North Houston Highway Improvement Project

[MaxConcrete]

I think Houston is making a big mistake with its threat to cancel the I-45 project. All the buildings either have been or will be torn down, so this is going to be a waste of money if the construction doesn't proceed. Also, why reroute it around the east side of downtown when the elevated section could've been rebuilt for much less?

My interpretation of TxDOT's proceeding with the demolition is that the downtown part of NHHIP is expected to proceed. Of course, TxDOT is privy to the state of negotiations with FHWA.

Sure, it would have been far less expensive to leave the downtown freeways as-is and just do maintenance for many decades into the future. But NHHIP is a grand compromise plan. Downtown interests wanted the I-69 elevated structures removed (i.e. sunk below ground), and the Pierce Elevated removed entirely. TxDOT wanted to relieve bottlenecks, and rebuild I-45 north of downtown as part  of the plan. So the NHHIP plan gives downtown interests what they want, and TxDOT gets what it wants. The plan is very expensive and that's the downside for TxDOT. The plan requires right-of-way clearance, but now the interests which stand to receive benefits don't want to incur any of the negatives.

[bwana39]

I think Houston is making a big mistake with its threat to cancel the I-45 project. All the buildings either have been or will be torn down, so this is going to be a waste of money if the construction doesn't proceed. Also, why reroute it around the east side of downtown when the elevated section could've been rebuilt for much less?

A vocal minority (not necessarily members of minority groups) got the ears of Secretary Buttigieg and President Biden and had the project re-examined. I really am not sure what the governmental and neo-governmental planning agencies think. The bottom line is TxDOT is proceeding as if section 3 is going to be built as planned.

Also, why reroute it around the east side of downtown when the elevated section could've been rebuilt for much less?

It is specifically what the vocal downtown interests wanted. TxDOT said in not exactly a private manner when new problems started cropping up after the plan seemed to be firmly in place that TxDOT gave them what they wanted (rerouting around the Pierce Elevated) and still it was not enough. TxDOT wanted to just rebuild the freeway in the same place. It was the locals (the same ilk as those wanting rid of the previously invisible I-345 in Dallas ) who just short of demanded it.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think Houston is making a big mistake with its threat to cancel the I-45 project. All the buildings either have been or will be torn down, so this is going to be a waste of money if the construction doesn't proceed. Also, why reroute it around the east side of downtown when the elevated section could've been rebuilt for much less?

My interpretation of TxDOT's proceeding with the demolition is that the downtown part of NHHIP is expected to proceed. Of course, TxDOT is privy to the state of negotiations with FHWA.

Sure, it would have been far less expensive to leave the downtown freeways as-is and just do maintenance for many decades into the future. But NHHIP is a grand compromise plan. Downtown interests wanted the I-69 elevated structures removed (i.e. sunk below ground), and the Pierce Elevated removed entirely. TxDOT wanted to relieve bottlenecks, and rebuild I-45 north of downtown as part  of the plan. So the NHHIP plan gives downtown interests what they want, and TxDOT gets what it wants. The plan is very expensive and that's the downside for TxDOT. The plan requires right-of-way clearance, but now the interests which stand to receive benefits don't want to incur any of the negatives.

Are there any renderings of the new plan or is it the same as the old renderings?

[kernals12]

I think Houston is making a big mistake with its threat to cancel the I-45 project. All the buildings either have been or will be torn down, so this is going to be a waste of money if the construction doesn't proceed. Also, why reroute it around the east side of downtown when the elevated section could've been rebuilt for much less?

My interpretation of TxDOT's proceeding with the demolition is that the downtown part of NHHIP is expected to proceed. Of course, TxDOT is privy to the state of negotiations with FHWA.

Sure, it would have been far less expensive to leave the downtown freeways as-is and just do maintenance for many decades into the future. But NHHIP is a grand compromise plan. Downtown interests wanted the I-69 elevated structures removed (i.e. sunk below ground), and the Pierce Elevated removed entirely. TxDOT wanted to relieve bottlenecks, and rebuild I-45 north of downtown as part  of the plan. So the NHHIP plan gives downtown interests what they want, and TxDOT gets what it wants. The plan is very expensive and that's the downside for TxDOT. The plan requires right-of-way clearance, but now the interests which stand to receive benefits don't want to incur any of the negatives.

Sounds a lot like Boston's Big Dig

[MaxConcrete]

Are there any renderings of the new plan or is it the same as the old renderings?

As far as publicly available information, nothing has changed. The most recent schematics are still the official plan.
https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip/updates.html

[TXtoNJ]

I think Houston is making a big mistake with its threat to cancel the I-45 project. All the buildings either have been or will be torn down, so this is going to be a waste of money if the construction doesn't proceed. Also, why reroute it around the east side of downtown when the elevated section could've been rebuilt for much less?

A vocal minority (not necessarily members of minority groups) got the ears of Secretary Buttigieg and President Biden and had the project re-examined. I really am not sure what the governmental and neo-governmental planning agencies think. The bottom line is TxDOT is proceeding as if section 3 is going to be built as planned.

Also, why reroute it around the east side of downtown when the elevated section could've been rebuilt for much less?

It is specifically what the vocal downtown interests wanted. TxDOT said in not exactly a private manner when new problems started cropping up after the plan seemed to be firmly in place that TxDOT gave them what they wanted (rerouting around the Pierce Elevated) and still it was not enough. TxDOT wanted to just rebuild the freeway in the same place. It was the locals (the same ilk as those wanting rid of the previously invisible I-345 in Dallas ) who just short of demanded it.

I think you're conflating a lot of disparate interests. For example, downtown land developers are not opposed to any part of this - they got what they wanted. It's the local activist/NGO class that have been agitating the most against this, along with local politicians who have larger ambitions. This is mostly about building clout for them.

Just wait for the midterms.

[bwana39]

I think Houston is making a big mistake with its threat to cancel the I-45 project. All the buildings either have been or will be torn down, so this is going to be a waste of money if the construction doesn't proceed. Also, why reroute it around the east side of downtown when the elevated section could've been rebuilt for much less?

A vocal minority (not necessarily members of minority groups) got the ears of Secretary Buttigieg and President Biden and had the project re-examined. I really am not sure what the governmental and neo-governmental planning agencies think. The bottom line is TxDOT is proceeding as if section 3 is going to be built as planned.

Also, why reroute it around the east side of downtown when the elevated section could've been rebuilt for much less?

It is specifically what the vocal downtown interests wanted. TxDOT said in not exactly a private manner when new problems started cropping up after the plan seemed to be firmly in place that TxDOT gave them what they wanted (rerouting around the Pierce Elevated) and still it was not enough. TxDOT wanted to just rebuild the freeway in the same place. It was the locals (the same ilk as those wanting rid of the previously invisible I-345 in Dallas ) who just short of demanded it.

I think you're conflating a lot of disparate interests. For example, downtown land developers are not opposed to any part of this - they got what they wanted. It's the local activist/NGO class that have been agitating the most against this, along with local politicians who have larger ambitions. This is mostly about building clout for them.

Just wait for the midterms.

The problem for TxDOT is the fact the city and county agreed then the (seeming) support from either or both waned.  As you said wait until the mid-terms. The problem is local elections will locally make a new and yet to be ascertained set of realities and agendas in Houston and Harris county. Perhaps more so than the new congressional balance.

I simplified the concept to TxDOT versus the agenda of the city and county.

Yes, to some extent, it is co-mingling of constituencies. The land developers wanted rid of the Pierce Elevated to be able to more seamlessly expand downtown into mid-town. They indeed have everything THEY want. The developers and the hardcore urbanists worked as  a coalition to get rid of the Pierce Elevated. The developers got what they wanted. The urbanists clearly want(ed) more.

It is possible Rep Jackson-Lee MAY be grandstanding to work some sort of trade with the Segment 1 issues. There are still seriously unresolved issues north of I-610.

The reality is it is impossible for TxDOT to have a plan when they cannot figure out the demands and intentions of major stakeholders. We don't know a lot of what is happening behind the scenes, but in reality, what we are seeing is of greater consequence than it should be.  The real issue , just like in a romantic relationship is how to interpret the consent. DONTSTOP might be Don't!.... STOP!!! or it could be Don't Stop. the same letters, but set in their own context opposite meanings. It all boils down to how it is punctuated.

[TXtoNJ]

SJL sees that this is driving attention and Inner Loop money from individual donors. Opportunist as ever.

When you say "county" what you mean is Lina - she's got bigger ambitions than county office, and this is a great vehicle for her to get national recognition beyond what she already has in the Democratic Party - especially since it bypasses the completely dysfunctional state party.

Buttigieg is also running with this because he wants to be President, and he couldn't do so last time because black voters don't know who the hell he is. So slowing this down helps him both with social justice and black voters, by his estimation.

I don't think the TxDOT plans have significantly changed. Costs would have exploded even if construction started in 2021.

The midterms are important, because in the case of a likely Democratic collapse, Pete's going to challenge Biden in the primary again as the woke candidate, and it's very possible Hidalgo gets appointed to some junior Cabinet position as a rising star in the party. As soon as the DoT hold releases, plans can go forth as already laid down - just more expensive.

[MaxConcrete]

TxDOT has posted the video for the proposed modifications to Interstate 10 just west of NHHIP. The meeting is next week so the schematics are not online yet. Looking at the cross section, it appears it will be a long high-level elevated structure, about the level of the existing HOV lanes. The new HOV structure appears to be wide enough to be restriped to 2x2.

This project appears to be entirely separate from NHHIP in terms of the EIS. It is surely much easier administratively to move this project forward, since there are no displacements, no capacity expansion and this takes the freeway out of the flood zone. The video says they want to start work in summer 2024, which (if it actually happens) will probably be before any construction starts on NHHIP, if construction on NHHIP can proceed at all.

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/ih-10-heights-cross-section.png

[kernals12]

TxDOT has posted the video for the proposed modifications to Interstate 10 just west of NHHIP. The meeting is next week so the schematics are not online yet. Looking at the cross section, it appears it will be a long high-level elevated structure, about the level of the existing HOV lanes. The new HOV structure appears to be wide enough to be restriped to 2x2.

This project appears to be entirely separate from NHHIP in terms of the EIS. It is surely much easier administratively to move this project forward, since there are no displacements, no capacity expansion and this takes the freeway out of the flood zone. The video says they want to start work in summer 2024, which (if it actually happens) will probably be before any construction starts on NHHIP, if construction on NHHIP can proceed at all.

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/ih-10-heights-cross-section.png

isn't TxDOT planning to add 4 managed lanes on that section of the Katy Freeway?

[Plutonic Panda]

Is that different from the project to extend the managed lanes to I-45 from the existing section or did they scrap they? I also read there will be a small amount of ROW expansion.

[MaxConcrete]

Is that different from the project to extend the managed lanes to I-45 from the existing section or did they scrap they? I also read there will be a small amount of ROW expansion.

Yes this is separate from the proposed main project to add 2x2 managed lanes between I-45 and I-610 (West Loop), which is called the Inner Katy corridor.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/022521.html

The most recent public meeting was in February 2021. I have not heard of any TxDOT developments since that meeting, but Houston Metro recently announced its selected option which is a standalone elevated structure. This appears to eliminate concept B from further consideration.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-inner-katy-corridor/022521-ml-concept-b.pdf

[Plutonic Panda]

Is that different from the project to extend the managed lanes to I-45 from the existing section or did they scrap they? I also read there will be a small amount of ROW expansion.

Yes this is separate from the proposed main project to add 2x2 managed lanes between I-45 and I-610 (West Loop), which is called the Inner Katy corridor.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/022521.html

The most recent public meeting was in February 2021. I have not heard of any TxDOT developments since that meeting, but Houston Metro recently announced its selected option which is a standalone elevated structure. This appears to eliminate concept B from further consideration.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/hou/i-10-inner-katy-corridor/022521-ml-concept-b.pdf

It looks to me like none of the proposed alternatives would work with elevated GP lanes so they'd have to come up with a new alternative.

[Duke87]

The problem for TxDOT is the fact the city and county agreed then the (seeming) support from either or both waned.

I think a lot of it comes down to that the city and county agreed to the concept of rerouting I-45 along the Eastex Corridor and removing Pierce under the assumption that this would reduce the overall footprint of downtown freeways. Then they saw the renderings.

Suddenly, realization in hand that the project will actually take more land than it will free up, people don't like it so much anymore.

[TXtoNJ]

The problem for TxDOT is the fact the city and county agreed then the (seeming) support from either or both waned.

I think a lot of it comes down to that the city and county agreed to the concept of rerouting I-45 along the Eastex Corridor and removing Pierce under the assumption that this would reduce the overall footprint of downtown freeways. Then they saw the renderings.

Suddenly, realization in hand that the project will actually take more land than it will free up, people don't like it so much anymore.

It's more that everything was fine while it remained inside baseball. Then it became a vehicle for larger political ambitions.

[jadebenn]

The problem for TxDOT is the fact the city and county agreed then the (seeming) support from either or both waned.

I think a lot of it comes down to that the city and county agreed to the concept of rerouting I-45 along the Eastex Corridor and removing Pierce under the assumption that this would reduce the overall footprint of downtown freeways. Then they saw the renderings.

Suddenly, realization in hand that the project will actually take more land than it will free up, people don't like it so much anymore.

It's more that everything was fine while it remained inside baseball. Then it became a vehicle for larger political ambitions.

No, I think Duke87 had it right the first time. It's getting harder and harder to get political buy-in from cities for freeway expansions at all, and it's getting worse every year. A not-quite removal of the Pierce Elevated doesn't seem as attractive of a trade-off as it used to be.

To be fair, I'd say the Houston political class in general is still okay with the project, but it's hard to deny enthusiasm has cooled. This would've been a slam-dunk not that many years ago.

[kernals12]

The problem for TxDOT is the fact the city and county agreed then the (seeming) support from either or both waned.

I think a lot of it comes down to that the city and county agreed to the concept of rerouting I-45 along the Eastex Corridor and removing Pierce under the assumption that this would reduce the overall footprint of downtown freeways. Then they saw the renderings.

Suddenly, realization in hand that the project will actually take more land than it will free up, people don't like it so much anymore.

It's more that everything was fine while it remained inside baseball. Then it became a vehicle for larger political ambitions.

No, I think Duke87 had it right the first time. It's getting harder and harder to get political buy-in from cities for freeway expansions at all, and it's getting worse every year. A not-quite removal of the Pierce Elevated doesn't seem as attractive of a trade-off as it used to be.

To be fair, I'd say the Houston political class in general is still okay with the project, but it's hard to deny enthusiasm has cooled. This would've been a slam-dunk not that many years ago.

Even Portland is widening highways now. Highway expansions have always been controversial and usually they get canceled not due to public opposition but for lack of funds.

[Thegeet]

Record of decision: Aug. 2, 2022.
https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/local/houston/txdot-announces-nhhip-record-of-decision.html

[MaxConcrete]

Record of decision: Aug. 2, 2022.
https://www.txdot.gov/about/newsroom/local/houston/txdot-announces-nhhip-record-of-decision.html

The ROD was issued in February 2021, just prior to the FHWA project suspension and the Harris County lawsuit.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/hou/news/record-of-decision.pdf

So it's old news. I don't know why that press release is dated Aug. 4, 2022. It must be a mistake, or some kind of malfunction related to the new web site design.

[rte66man]

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2022/08/31/432075/txdot-keeps-controversial-i-45-expansion-on-long-term-slate-of-projects/

TxDOT keeps controversial I-45 expansion on long-term slate of projects

ADAM ZUVANICH | POSTED ONAUGUST 31, 2022, 4:30 PM (LAST UPDATED: AUGUST 31, 2022, 5:15 PM)
Share

A busload of Houston residents traveled Tuesday to Austin, where they demonstrated outside of Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) headquarters and spoke out against its Interstate 45 expansion project, asking to have more of a say in its design and execution and in some cases asking for it to be removed from the state agency's long-term transportation plan.

About 60 members of STOP TxDOT I-45, a local grassroots organization that opposes the multi-billion-dollar freeway expansion, commented on the project and its potential impacts during a meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission, which oversees TxDOT. The five-member commission, without discussing the plan for I-45 or responding to the feedback from members of the public, still voted to keep the controversial project and its funding on TxDOT's slate of transportation work over the next 10 years.

It was the latest development in a drawn-out battle between TxDOT and Houston-area stakeholders who oppose the plan for the North Houston Highway Improvement Project (NHHIP), which calls for widening and rerouting I-45 between downtown and Beltway 8 and displacing more than 1,000 homes and businesses in low-income communities of color. Work on the project is largely on hold, per a request by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), while it investigates complaints made under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and audits TxDOT's implementation of federal environmental review requirements.

"We weren't discouraged," said Ally Smither, an organizer for STOP TxDOT I-45 who traveled to Austin and spoke before the commission. "We've come to expect TxDOT to treat us like this. We will keep showing up and keep waiting for the FHWA verdict."

TxDOT, through its media relations office, did not comment on the feedback it received from impacted residents and how that might have affected the decision by the transportation commission.

The Greater Houston Partnership, an economic development organization that represents about 950 businesses in the region, released a statement from president and CEO Bob Harvey saying it supports the transportation commission's decision to keep the I-45 project on TxDOT's Unified Transportation Program, which is the 10-year plan. TxDOT has said the goal of the project is to improve traffic flow, hurricane evacuation routes and stormwater drainage while accommodating high-occupancy, electric and self-driving vehicles.

"This project will improve mobility, address flooding issues and enhance Houston's overall quality of life," Harvey said. "The partnership advocates using the (NHHIP) to realize long-sought opportunities to reconnect communities with new pedestrian and cycling pathways while providing the prospects for new parks and greenspaces."

Impacted residents, groups like STOP TxDOT I-45 and Houston-area elected officials at the municipal, county, state and federal levels have expressed concerns about the project because of how many it will displace and also because of its potential to increase flooding risks as well as noise and air pollution. Harris County sued TxDOT over the project in March 2021, asking a federal judge to require TxDOT to give greater consideration to those concerns and work more closely with local stakeholders.

Molly Cook, another STOP TxDOT I-45 organizer who made the Tuesday trip to Austin, said she does not want the Houston region to lose out on the transportation funding that's been earmarked for the project, even though she opposes specifics of the plan. She does not want the project to displace any homes or businesses or expand the existing footprint of I-45, she said.

Houston City Council member Karla Cisneros, who represents residents who would be impacted by the I-45 project, expressed a similar sentiment in a letter submitted to the Texas Transportation Commission and shared with Houston Public Media. Cisneros urged TxDOT to work with local stakeholders "instead of fighting us," adding that highway reconstruction projects "need to solve serious existing problems, many of which were in fact created by construction of the highways in the first place."

According to Cook and Smither, residents from cities such as Austin, El Paso, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio also attended Tuesday's meeting and expressed opposition to highway projects in their parts of the state.

"Our cities deserve better," Cisneros wrote in her letter. "On behalf of Houston and other urban residents of Texas, we insist that TxDOT partner with us. The state's aging highway infrastructure desperately needs attention, but it must be done responsibly and in collaboration with our cities. A project that goes away does not get us to where we want. Nor will a project that is just wrong get us to where we want. Let's work together."

[kernals12]

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2022/08/31/432075/txdot-keeps-controversial-i-45-expansion-on-long-term-slate-of-projects/

TxDOT keeps controversial I-45 expansion on long-term slate of projects

ADAM ZUVANICH | POSTED ONAUGUST 31, 2022, 4:30 PM (LAST UPDATED: AUGUST 31, 2022, 5:15 PM)
Share

A busload of Houston residents traveled Tuesday to Austin, where they demonstrated outside of Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) headquarters and spoke out against its Interstate 45 expansion project, asking to have more of a say in its design and execution and in some cases asking for it to be removed from the state agency's long-term transportation plan.

About 60 members of STOP TxDOT I-45, a local grassroots organization that opposes the multi-billion-dollar freeway expansion, commented on the project and its potential impacts during a meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission, which oversees TxDOT. The five-member commission, without discussing the plan for I-45 or responding to the feedback from members of the public, still voted to keep the controversial project and its funding on TxDOT's slate of transportation work over the next 10 years.

It was the latest development in a drawn-out battle between TxDOT and Houston-area stakeholders who oppose the plan for the North Houston Highway Improvement Project (NHHIP), which calls for widening and rerouting I-45 between downtown and Beltway 8 and displacing more than 1,000 homes and businesses in low-income communities of color. Work on the project is largely on hold, per a request by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), while it investigates complaints made under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and audits TxDOT's implementation of federal environmental review requirements.

"We weren't discouraged," said Ally Smither, an organizer for STOP TxDOT I-45 who traveled to Austin and spoke before the commission. "We've come to expect TxDOT to treat us like this. We will keep showing up and keep waiting for the FHWA verdict."

TxDOT, through its media relations office, did not comment on the feedback it received from impacted residents and how that might have affected the decision by the transportation commission.

The Greater Houston Partnership, an economic development organization that represents about 950 businesses in the region, released a statement from president and CEO Bob Harvey saying it supports the transportation commission's decision to keep the I-45 project on TxDOT's Unified Transportation Program, which is the 10-year plan. TxDOT has said the goal of the project is to improve traffic flow, hurricane evacuation routes and stormwater drainage while accommodating high-occupancy, electric and self-driving vehicles.

"This project will improve mobility, address flooding issues and enhance Houston's overall quality of life," Harvey said. "The partnership advocates using the (NHHIP) to realize long-sought opportunities to reconnect communities with new pedestrian and cycling pathways while providing the prospects for new parks and greenspaces."

Impacted residents, groups like STOP TxDOT I-45 and Houston-area elected officials at the municipal, county, state and federal levels have expressed concerns about the project because of how many it will displace and also because of its potential to increase flooding risks as well as noise and air pollution. Harris County sued TxDOT over the project in March 2021, asking a federal judge to require TxDOT to give greater consideration to those concerns and work more closely with local stakeholders.

Molly Cook, another STOP TxDOT I-45 organizer who made the Tuesday trip to Austin, said she does not want the Houston region to lose out on the transportation funding that's been earmarked for the project, even though she opposes specifics of the plan. She does not want the project to displace any homes or businesses or expand the existing footprint of I-45, she said.

Houston City Council member Karla Cisneros, who represents residents who would be impacted by the I-45 project, expressed a similar sentiment in a letter submitted to the Texas Transportation Commission and shared with Houston Public Media. Cisneros urged TxDOT to work with local stakeholders "instead of fighting us," adding that highway reconstruction projects "need to solve serious existing problems, many of which were in fact created by construction of the highways in the first place."

According to Cook and Smither, residents from cities such as Austin, El Paso, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio also attended Tuesday's meeting and expressed opposition to highway projects in their parts of the state.

"Our cities deserve better," Cisneros wrote in her letter. "On behalf of Houston and other urban residents of Texas, we insist that TxDOT partner with us. The state's aging highway infrastructure desperately needs attention, but it must be done responsibly and in collaboration with our cities. A project that goes away does not get us to where we want. Nor will a project that is just wrong get us to where we want. Let's work together."

A few months ago, a developer announced it was building a new subdivision in Fort Bend County with 14,000 homes and yet the demolition of 800 homes for a vital highway improvement project is going to cause a housing shortage??

[bwana39]

A few months ago, a developer announced it was building a new subdivision in Fort Bend County with 14,000 homes and yet the demolition of 800 homes for a vital highway improvement project is going to cause a housing shortage??

There are two schools in this demographic thought. There is the school of thought that there is new housing being started in greater Houston. (IE Fort Bend, Galveston, Brazoria, Montgomery, or even Trinity or Chambers counties. )
The other school of thought is there is a shortage of housing in the Fifth Ward.

Some people are clearly just oriented to the metro area. Others are oriented to a particular neighborhood.  Going farther, the affordability of the housing and/or the transportation related to the housing is GENERALLY greater in the more remote areas and less in more economically disadvantaged areas such as the fifth ward.

While we hear that people groups want integration and equality, is it always the case?  The bottom line is SOME if not MANY of some people groups  prefer to remain in mostly (voluntarily) segregated areas. That means that the loss of these housing units does indeed cause a decline in available properties and perhaps an actual shortage in that particular neighborhood.

[bwana39]

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2022/08/31/432075/txdot-keeps-controversial-i-45-expansion-on-long-term-slate-of-projects/

TxDOT keeps controversial I-45 expansion on long-term slate of projects

ADAM ZUVANICH | POSTED ONAUGUST 31, 2022, 4:30 PM (LAST UPDATED: AUGUST 31, 2022, 5:15 PM)
Share

A busload of Houston residents traveled Tuesday to Austin, where they demonstrated outside of Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) headquarters and spoke out against its Interstate 45 expansion project, asking to have more of a say in its design and execution and in some cases asking for it to be removed from the state agency's long-term transportation plan.

About 60 members of STOP TxDOT I-45, a local grassroots organization that opposes the multi-billion-dollar freeway expansion, commented on the project and its potential impacts during a meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission, which oversees TxDOT. The five-member commission, without discussing the plan for I-45 or responding to the feedback from members of the public, still voted to keep the controversial project and its funding on TxDOT's slate of transportation work over the next 10 years.

It was the latest development in a drawn-out battle between TxDOT and Houston-area stakeholders who oppose the plan for the North Houston Highway Improvement Project (NHHIP), which calls for widening and rerouting I-45 between downtown and Beltway 8 and displacing more than 1,000 homes and businesses in low-income communities of color. Work on the project is largely on hold, per a request by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), while it investigates complaints made under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and audits TxDOT's implementation of federal environmental review requirements.

"We weren't discouraged," said Ally Smither, an organizer for STOP TxDOT I-45 who traveled to Austin and spoke before the commission. "We've come to expect TxDOT to treat us like this. We will keep showing up and keep waiting for the FHWA verdict."

TxDOT, through its media relations office, did not comment on the feedback it received from impacted residents and how that might have affected the decision by the transportation commission.

The Greater Houston Partnership, an economic development organization that represents about 950 businesses in the region, released a statement from president and CEO Bob Harvey saying it supports the transportation commission's decision to keep the I-45 project on TxDOT's Unified Transportation Program, which is the 10-year plan. TxDOT has said the goal of the project is to improve traffic flow, hurricane evacuation routes and stormwater drainage while accommodating high-occupancy, electric and self-driving vehicles.

"This project will improve mobility, address flooding issues and enhance Houston's overall quality of life," Harvey said. "The partnership advocates using the (NHHIP) to realize long-sought opportunities to reconnect communities with new pedestrian and cycling pathways while providing the prospects for new parks and greenspaces."

Impacted residents, groups like STOP TxDOT I-45 and Houston-area elected officials at the municipal, county, state and federal levels have expressed concerns about the project because of how many it will displace and also because of its potential to increase flooding risks as well as noise and air pollution. Harris County sued TxDOT over the project in March 2021, asking a federal judge to require TxDOT to give greater consideration to those concerns and work more closely with local stakeholders.

Molly Cook, another STOP TxDOT I-45 organizer who made the Tuesday trip to Austin, said she does not want the Houston region to lose out on the transportation funding that's been earmarked for the project, even though she opposes specifics of the plan. She does not want the project to displace any homes or businesses or expand the existing footprint of I-45, she said.

Houston City Council member Karla Cisneros, who represents residents who would be impacted by the I-45 project, expressed a similar sentiment in a letter submitted to the Texas Transportation Commission and shared with Houston Public Media. Cisneros urged TxDOT to work with local stakeholders "instead of fighting us," adding that highway reconstruction projects "need to solve serious existing problems, many of which were in fact created by construction of the highways in the first place."

According to Cook and Smither, residents from cities such as Austin, El Paso, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio also attended Tuesday's meeting and expressed opposition to highway projects in their parts of the state.

"Our cities deserve better," Cisneros wrote in her letter. "On behalf of Houston and other urban residents of Texas, we insist that TxDOT partner with us. The state's aging highway infrastructure desperately needs attention, but it must be done responsibly and in collaboration with our cities. A project that goes away does not get us to where we want. Nor will a project that is just wrong get us to where we want. Let's work together."

There are some people who want all the freeways removed from the cities altogether.  They are a small but very vocal minority. They can be the proverbial "squeaky wheel".

There are groups who want transportation expansion except where they don't want it. NIMBY.

All projects can be controversial. If one person disagrees with the proposal and they can get others to listen and as little as THINK there might be merit to the argument, there is controversy. Controversial simply means one or more people disagree and people are listening. Something can be controversial and 95+% of the people agree with it. It doesn't take a majority or even significant number of people disagreeing to make something controversial. A small number of partisans can make anything controversial. The question is should the vocal minorities that create controversy  actually have the clout that they seem to be getting?

The only controversy with any merit is how much weight these minority voices should wield.

[kernals12]

A few months ago, a developer announced it was building a new subdivision in Fort Bend County with 14,000 homes and yet the demolition of 800 homes for a vital highway improvement project is going to cause a housing shortage??

There are two schools in this demographic thought. There is the school of thought that there is new housing being started in greater Houston. (IE Fort Bend, Galveston, Brazoria, Montgomery, or even Trinity or Chambers counties. )
The other school of thought is there is a shortage of housing in the Fifth Ward.

Some people are clearly just oriented to the metro area. Others are oriented to a particular neighborhood.  Going farther, the affordability of the housing and/or the transportation related to the housing is GENERALLY greater in the more remote areas and less in more economically disadvantaged areas such as the fifth ward.

While we hear that people groups want integration and equality, is it always the case?  The bottom line is SOME if not MANY of some people groups  prefer to remain in mostly (voluntarily) segregated areas. That means that the loss of these housing units does indeed cause a decline in available properties and perhaps an actual shortage in that particular neighborhood.

okay, I'm confused. Only a tiny portion of the 5th ward  at the SW corner will be impacted by this.

[bwana39]

Perhaps fifth ward is overly specific. The real problems on the highway are in the city council district "H" but the fifth ward community activists seem to be ramrodding it. The 5th ward activists do not limit themselves to the 5th ward.