North Houston Highway Improvement Project

[Anthony_JK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bwana39]

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

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

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

As to funding a different project.....

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

[abqtraveler]

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

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

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

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

As to funding a different project.....

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

[cbalducc]

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

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

[cbalducc]

No, it comes from an economic precept. Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.). Which means in practice that urban land is worth more than rural land because it has an established price that is more. Even when a seller incurs a loss, it is because he overpaid for it initially not because it actually is worth less now.  The cost of raw land will hardly ever be less than the previous sale even when significant remediation or structure removal costs are going to incurred.
[/quote]
Doesn't urban land decrease in value if it is located in an area that is no longer desirable?

[MaxConcrete]

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

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


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


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

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

[brad2971]

No, it comes from an economic precept. Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.). Which means in practice that urban land is worth more than rural land because it has an established price that is more. Even when a seller incurs a loss, it is because he overpaid for it initially not because it actually is worth less now.  The cost of raw land will hardly ever be less than the previous sale even when significant remediation or structure removal costs are going to incurred.

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

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

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

[kernals12]

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


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

[Plutonic Panda]

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

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

[bwana39]

No, it comes from an economic precept. Land NEVER reduces in value (and as a whole any Real Property doesn't.). Which means in practice that urban land is worth more than rural land because it has an established price that is more. Even when a seller incurs a loss, it is because he overpaid for it initially not because it actually is worth less now.  The cost of raw land will hardly ever be less than the previous sale even when significant remediation or structure removal costs are going to incurred.

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

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

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

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

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

[Anthony_JK]

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


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

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

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

[kernals12]

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

[MaxConcrete]

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

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

Key items in the presentation

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

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

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

[Anthony_JK]

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

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

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

[MaxConcrete]

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

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

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

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

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

[kernals12]

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

[kernals12]

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

[MaxConcrete]

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

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

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

[kernals12]

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

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

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

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

[TXtoNJ]

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

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

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

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

You been to Houston?

[MaxConcrete]

UPDATE: the City of Houston has blocked demolition by withholding needed permits
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-to-delay-demolition-of-apartments-near-17258539.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HC_AfternoonReport&utm_term=news&utm_content=headlines&sid=5b02328c2ddf9c12eaed3685

More trouble....

The demolition contractor is about to begin demolition of the 375-unit Lofts at the Ballpark, which is not public housing. The demolition contractor has secured the site and moved equipment into position. Now Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is trying to stop the demolition. She's trying to get FHWA to stop it, but if that doesn't work I expect the opposition to seek a court order.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Plan-to-demolish-apartments-near-Minute-Maid-Park-17255957.php
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2022/06/21/sheila-jackson-lee-lofts-at-the-ballpark-txdot-i45.html

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is questioning the legality of an effort by the Texas Department of Transportation to demolish a three-building apartment complex near Minute Maid Park to make way for the planned expansion of Interstate 45, adding weight to a protest effort led by community activists.

During a June 21 press conference, Lee said the demolition of the 375-unit Lofts at the Ballpark complex at 601 St. Emanuel St. would disproportionately affect minority communities while the I-45 expansion project is currently on pause. Last year, the Federal Highway Administration ordered the I-45 expansion project, dubbed the North Houston Highway Improvement Project, to hold off on construction while the federal agency investigates whether Black and Hispanic communities will be disproportionately affected by the construction.

TxDOT acquired the Lofts at the Ballpark complex in June 2021 and quickly began working to relocate the residents living there. TxDOT said all of the residents had been moved out of the complex as of May 2022. Those who were forced to move received relocation assistance.

[armadillo speedbump]

So no one lives there, they've all been relocated since TXDOT bought the building, yet SJL is claiming tearing down an empty building that no longer can be rented out will somehow disproportionally affect the minority community.

Par for her extremely corrupt course.

[kernals12]

FHWA has already allowed ROW clearance for that part of the project. This is pure grandstanding.

[bwana39]

FHWA has already allowed ROW clearance for that part of the project. This is pure grandstanding.

Yeah BUT.... The place we are in right now begs the question of the construction EVER being done.  I think she is off base, but using it as low-income housing until there is actually a FIRM decision of whether the modified freeway is ever going to be built or how is not necessarily a wrong way to think.

The ROW for FM2348 in near Mount Pleasant (north of the UPRR) was purchased (some through imminent  domain) and cleared based on the portion of road north of US-67 being aligned to fit the FM 1001 /I-30 overpass. Instead the intersection wound up being routed to meet the existing FM1001 / US-67 intersection. And the existing portion of FM1001 between US-67 and I-30 remaining unchanged.

The Convenience store immediately south of the I-30 intersection was bought and torn down. Since the reroute failed to materialize, the ROW south of US-67 has been sold and a business has built a building on part of it.  A new truck stop / convenience store is now sitting on the same location as previously. The government (it this case Titus County) bought the properties and went to the expense of demolition and clearing then sold them to others for a significant loss, not counting the demolition expenses.

This is not as clear cut as we would seem to suggest. We may, indeed, be getting the cart before the horse.

[Henry]

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?