I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[crock]

10 hours ago, Triton said:

There were several exhibits missing at the meeting

 

it was 3.  19, 34, and whatever the last number was.   

 

 

[Montrose1100]

The Cross section at White Oak looks like a total you know what show. I'm starting to feel for the residents on that side. It's bad enough as it is, but these options are picking the lesser of two evils? I don't know which one is worse. Seems like it needs to be more tightly woven.

[cspwal]

Maybe they could reroute the MAX lanes to the west a little and join in with the Katy's MAX lanes; that would bring the lane count down by 4 at White Oak.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what they can do besides rerouting the whole thing away from there.  The whole design is basically a double wide freeway around all of downtown, including at White Oak

[Luminare]

I now have MetroNext items updated/plotted on the map. The only thing I'm leaving out is the Boost Routes since thats just updated frequency in schedules.

 

Edit: Link added by Triton: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?hl=en&ll=29.950590396611492%2C-95.34804397096804&z=15&mid=1J_89cR1sxP4muIAHRJlm6TajoQPyoswJ

[Triton]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

I now have MetroNext items updated/plotted on the map. The only thing I'm leaving out is the Boost Routes since thats just updated frequency in schedules.

I wouldn't worry about adding those, Luminare. Great job!

[samagon]

yet another article that bigger/more doesn't correlate to less traffic...

 

https://earther.gizmodo.com/why-expanding-highways-makes-traffic-worse-1842220595

 

strange, I never can seem to read/find articles that studies that show that bigger freeways mean less traffic...

Edited March 10, 2020 by samagon

[august948]

9 hours ago, samagon said:

yet another article that bigger/more doesn't correlate to less traffic...

 

https://earther.gizmodo.com/why-expanding-highways-makes-traffic-worse-1842220595

 

strange, I never can seem to read/find articles that studies that show that bigger freeways mean less traffic...

 

People always have places they have to go and places they want to go.  Making it easier to get someplace encourages them to go.  Private automobiles have been hugely successful in that regard.  It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that if it's easier to go someplace, more people will go.  Do we want to encourage people to stay home more?

[MaxConcrete]

11 hours ago, samagon said:

yet another article that bigger/more doesn't correlate to less traffic...

 

https://earther.gizmodo.com/why-expanding-highways-makes-traffic-worse-1842220595

 

strange, I never can seem to read/find articles that studies that show that bigger freeways mean less traffic...

 

Even if expanded freeways do not eliminate peak-period congestion, they typically limit congestion to only the peak period. That's a big benefit. Several freeways in Houston with inadequate capacity (especially the West Loop) are congested through most of the day and on weekends.

 

A more important benefit of expanded freeways is that they empower more people to meet their mobility needs. While I don't have exact traffic numbers for the pre-expanded Katy Freeway, it was generally in the low 200,000s. Now it serves 369,000 near BW8 (2018), which is down somewhat from the 2016 peak of 387,000.

Edited March 11, 2020 by MaxConcrete

[Geographer]

Highway expansions may not reduce congestion in the long run but they add capacity and enable growth.  That is a worthy goal.  The purpose of transportation infrastructure is to allow people to go where they want to go, when they want to go, as quickly, cheaply, and as safely as possible.

Edited March 17, 2020 by Geographer

[samagon]

If the goal is to allow for growth in the suburbs, then why is the project being sold to everyone as a way to reduce traffic and pollution?

[Texasota]

Exactly this. It is past time we stop valuing "growth" for its own sake and start asking where we want that growth to be. 

[Ross]

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

Exactly this. It is past time we stop valuing "growth" for its own sake and start asking where we want that growth to be. 

It doesn't really matter where you want the growth, the growth will be where people want to live, and that's not in mid or high rise apartments, or townhouses, inside the Loop. The reason those large MPC's in the middle of nowhere sell like hotcakes is that's where people want to live, in single family homes with a yard, a garage to store their stuff, and schools that are perceived to be good.

[cspwal]

Then why do the townhouses sell quickly and the midrise apartment buildings keep raising their rents?

[Texasota]

Because townhomes (which generally have a garage to store stuff in) inside the loop sell poorly? Houses built out in the boonies sell because they're affordable, and they're affordable because they're cheaply built *and* the cost of land is basically nil. 

 

Not to say that there aren't people who want that lifestyle, but there are plenty of people who would be happy to buy a townhome inside the loop *if* they could get into a "good" school and pay the same as they would out in the boonies. There are also plenty of people willing to pay more; again, townhomes inside the loop are selling just fine. 

 

The problem is that the relative cheapness of houses out in the middle of nowhere is the result of pricing *only* reflecting the cost of land and not the cost of new infrastructure or the impact on regional resilience and future flooding.

[BeerNut]

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Because townhomes (which generally have a garage to store stuff in) inside the loop sell poorly? Houses built out in the boonies sell because they're affordable, and they're affordable because they're cheaply built *and* the cost of land is basically nil. 

 

Not to say that there aren't people who want that lifestyle, but there are plenty of people who would be happy to buy a townhome inside the loop *if* they could get into a "good" school and pay the same as they would out in the boonies. There are also plenty of people willing to pay more; again, townhomes inside the loop are selling just fine. 

 

The problem is that the relative cheapness of houses out in the middle of nowhere is the result of pricing *only* reflecting the cost of land and not the cost of new infrastructure or the impact on regional resilience and future flooding.

 Schools and cost of housing is why my friends moved to the suburbs.  

[august948]

6 hours ago, cspwal said:

Then why do the townhouses sell quickly and the midrise apartment buildings keep raising their rents?

 

Supply and demand.  It's also why the houses in mpc's way outside the loop sell like hotcakes.

[august948]

6 hours ago, Texasota said:

Because townhomes (which generally have a garage to store stuff in) inside the loop sell poorly? Houses built out in the boonies sell because they're affordable, and they're affordable because they're cheaply built *and* the cost of land is basically nil. 

 

Not to say that there aren't people who want that lifestyle, but there are plenty of people who would be happy to buy a townhome inside the loop *if* they could get into a "good" school and pay the same as they would out in the boonies. There are also plenty of people willing to pay more; again, townhomes inside the loop are selling just fine. 

 

The problem is that the relative cheapness of houses out in the middle of nowhere is the result of pricing *only* reflecting the cost of land and not the cost of new infrastructure or the impact on regional resilience and future flooding.

 

I wouldn't put too much reliance on those townhomes inside the loop being built with any more care than the ones out in the boonies.  It's just that the laws of supply and demand allow the builders to charge more for the same construction techniques inside the loop.

[Texasota]

Oh of course. Most (though definitely not all) of the townhomes are built just as poorly, especially once suburban builders realized how profitable they were and entered the market.

 

My point was more that there is plenty of demand for homes on smaller lots in the city, but because of the difference in the vale of land (and because demand is so high), a family that can only afford, say, a $200,000 home has far more options out in the new developments, and that is because the way these new developments are financed does not fully capture and pass on their true costs. This is also despite the fact that housing costs in Houston proper are still relatively low compared to other cities.

[august948]

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

Oh of course. Most (though definitely not all) of the townhomes are built just as poorly, especially once suburban builders realized how profitable they were and entered the market.

 

My point was more that there is plenty of demand for homes on smaller lots in the city, but because of the difference in the vale of land (and because demand is so high), a family that can only afford, say, a $200,000 home has far more options out in the new developments, and that is because the way these new developments are financed does not fully capture and pass on their true costs. This is also despite the fact that housing costs in Houston proper are still relatively low compared to other cities.

 

Agreed.  There is never a time when all the infrastructure that is really needed is factored into the price of the house.  Any house, anywhere.  We rely on the government for that and pay for it one way or the other.  Our system for dealing with housing and transportation is necessarily mixed and has been since the beginning of time.  The two extremes on either end of that spectrum would be 100% private financing and building and 100% government financing and building.  I can't even think of an example at the country level of 100% private, but 100% public would be the soviet model.

[samagon]

as I have been venturing out of my home and just driving around in an effort to change the scenery a little bit, I am struck by how absolutely empty freeways are.

 

It frustrates me to no end that our state is not willing to embrace public transportation, but I still want to see that idea happen, and this freeway expansion not happen.

 

as we all sit here working from our homes, rather than traveling into offices, another thought sticks out like the cliche'd elephant in the room.

 

why not spend the money that would go towards this freeway on programs that encourage working from home? I have referenced a study previously in this thread from Belgium that a reduction in 10% of cars results in a 40% reduction in traffic. surely we are seeing an even greater reduction in cars for a 100% reduction in traffic. 

 

the benefits are obvious, lower pollution, fewer accidents, less traffic. 

 

this city could reduce traffic ALL OVER TOWN (not just on this freeway) it could reduce road/highway maintenance costs, it would reduce road closures for projects like this. it would remove the need to remove people from their homes and communities, the cost savings alone is reason to choose this instead of more construction.

 

I have a hunch that even if the government doesn't offer incentives for WFH that a lot of companies that had resisted will probably start to adjust. even if that adjustment is only to allow 3 days WFH, and 2 days in the office, we are going to see a change naturally as a result of this pandemic.

[Houston19514]

3 hours ago, samagon said:

as I have been venturing out of my home and just driving around in an effort to change the scenery a little bit, I am struck by how absolutely empty freeways are.

 

It frustrates me to no end that our state is not willing to embrace public transportation, but I still want to see that idea happen, and this freeway expansion not happen.

 

as we all sit here working from our homes, rather than traveling into offices, another thought sticks out like the cliche'd elephant in the room.

 

why not spend the money that would go towards this freeway on programs that encourage working from home? I have referenced a study previously in this thread from Belgium that a reduction in 10% of cars results in a 40% reduction in traffic. surely we are seeing an even greater reduction in cars for a 100% reduction in traffic. 

 

the benefits are obvious, lower pollution, fewer accidents, less traffic. 

 

this city could reduce traffic ALL OVER TOWN (not just on this freeway) it could reduce road/highway maintenance costs, it would reduce road closures for projects like this. it would remove the need to remove people from their homes and communities, the cost savings alone is reason to choose this instead of more construction.

 

I have a hunch that even if the government doesn't offer incentives for WFH that a lot of companies that had resisted will probably start to adjust. even if that adjustment is only to allow 3 days WFH, and 2 days in the office, we are going to see a change naturally as a result of this pandemic.

 

Just to clarify, that it is not exactly what was reported.  It was reported that "10% fewer cars on the roads would mean a 40% reduction in traffic jams."  https://www2.deloitte.com/be/en/pages/strategy-operations/articles/future-of-mobility-press-release.html   More important, I don't know where that conclusion came from. I cannot find it anywhere in the actual study.https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/be/Documents/strategy/FOMBrochureFinalVersion.pdf

It's in the press release about the study, but it does not seem to be in the study.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Houston19514

[BeerNut]

4 hours ago, samagon said:

as I have been venturing out of my home and just driving around in an effort to change the scenery a little bit, I am struck by how absolutely empty freeways are.

 

I've been on "isolation island" for several weeks.  It was weird seeing so little traffic on the highways on my drive home..

[X.R.]

On 3/18/2020 at 7:25 AM, Texasota said:

Oh of course. Most (though definitely not all) of the townhomes are built just as poorly, especially once suburban builders realized how profitable they were and entered the market.

 

My point was more that there is plenty of demand for homes on smaller lots in the city, but because of the difference in the vale of land (and because demand is so high), a family that can only afford, say, a $200,000 home has far more options out in the new developments, and that is because the way these new developments are financed does not fully capture and pass on their true costs. This is also despite the fact that housing costs in Houston proper are still relatively low compared to other cities.

 

Just to give people insight into the plight of the 25-35 year old crew, a mix of professionals and non-professionals in my extended group of friends/acquaintances: A 200,000 move-in ready suburban home with a decent yard, big enough to house a family of 4, and a good school district doesn't really exist in the Burbs anymore. 300,000, yes, but a true 200k home is a fantasy unless you are in the far, far out burbs or the house is in a mid-level, or lower, floodplain. For example, speaking to you guys talking about passing on the buck in terms of infrastructure, I've helped some clients with their issues with their kingwood/atascocita flooding. Moving to the burbs, an easy assumption for where people move to in Houston, still comes with these types of traps, where developers hurt the floodplain and the residents don't know. 

 

When a cheaper house occasionally does pop up in Pearland/Sugarland/Tomball my friends are losing out to people putting down 60% + cash on the homes, which should tell people that the people buying those homes are investors looking to lease or flip the house. My dad lives in a suburban home inside of the beltway but outside of 610, and was in talks with people to have it bought for 140k, mostly cash. It is not in a good school district (I went to it), and it was built in the 70s. There are some underlying assumptions in this thread that I believe doesn't reflect what younger people are seeing in the market.

 

I actually have been doing the research on HAR and Zillow for myself for a year or so, if you want to be in the loop and have at least two of the kid's schools you're automatically zoned to be B or better on Greatschools (not a great metric, but alot of people use it) you're looking at 650k+. There is clear demand for that area. Growth will happen in the burbs, which is normal for Houston. But it wont be as dominant as before because it is more expensive to live in the burbs than some of you make it out to be. 

Edited March 27, 2020 by X.R.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Just to clarify, that it is not exactly what was reported.  It was reported that "10% fewer cars on the roads would mean a 40% reduction in traffic jams."  https://www2.deloitte.com/be/en/pages/strategy-operations/articles/future-of-mobility-press-release.html   More important, I don't know where that conclusion came from. I cannot find it anywhere in the actual study.https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/be/Documents/strategy/FOMBrochureFinalVersion.pdf

It's in the press release about the study, but it does not seem to be in the study.

 

thank you, it had been a while since I read that study.

 

anyway, point is, the 7 billion we are planning on spending to build one bigger freeway could be used as tax abatement to companies that provide WFH based on number of staff doing WFH, and days they WFH.

 

rather than reducing traffic for a few years on one highway (and displacing thousands, and maybe reducing pollution), we'd see reduced traffic everywhere, reduced pollution everywhere, and nobody displaced from their communities for as long as they continue to provide the tax incentive.

Edited March 27, 2020 by samagon

[Houston19514]

27 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

thank you, it had been a while since I read that study.

 

anyway, point is, the 7 billion we are planning on spending to build one bigger freeway could be used as tax abatement to companies that provide WFH based on number of staff doing WFH, and days they WFH.

 

rather than reducing traffic for a few years on one highway (and displacing thousands, and maybe reducing pollution), we'd see reduced traffic everywhere, reduced pollution everywhere, and nobody displaced from their communities for as long as they continue to provide the tax incentive.

 

That is based on a number of assumptions that are far from evident.  (1) All or any substantial number of businesses can operate efficiently for the long-term with all  or a substantial majority of workers WFH (probably not the case; certainly not the case for a very large number of businesses/employees.)  (2) All or a substantial majority of the reduction in traffic we are seeing is the result of people not going to work (pretty clearly not the case); (3) No further growth.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Houston19514

[Amlaham]

Correct me if im wrong, but doesn't this project also remove multiple back to back billboards along i45? Thats a HUGE plus in my opinion because its literally the most hideous site I've ever laid my eyes on. It's actually embarrassing driving down i45 from the airport with guests visiting Houston, and this is the first thing they see.

[august948]

3 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

That is based on a number of assumptions that are far from evident.  (1) All or any substantial number of businesses can operate efficiently for the long-term with all  or a substantial majority of workers WFH (probably not the case; certainly not the case for a very large number of businesses/employees.)  (2) All or a substantial majority of the reduction in traffic we are seeing is the result of people not going to work (pretty clearly not the case); (3) No further growth.

 

Certainly part of the reduction in traffic is for people who aren't working from home.  Either they've been laid off or they're not going to school.  Or perhaps they're just not going shopping or to other non-work locations.  That part is somewhat hard to quantify.  i'm sure this period of history is going to get extensive study in the future and maybe we'll eventually find out.  But regardless, that portion of the traffic is certain to return.  What I'm curious about is how this event changes the perception of WFH as a viable option.  I've been working from home for many years now and the biggest block I've seen in the corporate world is from managers who like to physically see their subordinates in their cubicles, regardless of whether the jobs can actually be performed remotely or not.  Time will tell if this will be the tipping point against that type of corporate culture.

[Luminare]

6 hours ago, samagon said:

as I have been venturing out of my home and just driving around in an effort to change the scenery a little bit, I am struck by how absolutely empty freeways are.

 

It frustrates me to no end that our state is not willing to embrace public transportation, but I still want to see that idea happen, and this freeway expansion not happen.

 

as we all sit here working from our homes, rather than traveling into offices, another thought sticks out like the cliche'd elephant in the room.

 

why not spend the money that would go towards this freeway on programs that encourage working from home? I have referenced a study previously in this thread from Belgium that a reduction in 10% of cars results in a 40% reduction in traffic. surely we are seeing an even greater reduction in cars for a 100% reduction in traffic. 

 

the benefits are obvious, lower pollution, fewer accidents, less traffic. 

 

this city could reduce traffic ALL OVER TOWN (not just on this freeway) it could reduce road/highway maintenance costs, it would reduce road closures for projects like this. it would remove the need to remove people from their homes and communities, the cost savings alone is reason to choose this instead of more construction.

 

I have a hunch that even if the government doesn't offer incentives for WFH that a lot of companies that had resisted will probably start to adjust. even if that adjustment is only to allow 3 days WFH, and 2 days in the office, we are going to see a change naturally as a result of this pandemic.

 

You are clearly living in a delusion. Not to mention you are still starting with a conclusion (I don't want this highway built), and looking for data to support your claim. Working remotely is a luxury, a first world luxury in fact. Even during this pandemic its a luxury. I'm sure that a situation like this will prompt businesses to construct better contingencies for such situations, but you are taking something that is not only unprecedented, but also temporary, and projecting it out into the future as if its going to become the new paradigm. There are exceptions to rules, but you are trying to make the exception the rule in itself. A large portion of the economy just can't do this, and even if they could, I'd wager that all this isolation, and social distancing is only going to magnify in peoples minds the importance of human interactions in their day to day life, which will never be replaced by a machine. If its someones personal choice to work from home great, but honestly it sucks. Most people aren't built that way. Most people, work where they have to go to a location outside of there home isn't only healthy, but necessary. I work in a collaborative industry, and there is distance and awkwardness that just doesn't go away when working remotely that actual human interaction solves and will always be better than remote. Finally your making this claim like its some kind of silver bullet quick fix that will solve all ills, but fixing traffic problems is a lot more complicated than that. And while you are sitting at home and able to work, be very happy that you can, most of my friends are working class, and are now immediately out of work due to this. Just remember that.

[samagon]

2 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

You are clearly living in a delusion. Not to mention you are still starting with a conclusion (I don't want this highway built), and looking for data to support your claim. Working remotely is a luxury, a first world luxury in fact. Even during this pandemic its a luxury. I'm sure that a situation like this will prompt businesses to construct better contingencies for such situations, but you are taking something that is not only unprecedented, but also temporary, and projecting it out into the future as if its going to become the new paradigm. There are exceptions to rules, but you are trying to make the exception the rule in itself. A large portion of the economy just can't do this, and even if they could, I'd wager that all this isolation, and social distancing is only going to magnify in peoples minds the importance of human interactions in their day to day life, which will never be replaced by a machine. If its someones personal choice to work from home great, but honestly it sucks. Most people aren't built that way. Most people, work where they have to go to a location outside of there home isn't only healthy, but necessary. I work in a collaborative industry, and there is distance and awkwardness that just doesn't go away when working remotely that actual human interaction solves and will always be better than remote. Finally your making this claim like its some kind of silver bullet quick fix that will solve all ills, but fixing traffic problems is a lot more complicated than that. 

 

I'm not starting with a conclusion, I'm starting with a lot of desires.

- the desire to not see communities displaced

- the desire for less pollution

- the desire for overall less traffic

- the desire to not see small businesses displaced

- the desire for kids to not get asthma from living and going to school near freeways

- the desire to not see even more traffic for a decade while this thing gets built

 

these should be desires we ALL have, and maybe I am delusional for wishing we could have this.

 

this is an extra-ordinary crisis we are forced to live through. every change that we have to make as part of it something we should look at and consider. there should be lessons learned in more areas than just how we deal with a pandemic.

 

not every job can be remote, and I'm not suggesting that. to suggest that all the jobs that can be remote were already remote before this event is not even remotely (heehee) accurate. WFH doesn't have to be every day WFH. there is somewhere in the middle of where you assume I am coming from, and where you are positioning to be coming from.

 

there is a lot of fruit on the tree not just for WFH options, the city/state should be looking to encourage ideas like this (and other creative ideas) and honestly, freeway expansion should be what happens after all the other options have been tapped.

 

2 hours ago, Luminare said:

And while you are sitting at home and able to work, be very happy that you can, most of my friends are working class, and are now immediately out of work due to this. Just remember that.

 

as for this, take a breath, you're making assumptions and there's no need to come at me simply because I am writing things you don't agree with on a message board. I am not sure what I wrote that made you feel the need to write that, but I am sorry for doing so.

Edited March 27, 2020 by samagon

[august948]

8 hours ago, Amlaham said:

Correct me if im wrong, but doesn't this project also remove multiple back to back billboards along i45? Thats a HUGE plus in my opinion because its literally the most hideous site I've ever laid my eyes on. It's actually embarrassing driving down i45 from the airport with guests visiting Houston, and this is the first thing they see.

 

Some billboards may get removed.  I recall that there was a push for that some time ago.  Can't recall if that was a city or state initiative or if it resulted in laws/ordinances that apply here now.  However, in the picture above, which I would take as fairly representative, most of the signs are for the businesses at those locations.  I don't think that's going to change much if at all.