Jump to content

TxDOT Proposes Elevating I-10 near I-45


Recommended Posts

i think it's also interesting to think about the financial implications of our car-based transportation system.  while our tax dollars fund roads and highways, each individual also has to buy a car and then insure/fuel/maintain it (you technically don't have to own a car in houston but in reality you kinda do).  sure you get some control over what kind of car you buy, but at the end of the day, owning a car is part of the "living-in-houston" tax.  if you take the money that millions of houstonians spend on their cars and divert it into a public transit system, would it be enough to turn houston into a city where you don't need a car? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

I just... you highway apologist weirdos have been to other countries right? 

Cars are *incredibly* inefficient, but we also have some of the poorest transit infrastructure in the entire word, so you have to go elsewhere to experience how transit is supposed to work. 

The independence offered by a car is often an illusion. With a well-designed transit system, you're *always* within a 5 minute walk of access to the system, and ...that's all you need.

You're never stuck in traffic. You never have to worry about parking. If a train is full, you wait a few minutes. 

And yeah, I realize we can never hope to have the advanced transit network of a wealthy, hyper-advanced, futuristic country like *checks notes* Spain, but that doesn't say anything about the inherent value of transit. It just says a lot about how deeply broken and backward our ability to build infrastructure has become.

I doubt there's a city, let alone an entire country, in the world in which you are always within a 5-minute walk of access to the transit system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously not a country, but a city? Definitely. This is part of why treating buses as serious transit is important; you need them to get to that level of access. 

In a city with decent transit, you start getting multiple transit options to choose between depending on the needs of a specific trip. Maybe the subway is 10 minutes away (while a bus is 5), but the subway will get you to your destination faster. Do you want to walk further or have a longer overall trip? 

A 5 minute walk is 1/4 of a mile, so all you need is frequent transit lines consistently within 1/2 mile of each other. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Obviously not a country, but a city? Definitely. This is part of why treating buses as serious transit is important; you need them to get to that level of access. 

In a city with decent transit, you start getting multiple transit options to choose between depending on the needs of a specific trip. Maybe the subway is 10 minutes away (while a bus is 5), but the subway will get you to your destination faster. Do you want to walk further or have a longer overall trip? 

A 5 minute walk is 1/4 of a mile, so all you need is frequent transit lines consistently within 1/2 mile of each other. 

 

I understand all that and I still think you're wrong.  Pick some random spots in any city with Google maps (which covers buses and trains) and one can easily find spots where the walk to the initial transit connection is more than 5 minutes.  I tried Madrid and Paris.  (If there is in some cases a closer bus stop than the one in your itinerary, it's not very relevant. If the bus stop is for a bus that doesn't take you where you are going or provide an opportunity of a reasonably efficient connection, so what?)

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing anywhere in Madrid more than 5 minutes from a bus stop, though I can't be sure of the frequency of every bus line. 

But let's say you're correct. At a minimum, there are definitely cities with good transit that also have dead zones/underserved areas.

Is this just a general objection to hyperbole? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, editor said:

Are there?  It sounds like you're projecting.

Yet somehow it was OK for millions of people to abandon (inflation-adjusted) trillions in investments when cities replaced their trolleys, interurban lines, and bus systems with trillion-dollar highways?

TxDOT's budget is a third of a trillion dollars per year.  Perhaps we should demand that more of the money that all taxpayers pay is used for transportation that all the taxpayers can use.

I don't believe I commented on the moral implications of post-war white flight, if that is what you are referring to.  Whether or not something is morally right is sometimes different from what actually happens.  The interesting question is why something happens and what can we glean from that for the future.

As for TxDOT's budget, is that third of a trillion dollars just for urban areas?  Are they not responsible for building and maintaining roads state wide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrainTrak said:

i think it's also interesting to think about the financial implications of our car-based transportation system.  while our tax dollars fund roads and highways, each individual also has to buy a car and then insure/fuel/maintain it (you technically don't have to own a car in houston but in reality you kinda do).  sure you get some control over what kind of car you buy, but at the end of the day, owning a car is part of the "living-in-houston" tax.  if you take the money that millions of houstonians spend on their cars and divert it into a public transit system, would it be enough to turn houston into a city where you don't need a car? 

Wouldn't that require running buses along all the backroads that encompass the Houston-The Woodlands-Sugarland MSA?

I'm also curious how you would go about doing ordinary family shopping.  How do you bring a cart full of groceries and other sundries home via train and bus?  What happens when you try to bring back a sheet or two of plywood from Home Depot?  Do you have to make separate trips for everything you need since you can only carry so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

These conversations always devolve into an absurd binary, as though wanting better transit means you think cars should be illegal or are never useful.

Is a car useful if you want to go to Azurmendi or hop between towns in La Rioja? Sure. Nobody is saying cars are never useful, but they are *far* less efficient most of the time.


wait, did you creep on my social media? 😂  Azurmendi was great, La Rioja was a ghost town after the past 2 years of no tourism dollars.   

but, yes, i would love more transit options, and I'm still extremely pissed the i10 BRT line isn't going to have a First Ward stop.   


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, editor said:

Are there?  It sounds like you're projecting.

Yet somehow it was OK for millions of people to abandon (inflation-adjusted) trillions in investments when cities replaced their trolleys, interurban lines, and bus systems with trillion-dollar highways?

TxDOT's budget is a third of a trillion dollars per year.  Perhaps we should demand that more of the money that all taxpayers pay is used for transportation that all the taxpayers can use.

 

36 minutes ago, august948 said:

I don't believe I commented on the moral implications of post-war white flight, if that is what you are referring to.  Whether or not something is morally right is sometimes different from what actually happens.  The interesting question is why something happens and what can we glean from that for the future.

As for TxDOT's budget, is that third of a trillion dollars just for urban areas?  Are they not responsible for building and maintaining roads state wide?

Let's remember that plenty of this infrastructure that was abandoned was because the private companies that were running them were insolvent and had to be bailed out.  I can see how it was totally logical to "cut the losses" and invest money in new technology that at the time promised more flexibility.  (That's not to say I don't also see how it could have been totally self-serving for others (i.e., the automobile industry) to serve as boosters.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, crock said:


wait, did you creep on my social media? 😂  Azurmendi was great, La Rioja was a ghost town after the past 2 years of no tourism dollars.   

but, yes, i would love more transit options, and I'm still extremely pissed the i10 BRT line isn't going to have a First Ward stop.   


 

Ha! My wife and I went to Azurmendi on our honeymoon. It was good, but I don't really think it was worth the price. 

Yeah... I think that's partly an artifact of HGAC's involvement. A First Ward stop (and, for that matter, a Heights Boulevard/Yale stop) would be incredibly useful. 

Better connectivity to the other side of I-10 would be too, but the width of the freeway makes that prohibitively expensive.

Edited by Texasota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to TxDOT Proposes Raising I-10 near I-45
6 hours ago, editor said:

Are there?  It sounds like you're projecting.

Yet somehow it was OK for millions of people to abandon (inflation-adjusted) trillions in investments when cities replaced their trolleys, interurban lines, and bus systems with trillion-dollar highways?

TxDOT's budget is a third of a trillion dollars per year.  Perhaps we should demand that more of the money that all taxpayers pay is used for transportation that all the taxpayers can use.

TxDOT's budget is NOT a third of a trillion dollars per year. The entire State of Texas budget for the biennium is about $250 billion. I think you missed a comma somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Texasota said:

I just... you highway apologist weirdos have been to other countries right? 

Cars are *incredibly* inefficient, but we also have some of the poorest transit infrastructure in the entire word, so you have to go elsewhere to experience how transit is supposed to work. 

The independence offered by a car is often an illusion. With a well-designed transit system, you're *always* within a 5 minute walk of access to the system, and ...that's all you need.

You're never stuck in traffic. You never have to worry about parking. If a train is full, you wait a few minutes. 

And yeah, I realize we can never hope to have the advanced transit network of a wealthy, hyper-advanced, futuristic country like *checks notes* Spain, but that doesn't say anything about the inherent value of transit. It just says a lot about how deeply broken and backward our ability to build infrastructure has become.

I can show you multiple locations in London where access to public transport is more than a 5 minute walk, and that's a city with a tremendous amount of public transport.

8 hours ago, editor said:

I think "weirdos" is a bit strong.  I think some people are just used to doing things a certain way.

It's not about different nations, or different cultures, or anything like that.  It's just about density.

Transit works great in places with urban density.  It works less well in places where people are spread out. 

When I moved away from Houston in 2003, I brought two cars with me.  Within two months in my new, far denser, city, I realized that I didn't need the cars, and sold them both, relying exclusively on transit and the occasional Zip Car.  I then moved to another city with more density than Houston.  Again, no cars, just transit and Zip Cars.  Then I moved to the desert.  I had to buy a car.  Because everything was spread out.

I think that once Houston becomes more dense, people will become more accepting of transit.  But that will be a long time coming because Houston has been allowed to sprawl without control for most of its existence.  There are plenty of Houston suburbs that don't need to exist.  Their populations could easily be absorbed into all of the currently vacant land within the city of Houston.  But there's no economic incentive there. 

The one major pain point — commuting — has been tempered by TXDOT's relentless paving of everything it can see.  But there's only so many lanes of highway you can build, so people were starting to get tired of losing 20% of their time awake each day sitting in traffic.  Now that work-from-home is the norm for many people, I expect that the desire for transit will be lessened because the commuting pain is also lessened.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but it's my observation that pretty much the only thing driving density in Houston is people from out of town who are used to living in places with density and getting around on transit.  As long as they keep moving into downtown and adjacent neighborhoods, there's reason to develop transit.  But I think that city-wide mass transit of the kind badly needed by people who can't afford to live near downtown is a lost cause.  At least in my lifetime.

There is not as much open space within the city as you might think. There is definitely not enough space for even a small master planned community of the type so many people want to live in. However, Houston is increasing density in a very organic manner. If you look at the area bounded by East TC Jester, Durham, 610 and 14th, for example, the density there is way higher than it used to be, as small homes on large lots have been replaced with townhomes. A number of mobile home parks have also been replaced with more density.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, editor said:

A quick internet search shows that the cost of light rail is $15 million to $100 million per mile.  Not $200 million to $500 million. 

I think you should expand on your assertion that "cars are more effective and efficient at moving people to and from decentralized population/job centers."  I think that's not right.  It's certainly contrary to the conventional wisdom, so I'd like to see some numbers on it.

You can fit an order of magnitude more people in the physical space of a train than you can in the physical space of a car.  And moving people and things between centers is what trains excel at.  That's why bulk freight is carried by trains, and not trucks.  Cars are good for last-mile things, but not great for moving people to and from job centers.

When a highway is at capacity, you're stuck, or you build another highway for billions, assuming there's room for it.  When a train fills up, you add more trains, at a cost of low-millions.

The last piece of Houston light rail that was built(green and purple lines) cost $153 million per mile. https://urbanreforminstitute.org/2022/07/comparing-inflating-costs-houston-highways-vs-transit/ another fine piece by Tory Gattis.

That price is not likely to go down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember hearing that depressed freeways were supposed to be better in floodplains because they can function as spillways during floods and store water that would otherwise flood adjacent neighborhoods. Is there a reason they're not going this route (no pun intended)? Maybe the nearly 22 acre detention pond would take care of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JLWM8609 said:

I remember hearing that depressed freeways were supposed to be better in floodplains because they can function as spillways during floods and store water that would otherwise flood adjacent neighborhoods. Is there a reason they're not going this route (no pun intended)? Maybe the nearly 22 acre detention pond would take care of that?

Just a complete guess here...but could it be that they want to make sure certain routes stay open during flooding events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ross said:

The last piece of Houston light rail that was built(green and purple lines) cost $153 million per mile. https://urbanreforminstitute.org/2022/07/comparing-inflating-costs-houston-highways-vs-transit/ another fine piece by Tory Gattis.

That price is not likely to go down.

I think you should fine a more credible/impartial source.  The Urban Reform Institute is devoted to promoting last century's methods of development.

Quote

Cities are told how to become “more sustainable” by expanding transit, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and adopting restrictions and planning approaches that mandate higher densities, and, increasingly, bar the expansion of single-family home-dominated areas... Urban Reform Institute Is a Counterpoint

Source

I find it amazing that they are publicly in favor of the expansion of fossil fuels when even the big oil companies like Shell and BP are getting out of that business.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JLWM8609 said:

I remember hearing that depressed freeways were supposed to be better in floodplains because they can function as spillways during floods and store water that would otherwise flood adjacent neighborhoods. Is there a reason they're not going this route (no pun intended)? Maybe the nearly 22 acre detention pond would take care of that?

I think that detention ponds are probably better suited for this than highways.  For a couple of reasons:

  • Detention ponds are wider and longer, and can hold more water.
  • If they prove to be insufficient, they can be expanded downward for more capacity.  I've seen this happen in other cities with flash flooding.
  • If one pond fills up routinely, pipes and pumps can be built to move the water to another pond, lake, river, etc. where it doesn't.
  • Keeping the highways clear aids in evacuation.
  • Water piles up quickly, but recedes slowly.  Letting the water in the ponds drain away at their own pace doesn't affect anyone.  Letting water drain away from highways, even with pump assists, keeps the highways closed.

In cities that deal with flash floods, there are massive detention ponds.  They have to be much larger than what we'd need in Houston because they also have to catch trees, rocks, mud, lahar, and other debris that gets swept ahead of the water.  Normally, they're just enormous, deeply sunken, parks with soccer and baseball fields and places to sit and fly kites and stuff.  When the bad times come, they fill up and little of any value is damaged.

As a point of interest, State Farm will sell you insurance for lahar.  I had it for a while. It's part of a "pyroclastic event" rider.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JLWM8609 said:

I remember hearing that depressed freeways were supposed to be better in floodplains because they can function as spillways during floods and store water that would otherwise flood adjacent neighborhoods. Is there a reason they're not going this route (no pun intended)? Maybe the nearly 22 acre detention pond would take care of that?

One guess I'd make is that since I-10 West is a designated hurricane evacuation route they want to make sure it stays open even during the heavy rains from outer bands that can move into our area in advance of a hurricane.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, editor said:

I think you should fine a more credible/impartial source.  The Urban Reform Institute is devoted to promoting last century's methods of development.

Source

I find it amazing that they are publicly in favor of the expansion of fossil fuels when even the big oil companies like Shell and BP are getting out of that business.

I doubt the cost numbers are wrong. That was the first reasonable source of costs that I found. Tory Gattis has always been reasonable, at least the stuff I've read. If you ahve a source that says the Metro Light Rail costs are lower, I would be happy to look at it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2022 at 11:48 AM, editor said:

A quick internet search shows that the cost of light rail is $15 million to $100 million per mile.  Not $200 million to $500 million. 

The quick internet search (i.e., Wikipedia) actually says the cost of most LRT systems ranges from $15 million to more than $100 million per mile, and that's from 2006.

In more recent times, it looks like LA has a light rail project for about $253 million/mile. Another project for $165 million/mile. Another for $293 million/mile.  https://labusinessjournal.com/infrastructure/car-loving-la-midst-largest-rail-construction-prog/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, editor said:

I find it amazing that they are publicly in favor of the expansion of fossil fuels when even the big oil companies like Shell and BP are getting out of that business.

That's pretty funny.  And it might come as a surprise to some of the folks at those companies.  In the today's Wall Street Journal:  Political uncertainty is clouding prospects for new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but Shell SHEL 0.20%▲ PLC—the Gulf’s biggest producer—is still investing billions of dollars in its waters to pump oil for years to come. Shell’s continued ambitions in the Gulf are on full display in a sprawling fabrication yard in southeast Texas. There, the company is putting the finishing touches on Vito, its 13th major offshore project in the region, with a cost of around $3 billion,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TacoDog said:

Why? What good would that be?

This forum is honesty crazy with people literally praying for the demise of city's backbone industry. You will go crazy trying to tell them they are wrong when all the data shows people have a preference for cars and that energy transitions take a long time .. Every city they list as ideal is so expensive people can't afford to have kids there or have lower social mobility than here. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pablog said:

I wish the title read, “TxDOT Proposes Razing I-10 near I-45

I wish the title read, , “TxDOT Proposes Raising Cane's Location I-10 near I-45

2 hours ago, TacoDog said:

Why? What good would that be?

If they razed I10 inside the loop to make it a double-decker, that would be awesome.  Maybe that's what he meant.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TacoDog said:

Why? What good would that be?

I live in the suburbs. This would inconvenience me, but I would happily let it do so for a better, cleaner, safer, greener, more beautiful city.

I wish every highway inside the loop looked like Allen Parkway, tbh. It flows at a good speed with the occasional stoplight, without being a giant concrete scar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, iah77 said:

This forum is honesty crazy with people literally praying for the demise of city's backbone industry. You will go crazy trying to tell them they are wrong when all the data shows people have a preference for cars and that energy transitions take a long time .. Every city they list as ideal is so expensive people can't afford to have kids there or have lower social mobility than here. 

Houston is the ideal city. It’s the closest thing to true capitalism in America (no zoning laws) which I why it is so affordable to live here and the most diverse city. I wouldn’t want to live in a copy of what Austin has become, although the hills would be nice. 
 

Also, data is a little misleading because I selected I preferred driving a car because I have no better alternatives right now coming from the suburbs. But my decision to live where I live shouldn’t reduce the quality of life of the people that live where they live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, pablog said:

Houston is the ideal city. It’s the closest thing to true capitalism in America (no zoning laws) which I why it is so affordable to live here and the most diverse city. I wouldn’t want to live in a copy of what Austin has become, although the hills would be nice. 
 

Also, data is a little misleading because I selected I preferred driving a car because I have no better alternatives right now coming from the suburbs. But my decision to live where I live shouldn’t reduce the quality of life of the people that live where they live.

If you are commuting from the suburbs to downtown, you do have an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

If you are commuting from the suburbs to downtown, you do have an alternative.

I am commuting from the suburbs to an office in the Heights.

The alternative is so bad that I don’t even think it can be considered as an alternative 😂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2022 at 1:02 PM, Ross said:

If you ahve a source that says the Metro Light Rail costs are lower, I would be happy to look at it.

i have access to the Houston Chronicle print archives, and figures from there show that the Red line from Downtown going north, plus the Green Line, plus the Purple line came out to $149 million per mile. 

So, not $200- to $500 million per mile.  However, considering inflation and Houston's NIMBY can't-do spirit, I expect trying to do more today would creep into your $200 million window.

It seems from what I've read in the archives that the biggest costs were in the two overpasses.  The one on Harrisburg cost $30 million, alone.

This is from August 14, 2019: "Extending the Red Line light rail nearly six miles north to the North Shepherd Park and Ride, at an estimated cost of $634 million." — So, $105 million per mile for that.

The I-45 project is now expected to cost over $9 billion for 24 miles — $375 million per mile.

The TxDOT budget is larger than the GDP of 152 countries.  TxDOT's budget is larger than the budget for the entire government of Mexico.   It's double the entire budget of Saudi Arabia, Finland, and the UAE.  For that kind of money, I'd like to see more out of it than endless wastes of asphalt for a bunch of concrete cowboys to roll coal on.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...