North Houston Highway Improvement Project

[Plutonic Panda]

Yea I don't think Texas interchanges are outdated at all. If anything they're the most modern interchanges that exist.

[kernals12]

To be fair, the "ideals" for Texas interchanges are pretty outdated and detached from the context of urban environments.

To be fair, why do they have to be "outdated?" That is just an opinion from  urbanists versus a more realistic view of what the greater portion of Texans seem to support.

No! what happens if they build the low radius ramps, the community that is there declines because it is immediately adjacent to a busy intersection. If I believed that the low radius ramps MIGHT allow the local community to be affected significantly less than with the wider high speed ramps, I might be able to agree. Simple fact, the Church and the other people in the area tolerate the new dynamics for a while then flee to greener pastures. 

There's already a ramp there. This just means that there's a symbolic win for the North Houston black community, since this church doesn't get destroyed. What's more, it reduces a ton of opposition to the rest of the project.

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

They make it easier to get around. They're why most of the world's least congested cities are in America. Is it any wonder that developing countries are copying the American, rather than the European model and filling their cities with expressways?

[Scott5114]

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

Apparently someone has never been to Oklahoma City.

[Plutonic Panda]

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

Apparently someone has never been to Oklahoma City.

Or any other American city

[TXtoNJ]

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

Apparently someone has never been to Oklahoma City.

Lol. If only you knew how wrong you are.

I've got no problem with highway construction and expansion in suburbs and rural areas. It's why I'm on this site. They're completely inappropriate in an urban environment, unless you want your city to just be a giant suburb (like most in the Sunbelt). The best projects within cities are the ones that make them less impactful, like the I-45 project will.

[Plutonic Panda]

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

Apparently someone has never been to Oklahoma City.

Lol. If only you knew how wrong you are.

I've got no problem with highway construction and expansion in suburbs and rural areas. It's why I'm on this site. They're completely inappropriate in an urban environment, unless you want your city to just be a giant suburb (like most in the Sunbelt). The best projects within cities are the ones that make them less impactful, like the I-45 project will.

How exactly are freeways failures?

[Bobby5280]

Freeways do indeed have their place within urban areas. Any downtown zone in the US would be excruciating to visit by car if the motorist had to pass through dozens of traffic signals on surface streets to get there.

The downtown zones of most major US cities have attractions, such as arenas and stadiums, that depend on high numbers of people to visit. The office towers support many thousands of workers. Those sites are significantly dependent on the highway network to get people in/out of downtown. Not everyone is going to take a train into work. Even cities with large subway & commuter train networks, such as NYC, still have plenty of super highways connecting to the city core.

If anything is a big failure it's the widespread, very American and very stupid zoning policies for housing in cities across the nation. Some people call it the "missing middle" problem. You can have tall apartment towers downtown. But almost everywhere else is zoned for single family homes. Those policies have done more to create sprawl than any of the freeways. The situation is getting worse now since the only new construction for either extreme of housing is being built for rich buyers. The cost of housing in European cities is very high as well, but there is a much greater variety of housing types available to rent/buy. That allows greater levels of population density, mixed use buildings, walk-ability, etc. Until American cities by and large re-think their zoning policies our cities will continue to be very dependent on automobiles for travel whether there are any freeways or not.

[TheBox]

Freeways do indeed have their place within urban areas. Any downtown zone in the US would be excruciating to visit by car if the motorist had to pass through dozens of traffic signals on surface streets to get there.

The downtown zones of most major US cities have attractions, such as arenas and stadiums, that depend on high numbers of people to visit. The office towers support many thousands of workers. Those sites are significantly dependent on the highway network to get people in/out of downtown. Not everyone is going to take a train into work. Even cities with large subway & commuter train networks, such as NYC, still have plenty of super highways connecting to the city core.

If anything is a big failure it's the widespread, very American and very stupid zoning policies for housing in cities across the nation. Some people call it the "missing middle" problem. You can have tall apartment towers downtown. But almost everywhere else is zoned for single family homes. Those policies have done more to create sprawl than any of the freeways. The situation is getting worse now since the only new construction for either extreme of housing is being built for rich buyers. The cost of housing in European cities is very high as well, but there is a much greater variety of housing types available to rent/buy. That allows greater levels of population density, mixed use buildings, walk-ability, etc. Until American cities by and large re-think their zoning policies our cities will continue to be very dependent on automobiles for travel whether there are any freeways or not.

Have to agree with his take on American Zoning

[Scott5114]

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

Apparently someone has never been to Oklahoma City.

Lol. If only you knew how wrong you are.

Well, explain it to me, then. Take the Oklahoma City freeway system as an example, and justify how your viewpoint is consistent with it. Be sure to take into account the ongoing density increases in Bricktown, Deep Deuce, Automobile Alley, Wheeler district, etc.

If anything is a big failure it's the widespread, very American and very stupid zoning policies for housing in cities across the nation. Some people call it the "missing middle" problem. You can have tall apartment towers downtown. But almost everywhere else is zoned for single family homes. Those policies have done more to create sprawl than any of the freeways. The situation is getting worse now since the only new construction for either extreme of housing is being built for rich buyers. The cost of housing in European cities is very high as well, but there is a much greater variety of housing types available to rent/buy. That allows greater levels of population density, mixed use buildings, walk-ability, etc. Until American cities by and large re-think their zoning policies our cities will continue to be very dependent on automobiles for travel whether there are any freeways or not.

As a counterpoint...Houston has no zoning system whatsoever, and yet it is, by and large, also very dependent on automobiles.

[Anthony_JK]

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

Apparently someone has never been to Oklahoma City.

Lol. If only you knew how wrong you are.

I've got no problem with highway construction and expansion in suburbs and rural areas. It's why I'm on this site. They're completely inappropriate in an urban environment, unless you want your city to just be a giant suburb (like most in the Sunbelt). The best projects within cities are the ones that make them less impactful, like the I-45 project will.

Right, because having residents slough through bumper-to-bumper traffic on surface roads with endless stoplights just to get to the suburbs is far more ideal, right?

Nope.

While there could be a bit more balance in inner city transport, and I am all for increasing public transportation alternatives, we still need freeways to access inner cities. We can do a lot better job of how we design them though neighborhoods, and we can better take into account how better to integrate them within their environments through CSS and better development. But, even those in the inner cities travel outside them, and as long as people use cars and trucks for the majority of their travel, they will use freeways to get where they are going.  People can't carry their goods on trains, and walking and bicycling isn't ideal in bad weather.

[kernals12]

Freeways do indeed have their place within urban areas. Any downtown zone in the US would be excruciating to visit by car if the motorist had to pass through dozens of traffic signals on surface streets to get there.

The downtown zones of most major US cities have attractions, such as arenas and stadiums, that depend on high numbers of people to visit. The office towers support many thousands of workers. Those sites are significantly dependent on the highway network to get people in/out of downtown. Not everyone is going to take a train into work. Even cities with large subway & commuter train networks, such as NYC, still have plenty of super highways connecting to the city core.

If anything is a big failure it's the widespread, very American and very stupid zoning policies for housing in cities across the nation. Some people call it the "missing middle" problem. You can have tall apartment towers downtown. But almost everywhere else is zoned for single family homes. Those policies have done more to create sprawl than any of the freeways. The situation is getting worse now since the only new construction for either extreme of housing is being built for rich buyers. The cost of housing in European cities is very high as well, but there is a much greater variety of housing types available to rent/buy. That allows greater levels of population density, mixed use buildings, walk-ability, etc. Until American cities by and large re-think their zoning policies our cities will continue to be very dependent on automobiles for travel whether there are any freeways or not.

People prefer sprawl.

[hotdogPi]

People prefer sprawl.

From what I understand, Massachusetts's suburbs, which you're much more familiar with, are much different from sprawl (which is generally post-WWII). Sprawl is basically cookie cutter suburbs.

I live in an area where an urban lifestyle is possible. I don't drive, so I have to walk or take the bus; since the recommendation is to walk 5 miles per day, I often get my walking in by going to dinner or the grocery store. I sometimes have to have dinner early, though, as I won't walk in the dark, and it's the shortest time of year right now. (For those of you not from here: sunset was 4:10 at its earliest, and there's about 15 minutes between sunset and being too dark. I often walk there and take the bus back.) Since the buses don't run on Sundays, if I'm at a restaurant on Saturday., I get enough for leftovers.

On the other hand, driving in this area is perfectly fine. Sometimes there's congestion, but nowhere near what it is in Boston.

Sprawl basically leaves driving as the only option. I don't think I could live the way I do 15 miles from the center of Phoenix or Atlanta.

Of note: In Massachusetts, most undivided roads are one lane in each direction, which makes them fairly easy to cross on foot. Most sprawled out places have multilane roads. If there's no median, they're dangerous to cross on foot.

[Bobby5280]

Old historic cities in Massachusetts are very different from today's norm of residential zoning. Even many of the suburbs existed before the post-WWII boom of homogenized neighborhood design. Structures like multi-family brownstones, town houses and modest sized apartment buildings are common in close proximity to single family structures.

As a counterpoint...Houston has no zoning system whatsoever, and yet it is, by and large, also very dependent on automobiles.

Houston and its suburbs absolutely do have zoning systems for homes. Some of the oldest (and most run-down) parts of Houston will have some variety of housing types, like low-income projects. Farther out from the downtown core the variety decreases. Specific neighborhoods like River Oaks or University Place have specific home types. There is city-dictated zoning. And then there is private zoning enforced by HOA's or developers.

People prefer sprawl.

It has nothing to do with what they prefer. It has more to do with what they can afford or how much home they can buy in a specific location. Generally homes get more affordable the farther you move out from the city core. Buyers have to balance home price affordability against a longer distance commute.

The big failure of the New Urbanist vision to get more people to live closer to the city core is no one is building housing units near the core that are affordable to regular middle class people. All too often any new mixed-use development in a downtown zone features apartments with sky high prices. The buyers tend to be well-off people who likely already own a huge home in the suburbs. They buy those downtown apartments as crash pads, party places or maybe as an investment asset to buy and hold (like what has happened with so many towers in Manhattan and Brooklyn). Lots of international money is pouring into properties like that as a hedge against currency inflation. The home pricing pressures are likely to keep getting worse until they completely tank the broader economy. If too many Americans are paying 50%, 60% or 70% of their income on housing that doesn't leave much room to afford anything else. 70% of our economy depends on people having the ability to buy stuff.

[Scott5114]

As a counterpoint...Houston has no zoning system whatsoever, and yet it is, by and large, also very dependent on automobiles.

Houston and its suburbs absolutely do have zoning systems for homes. Some of the oldest (and most run-down) parts of Houston will have some variety of housing types, like low-income projects. Farther out from the downtown core the variety decreases. Specific neighborhoods like River Oaks or University Place have specific home types. There is city-dictated zoning. And then there is private zoning enforced by HOA's or developers.

This is false:



The only regulations seem to be that you can't build too high close to the airport, and that there are zoning regulations in this specially-designated district:


If private sector developers and HOAs determine that they'd like to follow a zoning-like system, that is the free market making that determination. It is not zoning, however. (And Houston famously has a lot of instances of adjoining land use that doesn't make a lot of sense, suggesting that the free market is asleep at the switch on this one.)

[Plutonic Panda]

Showing skyscrapers next to single family homes lol scaaaaary. You see this all the time in LA.

[TXtoNJ]

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

Apparently someone has never been to Oklahoma City.

Lol. If only you knew how wrong you are.

I've got no problem with highway construction and expansion in suburbs and rural areas. It's why I'm on this site. They're completely inappropriate in an urban environment, unless you want your city to just be a giant suburb (like most in the Sunbelt). The best projects within cities are the ones that make them less impactful, like the I-45 project will.

Right, because having residents slough through bumper-to-bumper traffic on surface roads with endless stoplights just to get to the suburbs is far more ideal, right?

Vancouver works just fine. Sure, people on the north shore complain about traffic, but they complain in West Houston, too.

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

[Plutonic Panda]

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

Apparently someone has never been to Oklahoma City.

Lol. If only you knew how wrong you are.

I've got no problem with highway construction and expansion in suburbs and rural areas. It's why I'm on this site. They're completely inappropriate in an urban environment, unless you want your city to just be a giant suburb (like most in the Sunbelt). The best projects within cities are the ones that make them less impactful, like the I-45 project will.

Right, because having residents slough through bumper-to-bumper traffic on surface roads with endless stoplights just to get to the suburbs is far more ideal, right?

Vancouver works just fine. Sure, people on the north shore complain about traffic, but they complain in West Houston, too.

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

Really? I've heard traffic in Vancouver is horrible.

[kernals12]

Let cities be cities already. We tried urban freeways for a century now, and it's clear they're a failure for any purpose other than putting more cars on the road.

Apparently someone has never been to Oklahoma City.

Lol. If only you knew how wrong you are.

I've got no problem with highway construction and expansion in suburbs and rural areas. It's why I'm on this site. They're completely inappropriate in an urban environment, unless you want your city to just be a giant suburb (like most in the Sunbelt). The best projects within cities are the ones that make them less impactful, like the I-45 project will.

Right, because having residents slough through bumper-to-bumper traffic on surface roads with endless stoplights just to get to the suburbs is far more ideal, right?

Vancouver works just fine. Sure, people on the north shore complain about traffic, but they complain in West Houston, too.

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

Really? I've heard traffic in Vancouver is horrible.

I think he's talking about the one in Washington

[Scott5114]

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

I-40 isn't the only freeway in Oklahoma City, you know.

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you. ODOT saw the opportunity to rid itself of the liability of maintaining an elevated structure, and also added four lanes to the freeway to boot. And the realigned freeway is still in an urban area (it's within walking distance of the old right-of-way, actually).

[vdeane]

It's worth noting that Houston does have other planning tools in use, just not zoning.  So it's not actually a free for all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k

[bwana39]

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

I-40 isn't the only freeway in Oklahoma City, you know.

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you. ODOT saw the opportunity to rid itself of the liability of maintaining an elevated structure, and also added four lanes to the freeway to boot. And the realigned freeway is still in an urban area (it's within walking distance of the old right-of-way, actually).

This is pretty much the same thing they did with I-30 in Fort Worth when they tore down the Lancaster Elevated and moved i-30 to a new path just a short distance farther south.

[kernals12]

With respect to OKC upthread - you really want to rely on an extremely prominent example of a successful freeway reroute/impact reduction to make some point about freeways not negatively impacting urban development? Especially when the city is consistently committing to MAPS funds toward public transport, with broad public support in a very red state.

I-40 isn't the only freeway in Oklahoma City, you know.

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you. ODOT saw the opportunity to rid itself of the liability of maintaining an elevated structure, and also added four lanes to the freeway to boot. And the realigned freeway is still in an urban area (it's within walking distance of the old right-of-way, actually).

This is pretty much the same thing they did with I-30 in Fort Worth when they tore down the Lancaster Elevated and moved i-30 to a new path just a short distance farther south.

And in Providence when they moved I-195 south from its old location between Downtown and the Jewelry District.

[Bobby5280]

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you.

The old Crosstown elevated highway was badly outdated. I think it was also an eye-sore. The re-location of I-40 a few blocks farther South was badly needed. The re-location was not a freeway removal (like what is being proposed in some places). It was actually a freeway expansion. I think the design of the re-located Crosstown Expressway actually makes it easier to visit downtown OKC by auto. And that was before the at-grade Oklahoma City Blvd in the space of the old Crosstown was completed. That further improves the ease of getting in/out of Bricktown by car.

It's worth noting that Houston does have other planning tools in use, just not zoning.  So it's not actually a free for all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k&t=185s

Thanks for posting that video from the City Beautiful YouTube channel. I knew Houston had a lot of tools to control what kinds of buildings get built in specific locations, even if it isn't technically called zoning. The various tools listed in the video achieve the same effect.

Here's another video related to Houston from the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel:
"Why City Design is Important (and Why I Hate Houston)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54

The video is fairly long, but interesting. I don't entirely agree with all the points in the video. The author is very pro mass transit and anti car culture. But walk-ability and the missing middle in housing types within many American metros is still a very serious problem. The video's author doesn't bash Houston entirely. He gives the city credit for dramatically improving its bus service and building some new dedicated bike paths and pedestrian facilities in certain areas.

[Scott5114]

The Crosstown was mostly realigned due to the poor condition of the aging elevated structure more than anything having to do with urban development, regardless of anything the biker gang will tell you.

The old Crosstown elevated highway was badly outdated. I think it was also an eye-sore. The re-location of I-40 a few blocks farther South was badly needed. The re-location was not a freeway removal (like what is being proposed in some places). It was actually a freeway expansion. I think the design of the re-located Crosstown Expressway actually makes it easier to visit downtown OKC by auto. And that was before the at-grade Oklahoma City Blvd in the space of the old Crosstown was completed. That further improves the ease of getting in/out of Bricktown by car.

I don't necessarily agree with it being an eyesore–I kinda liked it for its '60s utilitarian aesthetic–but that's probably a function of my nostalgia for the thing, since we didn't go downtown all that often when it was around. I got to go to both the grand opening of the new highway and the open house immediately before demolition of the old one (I actually have the cover off of one of the junction boxes for the Crosstown's lighting system in my living room).

But it was both very outdated and in very bad shape, so it needed to be demolished and rebuilt; the only question was whether to use the existing right of way or not. The realignment simply made more sense because it allowed for a non-elevated structure and provided more room for expansion.

A lot of the urbanist types were left fuming after the project was completed, because, in their eyes, Oklahoma City Boulevard isn't much better than the freeway it replaced, other than the area immediately surrounding the Thunder arena and Scissortail Park. They were hoping the City of OKC would immediately tear it out and restore the grid once they got the keys to it. OKC doesn't seem to have much interest in doing that, though, probably because it would be a much bigger expense than the city wants to take on, and there's plenty of infrastructure that has more wrong with it than being not to a vocal minority's liking.

[Chris]

'Why I hate Houston'.

Houston is one of the fastest-growing cities in the U.S. It's interesting to observe that ordinary people like the cities which urbanists hate the most.

The same is true for much of the Sunbelt, this is the fastest growing area of the U.S., despite all the urbanist objections about how sprawling and bad it is supposedly is. Apparently, it is what people prefer.