential environmental health risks at the property.

The project at 800 Middle St. will house low-income residents, including those expected to be displaced from the nearby Clayton Homes housing complex that the Texas Department of Transportation plans to demolish to make way for its expansion of Interstate 45. The Houston Housing Authority, which is overseeing the project along with an Ohio-based private developer, sold Clayton Homes to the state transportation agency in 2019 and used a portion of the proceeds to buy the land at 800 Middle St.

The land is located east of downtown along the southern shore of Buffalo Bayou, less than a mile from Clayton Homes.

City Council approved the project on a unanimous vote, without any discussion.

About three-quarters of the 400 proposed units will be for households earning up to 60 percent of the area median income, defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as roughly $45,000 for a family of four. The remainder would be for households with incomes up to 30 percent of the area median income. Housing officials ultimately plan to build 900 units at the site, some of which would be offered at market rate.

The project will be partially subsidized through a federal tax credit for low-income housing projects funded by tax-exempt bonds.

The proposed development has come under scrutiny from local developer Alan Atkinson, who has filed a federal lawsuit in which he argues the property is unsuitable for development due to its location next to a lead processing facility and its prior use as an ash landfill site for city garbage incinerators decades ago. Atkinson has alleged the previous landowner and the city housing authority misrepresented the environmental status of the land in inspection reports submitted to state and federal officials.

The city has denied Atkinson's charges, arguing in court filings that the land had no "known environmental issues"  until storm weather caused part of the property to erode along the bank of Buffalo Bayou in early 2020.

Those who support the project, including Councilmember Karla Cisneros, say the new apartment complex will provide needed affordable housing in a gentrifying area of the city. They also argue it will help ensure Clayton Homes residents are relocated nearby their current residences.

jasper.scherer@chron.com

They should have not built that subdivision to begin with if they knew it would be flooded all the time.

Builders, whether private or public sector, are very often not concerned with the consequences of their actions.

[kernals12]

The environmental impact statement says Segment 1 will displace 23,000 jobs. How's that? There doesn't like that many businesses in the right of way.

[silverback1065]

(older Prius batteries tend to outlast the car itself, for example)

This is a problem. Automobiles are supposed to last for ever. Bus Grease Monkey has proven that.

The Battery Electric Rail Vehicle has been around since the early 1800s. Diesel Electric has been around since the early 1900s. Even Regenerative Braking has been around in the Turbine Locomotives.

So Called Renewable Energy should be used for certain types of Rail systems, not Automobiles. Diesel Electric is best for Automobiles, certain types of Rail systems ... and in occasional types of Rail systems it is best for them to switch back to Turbine.

Electric cars are ascendant and will eventually replace gas powered cars.

[bwana39]

(older Prius batteries tend to outlast the car itself, for example)

This is a problem. Automobiles are supposed to last for ever. Bus Grease Monkey has proven that.

The Battery Electric Rail Vehicle has been around since the early 1800s. Diesel Electric has been around since the early 1900s. Even Regenerative Braking has been around in the Turbine Locomotives.

So Called Renewable Energy should be used for certain types of Rail systems, not Automobiles. Diesel Electric is best for Automobiles, certain types of Rail systems ... and in occasional types of Rail systems it is best for them to switch back to Turbine.

Electric cars are ascendant and will eventually replace gas powered cars.

Electric cars. In some cases that means COAL Powered cars?   Manufacturing these cars is far from environmentally neutral.  Disposal of the batteries MAY wind up a bigger environmental dilemma than EVERYTHING in an internal combustion powered car, truck, or bus: INCLUDING the emissions.

While it would immediately lessen the carbon monoxide emissions, what does it leave down the line of if there is a problem.  In moment, Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient, and reliable power generation. If there is a problem, the long-term outlook is not as rosy.  Battery operated cars may have the same iffy outlook as an old used up Nuclear Power Plant.

[The Ghostbuster]

Let's not turn this thread into a electric car vs. gas powered debate like what happened in the New York thread in the Northeast Regional Board. Stick to the subject's headline: North Houston Highway Improvement Project (includes downtown rebuild). Much obliged.

[silverback1065]

(older Prius batteries tend to outlast the car itself, for example)

This is a problem. Automobiles are supposed to last for ever. Bus Grease Monkey has proven that.

The Battery Electric Rail Vehicle has been around since the early 1800s. Diesel Electric has been around since the early 1900s. Even Regenerative Braking has been around in the Turbine Locomotives.

So Called Renewable Energy should be used for certain types of Rail systems, not Automobiles. Diesel Electric is best for Automobiles, certain types of Rail systems ... and in occasional types of Rail systems it is best for them to switch back to Turbine.

Electric cars are ascendant and will eventually replace gas powered cars.

Electric cars. In some cases that means COAL Powered cars?   Manufacturing these cars is far from environmentally neutral.  Disposal of the batteries MAY wind up a bigger environmental dilemma than EVERYTHING in an internal combustion powered car, truck, or bus: INCLUDING the emissions.

While it would immediately lessen the carbon monoxide emissions, what does it leave down the line of if there is a problem.  In moment, Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient, and reliable power generation. If there is a problem, the long-term outlook is not as rosy.  Battery operated cars may have the same iffy outlook as an old used up Nuclear Power Plant.

not all power is generated by coal. and actually now very little is by coal, it is mostly natural gas. eventually most of our power will be from renewables. your point about disposal being a problem is fallacious, you are pretending electric cars were promised to have little to no impact on the environment, that is simply not true. Also nuclear has a big problem of what to do with the radioactive waste it creates.

[silverback1065]

i recently saw an article about a study being done to replace US 75/I-345 in Dallas by upgrading several north/south streets as blvds. Why are woke urbanists obsessed with blvds? they tout them like they are the end all be all to solve traffic problems in downtowns. in reality they turn into crappy over clogged roads that are hard to cross as a ped like West St. in downtown Indianapolis.

[kernals12]

i recently saw an article about a study being done to replace US 75/I-345 in Dallas by upgrading several north/south streets as blvds. Why are woke urbanists obsessed with blvds? they tout them like they are the end all be all to solve traffic problems in downtowns. in reality they turn into crappy over clogged roads that are hard to cross as a ped like West St. in downtown Indianapolis.

They like the boulevards of Paris (apparently unaware that in order to build them, Haussman wiped out working class communities on a scale that would make Robert Moses blush)

[In_Correct]

Urbanists like to pretend that they are poor and displaced. The area not far from The Unfinished Corridor Bridge are not low income. They see Road Diets as "Friendly" and since that area is known for parties ... they want to block off the traffic and throw things at cars.

[bwana39]

(older Prius batteries tend to outlast the car itself, for example)

This is a problem. Automobiles are supposed to last for ever. Bus Grease Monkey has proven that.

The Battery Electric Rail Vehicle has been around since the early 1800s. Diesel Electric has been around since the early 1900s. Even Regenerative Braking has been around in the Turbine Locomotives.

So Called Renewable Energy should be used for certain types of Rail systems, not Automobiles. Diesel Electric is best for Automobiles, certain types of Rail systems ... and in occasional types of Rail systems it is best for them to switch back to Turbine.

Electric cars are ascendant and will eventually replace gas powered cars.

Electric cars. In some cases that means COAL Powered cars?   Manufacturing these cars is far from environmentally neutral.  Disposal of the batteries MAY wind up a bigger environmental dilemma than EVERYTHING in an internal combustion powered car, truck, or bus: INCLUDING the emissions.

While it would immediately lessen the carbon monoxide emissions, what does it leave down the line of if there is a problem.  In moment, Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient, and reliable power generation. If there is a problem, the long-term outlook is not as rosy.  Battery operated cars may have the same iffy outlook as an old used up Nuclear Power Plant.

not all power is generated by coal. and actually now very little is by coal, it is mostly natural gas. eventually most of our power will be from renewables. your point about disposal being a problem is fallacious, you are pretending electric cars were promised to have little to no impact on the environment, that is simply not true. Also nuclear has a big problem of what to do with the radioactive waste it creates.

As to the coal. I said SOME. It is not as you said very little. It is around 20%. While that is half of what it was less than a decade ago, it is still significant. In some states, coal still is over 50% of the electricity generated. Ironically, greater use of electric cars MIGHT actually increase the utilization of coal as much of our coal generation is being idled first. So as demand peaks, coal burning increases. That was only a MINOR point.

The renewals have ramped up to close to 20%, but is far more expensive than fossil fuels.

you are pretending electric cars were promised to have little to no impact on the environment. That is the inference. Not mine, but those of proponents of battery electric cars now.  Today: A gasoline powered car is cleaner to produce than a plug-in electric or a gas electric hybrid.  There is debate on the long-run weather the way the seeming environmental advantages to electrical generation fueling the cars actually fully offsets the cradle to grave environmental issues of the electric powered cars.    I am not suggesting we will never overcome this. It may actually happen sooner than later. The point is we aren't there yet.

Yes nuclear waste is a major concern. So is battery waste, plastic waste, and even how to best deal with the production of non-ferrous metals that have a larger role in electric cars.  Plastics are still mostly made from petroleum. 

[In_Correct]

Many people expect their cars to be unreasonably fast. If a Battery Electric Automobile loses much of its power when it falls below 50%, there is a risk for inattentive speeding car drivers to crash into it. These issues must be resolved before Battery Electric Automobiles be come wide spread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSdi3STy0YA

The trains from Cabview Holland Dutch Railways, for example in the Grand Tour Of Holland video, are Battery Electric. For some time the power lines were missing yet the train still operated. How ever, it needed to connect to power eventually.

Installing this system would require a Solar Road Surface and probably a Wireless Charging System. The wireless charging system is not recommended. The cars would need Pantographs.

But first there would have to be maintenance on the existing road surfaces and infrastructure.

[bwana39]

i recently saw an article about a study being done to replace US 75/I-345 in Dallas by upgrading several north/south streets as blvds. Why are woke urbanists obsessed with blvds? they tout them like they are the end all be all to solve traffic problems in downtowns. in reality they turn into crappy over clogged roads that are hard to cross as a ped like West St. in downtown Indianapolis.

Even in Dallas. Jefferson Boulevard USED to be what they think they see in the future with a boulevard downtown. Look at it now, The freeway did not come anywhere close. Drive down Jefferson today. It has activity, but not the vibrant walkability they keep promoting.

This is I have said multiple times. It is about creating new land for development.  I am not going to say that it will not create short-term growth. The west end was like this for a couple of decades. Mid-town was the place to be for a while. Sure something new may make a short-term boom, but in the long run getting rid of this freeway (Whether you are talking about I-345 or the Pierce elevated) creates permanent traffic disruption for a temporary boon.

[bluecountry]

-Bury I45, cover it with green space, parks, mixed used affordable housing

Reminder: Houston is a FLOOD PRONE CITY. Digging a new freeway into a trench and capping it with deck parks and "affordable housing" might sound like a good idea on paper. But it's not all that do-able in Houston's case.

The central core of a city is for LOCAL business only, NOT THROUGH traffic.

Over 2 million people live in the "core" of the Houston metro area. Most of them get around in automobiles. Houston is not New York City. And even in NYC people are cabbing-it if they have the money to do so.

And just like in NYC, it's impossible to eliminate all of the truck traffic within the urban core, as tens of thousands of trucks each day have to make pick-ups and deliveries to the multitude of businesses within the urban core.

Yes, traffic INSIDE 610 should be for people with direct business INSIDE 610, not through traffic.

Unlike NYC, Houston DOES have the luxury of NOT being on the 95 corridor, people are not going from New England to Florida, hence unless induced there is NO REASON why you have to have so much THROUGH traffic in the centra core.

[sprjus4]

-Bury I45, cover it with green space, parks, mixed used affordable housing

Reminder: Houston is a FLOOD PRONE CITY. Digging a new freeway into a trench and capping it with deck parks and "affordable housing" might sound like a good idea on paper. But it's not all that do-able in Houston's case.

The central core of a city is for LOCAL business only, NOT THROUGH traffic.

Over 2 million people live in the "core" of the Houston metro area. Most of them get around in automobiles. Houston is not New York City. And even in NYC people are cabbing-it if they have the money to do so.

And just like in NYC, it's impossible to eliminate all of the truck traffic within the urban core, as tens of thousands of trucks each day have to make pick-ups and deliveries to the multitude of businesses within the urban core.

Yes, traffic INSIDE 610 should be for people with direct business INSIDE 610, not through traffic.

Unlike NYC, Houston DOES have the luxury of NOT being on the 95 corridor, people are not going from New England to Florida, hence unless induced there is NO REASON why you have to have so much THROUGH traffic in the centra core.

Because I-10 through is the most direct route for not only east-west traffic, but also traffic between I-10 West to I-69 South.

There's no effective bypass of Houston. You either drive through, take I-610 which adds distance and has just as much traffic problems and is the same speed limit as I-10 (60 mph), or pay a toll and go even further out of the way.

[hotdogPi]

Unlike NYC, Houston DOES have the luxury of NOT being on the 95 corridor, people are not going from New England to Florida, hence unless induced there is NO REASON why you have to have so much THROUGH traffic in the centra core.

I-10 isn't through traffic?

[TXtoNJ]

Unlike NYC, Houston DOES have the luxury of NOT being on the 95 corridor, people are not going from New England to Florida, hence unless induced there is NO REASON why you have to have so much THROUGH traffic in the centra core.

I-10 isn't through traffic?

Relatively little, all things considered:



Houston's a classic port terminus - it's really not on the way from anywhere to anywhere else. It's too far south to catch traffic going from the West Coast to the East Coast (that goes through Denver, OKC, or Dallas), and too far east to catch traffic from Mexico that's going anywhere but the Gulf Coast and/or Florida (which, due to geography, usually just sees shipping traffic).

Truck traffic in Houston is either O/D in Houston, or on the way from one O&G location in the Gulf Coast region to another.

[silverback1065]

Unlike NYC, Houston DOES have the luxury of NOT being on the 95 corridor, people are not going from New England to Florida, hence unless induced there is NO REASON why you have to have so much THROUGH traffic in the centra core.

I-10 isn't through traffic?

Relatively little, all things considered:



Houston's a classic port terminus - it's really not on the way from anywhere to anywhere else. It's too far south to catch traffic going from the West Coast to the East Coast (that goes through Denver, OKC, or Dallas), and too far east to catch traffic from Mexico that's going anywhere but the Gulf Coast and/or Florida (which, due to geography, usually just sees shipping traffic).

Truck traffic in Houston is either O/D in Houston, or on the way from one O&G location in the Gulf Coast region to another.

My goodness I-90 carries a TON of trucks!

[sprjus4]

Unlike NYC, Houston DOES have the luxury of NOT being on the 95 corridor, people are not going from New England to Florida, hence unless induced there is NO REASON why you have to have so much THROUGH traffic in the centra core.

I-10 isn't through traffic?

Relatively little, all things considered:



Houston's a classic port terminus - it's really not on the way from anywhere to anywhere else. It's too far south to catch traffic going from the West Coast to the East Coast (that goes through Denver, OKC, or Dallas), and too far east to catch traffic from Mexico that's going anywhere but the Gulf Coast and/or Florida (which, due to geography, usually just sees shipping traffic).

Truck traffic in Houston is either O/D in Houston, or on the way from one O&G location in the Gulf Coast region to another.

You're considering through truck traffic. How about traffic altogether?

Also, Downtown Houston acts as a split for traffic on I-10 West either remaining on I-10 West towards San Antonio or splitting onto I-69 South towards Corpus Christi, the Rio Grande Valley, and Mexico.

[TXtoNJ]

Unlike NYC, Houston DOES have the luxury of NOT being on the 95 corridor, people are not going from New England to Florida, hence unless induced there is NO REASON why you have to have so much THROUGH traffic in the centra core.

I-10 isn't through traffic?

Relatively little, all things considered:



Houston's a classic port terminus - it's really not on the way from anywhere to anywhere else. It's too far south to catch traffic going from the West Coast to the East Coast (that goes through Denver, OKC, or Dallas), and too far east to catch traffic from Mexico that's going anywhere but the Gulf Coast and/or Florida (which, due to geography, usually just sees shipping traffic).

Truck traffic in Houston is either O/D in Houston, or on the way from one O&G location in the Gulf Coast region to another.

You're considering through truck traffic. How about traffic altogether?

Also, Downtown Houston acts as a split for traffic on I-10 West either remaining on I-10 West towards San Antonio or splitting onto I-69 South towards Corpus Christi, the Rio Grande Valley, and Mexico.

Trucks use through routes far more than personal autos do, so it's a better measure than all traffic for this question.

You can also see on the map that relatively little traffic is being diverted from Houston down to Corpus or the Valley, both because freight is shipped from the Port of Houston to Veracruz or other Mexican terminals by water or rail (you see very little O&G truck traffic crossing the border), and because the majority of Mexico's population is best served by the I-10/I-35 route.

Even then, though, there is relatively little Mexican-American population east of Houston on the Gulf Coast (using Hispanic as a reasonable analog, Florida excepted):



The places where there are higher percentages of Mexican-Americans east of Texas are better served by the I-35 corridor, and traffic counts show it.

[armadillo speedbump]

Unlike NYC, Houston DOES have the luxury of NOT being on the 95 corridor, people are not going from New England to Florida, hence unless induced there is NO REASON why you have to have so much THROUGH traffic in the centra core.

I-10 isn't through traffic?

Relatively little, all things considered:



Houston's a classic port terminus - it's really not on the way from anywhere to anywhere else. It's too far south to catch traffic going from the West Coast to the East Coast (that goes through Denver, OKC, or Dallas), and too far east to catch traffic from Mexico that's going anywhere but the Gulf Coast and/or Florida (which, due to geography, usually just sees shipping traffic).

Truck traffic in Houston is either O/D in Houston, or on the way from one O&G location in the Gulf Coast region to another.

LOL, wut?

First, the map doesn't show what you claim it does.  I-10 on both sides of Houston is busier than I-40 across Arizona, and a lot of other major corridors.  It's in the same class as as I-40 across Oklahoma. 

Second, there's a heck of a lot more traffic on it than just Houston origin/destinations.  It's the most direct route from SoCal and Mexico to the huge markets of Florida.  5 million persons in SA and Austin, and some of those markets are fed by I-10 from SC, NC, southern GA, MS, LA.  Plenty of energy related cross traffic from mid and southern TX to Beaumont and LA.  Might want to visit H-GAC's website or contact them, I'm sure they have plenty of data about the amount of through traffic, and it ain't just a pittance. 

Third, a lot of the port related traffic has to slog across the Houston metro.  The distribution and sort warehouses where goods are transitioned from 40' international containers to trucks or 53' domestic containers are all over the area.  An increasing number in Katy and a bunch in SA (and of course DFW).  610 is often slower than taking I-10 through downtown for a lot of this.

Fourth, no, the vast majority of goods from the manufacturing interior of Mexico do not necessarily ship through ports.  Freight transportation isn't a one size fits all.  Low value goods more  often seek the cheapest route, high value often the fastest.  Plenty is trucked to FL or the Southeast rather than slow boats and multiple handlings, or the in between rail options.

Fifth, as to the non-truck traffic, just the portion of the Beaumont and southern LA diaspora that has moved to the west side of Houston provides plenty of I-10 traffic crossing inside the loop.  Back and forth to visit relatives, the annual repairs after said relatives get flooded again, LSU tailgating, nutria hunting season, etc. And I hear there might be a tourist draw or two for Texans in NOLA....

[armadillo speedbump]

Trucks use through routes far more than personal autos do, so it's a better measure than all traffic for this question.

You can also see on the map that relatively little traffic is being diverted from Houston down to Corpus or the Valley, both because freight is shipped from the Port of Houston to Veracruz or other Mexican terminals by water or rail (you see very little O&G truck traffic crossing the border), and because the majority of Mexico's population is best served by the I-10/I-35 route.

Even then, though, there is relatively little Mexican-American population east of Houston on the Gulf Coast (using Hispanic as a reasonable analog, Florida excepted):



The places where there are higher percentages of Mexican-Americans east of Texas are better served by the I-35 corridor, and traffic counts show it.

LOL, double wut??

Unclear what point is attempting to be made.  Though I'll note that percentages can be very different than actual raw numbers.  Size matters.

No offense, but are you perhaps a college student?

[TXtoNJ]

You're pretty smug for someone who doesn't know how to interpret basic data visualizations, I've got to say.

No offense, but have you lived on one of those large corridors, and compared the traffic to Houston? You sound like someone who hasn't left Texas much.

[armadillo speedbump]

Good point, I've only lived and worked in Houston, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Little Rock, Nashville, Atlanta, and suburban Philly.  Masters level planning work plus 7 years with a Class I railroad.  Of course they don't know anything about freight movements... 

What's the reason for singling out Hispanics to try and illustrate why there is allegedly little through traffic on I-10 across Houston?  I see very little relevance.  Nonetheless, east of Houston (excluding Florida) there's almost 3 million Hispanics in Beaumont-PA, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC, and NC.  The fastest route between them and SA is I-10 through Houston.  For those crossing the border at Laredo, the all interstate route via SA is virtually the same timewise as using the 2-lanes and small towns of US59.  So what exactly is the point you're trying to make?