I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[mattyt36]

54 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Congressmen are not appointed by, do not report to, and cannot be dismissed by the President.  Joe Biden likes to take credit for infrastructure spending, but he’s allowing his appointees to block this project.  He could get it back on track this morning with one phone call.

Presidents sign bills, buddy.

[editor]

Careful, people.  Let's keep this on-topic.

[H-Town Man]

13 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

OK, then George W Bush was responsible for killing the University Line, I guess, not John Culberson.  C'mon, give me a break.

Tell me where I'm wrong on any of this:

-Someone, somewhere, my theory is some Democratic political operative thought that this was some "winning issue" and created this Stop NHHIP group as some sort of political grassroots organization--my best guess is it was thought this could be spun off into other political grassroots organizations and events to ensure Harris County continued to get "bluer."  It was totally misguided and stupid politics.  They had no plan, at least that I can see. God knows what they told people when they knocked on doors. And God knows who funded it all. This project had been in review for more than a decade and there had been very, very little vocalized opposition, why, because except for a few, everyone could see quite clearly that there was no comparison between this project and the early freeway projects. In fact, stating that is quite the insult to the ones who had to live through it before.

-Lina misplayed her hand and sued the State, thinking it was somehow a political winner, or she could somehow reprogram the funds, despite the City trying to intervene.

-The County asked the DoT to intervene, should be no surprise that a new administration, I don't believe even more than a week old, sided with the local government in this case, which was led by an "up-and-comer" in the Democratic Party where "up-and-comers" are few and far between.  Should they have done a little more research?  Absolutely.  Boneheaded political move?  It will probably work out that way, at least for Lina and certainly won't win any points for the Democrats in Houston, but when all is said and done, the DoT deciding to intervene pending further review versus choosing not to and leaving itself open to future Civil Rights lawsuits after being requested to do so by the County may end up saving time (and the project) in the long run--seriously, you must realize this.  Was Biden even consulted on it?  C'mon.  Should he have been?  Um, I think we should all hope the President focuses on the much bigger fish to fry, and delegating these things to a cabinet member is entirely understandable, and we shouldn't be surprised by his decision (at least I'm not).  Ill-informed, sure.  But what's done is done and it's all about saving face now.

 -The lawsuit has not been dismissed or settled, no?  The parties appear to be negotiating a settlement.  Maybe I’m wrong. I haven’t read about here or in the Houston Chronicle, although as far as the latter goes it doesn’t surprise me as I don’t think even Dug Begley has a full appreciation of what’s going on.

So, I ask you again, where did this all start?

George W. Bush did not appoint John Culberson. In fact, I think he once brokered a meeting at the White House between Kay Bailey Hutchison and Tom DeLay, when DeLay was trying to use congressional power to kill the original Main Street line while it was under construction and Hutchison was trying to talk some sense into him and protect the city. Bush generally came down on Hutchison's side and the result of the meeting was to calm DeLay down and let the project go on. I am just going from memory on this and could have a detail or two wrong.

I also think you're missing the biggest ingredient in galvanizing all of these politicians into stopping the NHHIP: George Floyd.

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by H-Town Man

[mattyt36]

Just now, H-Town Man said:

George W. Bush did not appoint John Culberson. In fact, I think he once brokered a meeting at the White House between Kay Bailey Hutchison and Tom DeLay, when DeLay was trying to use congressional power to kill the original Main Street line while it was under construction and Hutchison was trying to talk some sense into him and protect the city. Bush generally came down on Hutchison's side. I am just going from memory on this and could have a detail or two wrong.

If it wasn't abundantly clear from my original post, I'm not proposing to blame George W Bush for anything (at least, not related to Houston transportation infrastructure).

1 minute ago, H-Town Man said:

I also think you're missing the biggest ingredient in galvanizing all of these Democrat politicians into stopping the NHHIP: George Floyd.

Happy to learn.  Please expand.

[H-Town Man]

5 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

If it wasn't abundantly clear from my original post, I'm not proposing to blame George W Bush for anything (at least, not related to Houston transportation infrastructure).

Happy to learn.  Please expand.

Well, after George Floyd happened, any public works project that could remotely be construed as racist became a political fireball. The framing of the argument that brought the lawsuit on, as I remember it, was that it "disproportionately impacts minorities." In a post-George Floyd world, that meant the project was dead.

 

[mattyt36]

2 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Well, after George Floyd happened, any public works project that could remotely be construed as racist became a political fireball. The framing of the argument that brought the lawsuit on, as I remember it, was that it "disproportionately impacts minorities." In a post-George Floyd world, that meant the project was dead.

Well, I mean, the lawsuit had to be framed that way as that was the legal basis for the lawsuit, i.e., the lawsuit was against the State of Texas for violating terms of the Civil Rights Act that it is obligated to follow to receive any federal monies.  

But, from a political perspective, I can appreciate how the George Floyd murder and attendant racial awareness protests were a likely major influence on the political approach.  My conclusion remains the same--the approach was misguided and not very politically astute.

The above said, once the County sued the State and asked the DoT to intervene on the basis of noncompliance with the Civil Rights Act, I'm not sure what the DoT could've done--they have an obligation to at least investigate and respond.  And, even if they didn't, the project would've likely been put on hold as the legal process played out, no matter what Joe Biden directed the DoT to do.  Not to mention, if the administration declared "full steam ahead," I think that would've left the project vulnerable to further lawsuits, which would have led to even further delays with the parties potentially way further apart.

As it stands now (again, as far as I can tell), they're at the table and negotiating a settlement.

That is not to say that the project would be underway now had the County not sued, as multiple other organizations and individuals had standing to file a lawsuit on the same grounds, and I'd say that would've been pretty likely given how the project became a political "hot potato" overnight.

This is pretty simple stuff (albeit admittedly frustrating for many to comprehend as it is pure politics).

Anyone have any idea what the Mattress Guy is saying these days?  He was against the project the last time I heard, and he has hand-picked the Republican Party's challenger to Lina.

[HoustonMidtown]

https://abc13.com/protest-demolition-of-downtown-apartments-lofts-at-the-ballpark-apartment-stop-txdot-i-45-expansion/11984254/

[H-Town Man]

3 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

Well, I mean, the lawsuit had to be framed that way as that was the legal basis for the lawsuit, i.e., the lawsuit was against the State of Texas for violating terms of the Civil Rights Act that it is obligated to follow to receive any federal monies.  

But, from a political perspective, I can appreciate how the George Floyd murder and attendant racial awareness protests were a likely major influence on the political approach.  My conclusion remains the same--the approach was misguided and not very politically astute.

The above said, once the County sued the State and asked the DoT to intervene on the basis of noncompliance with the Civil Rights Act, I'm not sure what the DoT could've done--they have an obligation to at least investigate and respond.  And, even if they didn't, the project would've likely been put on hold as the legal process played out, no matter what Joe Biden directed the DoT to do.  Not to mention, if the administration declared "full steam ahead," I think that would've left the project vulnerable to further lawsuits, which would have led to even further delays with the parties potentially way further apart.

As it stands now (again, as far as I can tell), they're at the table and negotiating a settlement.

That is not to say that the project would be underway now had the County not sued, as multiple other organizations and individuals had standing to file a lawsuit on the same grounds, and I'd say that would've been pretty likely given how the project became a political "hot potato" overnight.

This is pretty simple stuff (albeit admittedly frustrating for many to comprehend as it is pure politics).

Anyone have any idea what the Mattress Guy is saying these days?  He was against the project the last time I heard, and he has hand-picked the Republican Party's challenger to Lina.

I generally agree with you up to the point where you say that if the County hadn't sued, somebody else would have. The County suing is a pretty big deal. I also seem to recall Sylvester Turner being involved in some way. I doubt the County sues if he takes a strong stand in favor. 

As for Biden & Co., they are going to follow the lead of local politicians if the politicians are Democrat. If the County is against something and the City is "leading from behind" with the County, the White House delivers the kibosh. If the lawsuit is just from some ragtag coalition but local Democrat politicians are saying, "No, we need this project to happen or it's our necks," the White House doesn't get involved.

[mattyt36]

6 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

I generally agree with you up to the point where you say that if the County hadn't sued, somebody else would have. The County suing is a pretty big deal.

Seems to me that Stop IH-45 group would've found someone.  And, if DoT didn't mandate a "pause" for review, they would've inevitably been sued as well.  Mattress Jesus could've funded with one of his frequent gambling wagers/promotions.  🤣

6 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 The County suing is a pretty big deal.

Absolutely it is, and much more effective than an individual.  I'm sure the Stop IH-45 group and other interested parties were already lobbying the County to sue.  The County Commissioners voted to 3-2, ergo these groups could stand down and worry only about filing supporting briefs.

6 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

I generally agree with you up to the point where you say that if the County hadn't sued, somebody else would have. The County suing is a pretty big deal. I also seem to recall Sylvester Turner being involved in some way. I doubt the County sues if he takes a strong stand in favor. 

My understanding (but this is from memory) is that Turner tried to intervene and mediate ahead of the lawsuit by getting the DoT to accept some concessions, which I don't believe were all that specific--they were presented more as re-design "guidelines," e.g., minimize the right of way, etc.  It was sort of a "mealy-mouthed" way to demonstrate that changes were made to appease to some opposing political interests (perhaps, as you suggest, mainly related to the post-summer 2020 backlash).  The City has supported--and has been planning for this project--for years.

6 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

As for Biden & Co., they are going to follow the lead of local politicians if the politicians are Democrat. If the County is against something and the City is "leading from behind" with the County, the White House delivers the kibosh. If the lawsuit is just from some ragtag coalition but local Democrat politicians are saying, "No, we need this project to happen or it's our necks," the White House doesn't get involved.

💯.  This is how politics works--it's not that complicated to understand.  The County was in the driver's seat for this.  Ergo the blame--to the extent anyone wishes to blame anyone--lies with the County.

Hopefully your saying so will resonate with others.

Edited June 21, 2022 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

6 hours ago, HoustonMidtown said:

https://abc13.com/protest-demolition-of-downtown-apartments-lofts-at-the-ballpark-apartment-stop-txdot-i-45-expansion/11984254/

Seriously, who is funding this?  Is anyone on this site one of those whizzes at how to find this stuff through whatever federally mandated disclosures apply?

I see from going through their website (Stop TxDOT I-45 (stoptxdoti45.com)) they have updated the ridiculous mission that was there before (something about "building political capital to stop I-45")

From:

"To elevate walkability, challenge the status quo of transportation policy, build capacity within Houston neighborhoods to stop the I-45 expansion, and advocate for strategic, inclusive, and equitable transportation in Texas."

To:

"To challenge the status quo of transportation policy and to fight for all people in Houston to be able to participate in the decisions that affect health, safety, and mobility in their communities."

Spoiler alert: They already can.

Real world alert: Just by expressing your opposition doesn't mean things will change.  There are many other interests involved, and, guess what, they get to participate too.

Misguided at best.  At worst, well, there's a long list of possibilities, as is the case with anything political . . . everything from it being bankrolled by some NIMBY like Mattress Man or an East End real estate developer to even indirectly by the State GOP, which hopes the protests like the ones for the Lofts at the Ballpark will transmit the message that the County is becoming "too socialist."  These political interest groups are rarely what they advertise to be.

Edited June 21, 2022 by mattyt36

[H-Town Man]

6 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

💯.  This is how politics works--it's not that complicated to understand.  The County was in the driver's seat for this.  Ergo the blame--to the extent anyone wishes to blame anyone--lies with the County.

Hopefully your saying so will resonate with others.

But the County suit gets nowhere without the White House. I blame:

1. County

2. White House

3. City

4. Sheila

5. TxDOT, for being inflexible

Edited June 21, 2022 by H-Town Man

[mattyt36]

7 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

But the County suit gets nowhere without the White House.

Seems to me a temporary injunction on proceeding would've been pretty damned likely to give the County time to at least demonstrate its case and the potential for damages if it did proceed.  The DoT's involvement simply "greased the wheels" and was at the behest of the County, as you stated.

I'm honestly not sure what the City could've done differently, but am all ears.

[Houston19514]

Of course the county bears part of the blame for initiating the stoppage of this project (as I allowed last Friday, at the very beginning of this discussion).  But two things:  (1) the county paused its lawsuit 7 months ago and I'm pretty sure has not reactivated the lawsuit, and more important (2) either Joe Biden or Secretary Pete could put an end to the stoppage today, if they wanted to. It is the Federal government that is stopping the work, not the county.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Houston19514

[Amlaham]

https://abc13.com/protest-demolition-of-downtown-apartments-lofts-at-the-ballpark-apartment-stop-txdot-i-45-expansion/11984254/

Protest planned tonight to stop the demolition lol 

[mattyt36]

5 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

(1) the county paused its lawsuit 7 months ago and I'm pretty sure has not reactivated the lawsuit

Why do you think the County paused the lawsuit? 

5 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

(2) Either Joe Biden or Secretary Pete could put an end to the stoppage today, if they wanted to.

"Two things":

(1) Are you sure about that?  I mean, really sure?  Or are you just speculating/shooting from the hip/going with your "gut feel"?

(2) Does the DoT Office of Civil Rights not have a legal obligation to investigate when a local government entity expressly alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act grant assurances?

Actually, no "four things":

(3) Has the DoT ended the stoppage vis-a-vis some work being allowed to proceed with the downtown segments?

(4) Why do you think that is?

Connect the dots.

Edited June 21, 2022 by mattyt36

[Joke]

I've been out of Houston for 4 years now, but excited for this to happen. Just popped up in my feed with the Ballpark Lofts demolition.

I've done a little searching, but couldn't easily find what's happening with Pierce Elevated. Has that been decided?

Also, any chance that this will do something about how Spur 527 turns all of west Midtown into just a dangerous ingress/egress path to downtown at the rush hours? Try walking between, say, Drew at Bagby and the McGowen light rail station at rush hour -- it's a car-filled nightmare. 

My thought when I lived there is that they should dead-end a few of the North-South streets at various places, turning whole whole block of street into something fun (plaza, pocket park, whatever). E.g., dead-end Brazos at Dennis, Smith at McGown, Louisiana at Mcilhenney, etc. It would work out fine for local traffic, but the fact you couldn't straight-shot all the way from downtown to/from the Spur would make the spur a lot less appealing to people just passing through Midtown to downtown. 

Alternatively, making 59 to the east side of downtown much more appealing would also do the trick, but I don't know if this does that.

[Big E]

44 minutes ago, Joke said:

I've done a little searching, but couldn't easily find what's happening with Pierce Elevated. Has that been decided?

The Pierce Elevated will no longer be a freeway. It appears they are trying to push to turn it into a skypark, but I don't know if that's final or anything.

 

44 minutes ago, Joke said:

Also, any chance that this will do something about how Spur 527 turns all of west Midtown into just a dangerous ingress/egress path to downtown at the rush hours? Try walking between, say, Drew at Bagby and the McGowen light rail station at rush hour -- it's a car-filled nightmare. 

Spur 527 will not be touched as part of this project, other than potentially changing the configuration of its merger with U.S. 59/I-69, since that is being sunk below ground.

 

46 minutes ago, Joke said:

Alternatively, making 59 to the east side of downtown much more appealing would also do the trick, but I don't know if this does that.

They are sinking 59/69 east of downtown below grade. That's also where they are moving 45, which will also be sunk below grade.

[TacoDog]

I've seen three different people on twitter argue not only against this project, but to demolish all the highways in downtown. I don't understand their logic. The net benefit of this project is greater than keeping it the same or tearing down highways. That seems absurd to me.

[Ross]

12 minutes ago, TacoDog said:

I've seen three different people on twitter argue not only against this project, but to demolish all the highways in downtown. I don't understand their logic. The net benefit of this project is greater than keeping it the same or tearing down highways. That seems absurd to me.

There have been people wanting the freeways through downtown demolished for some time. Their argument is that the people passing through town should take Loop 610 around to the other side of town. We use to see a lot of posts here from Slick Vik on this topic. I think the people who want to do that are all wrong, but that's just me.

[Triton]

This is turning into a damn circus. I feel like everyone's backed themselves into a corner. My bet is this project moves forward after the midterms. 

[editor]

9 hours ago, Ross said:

There have been people wanting the freeways through downtown demolished for some time. Their argument is that the people passing through town should take Loop 610 around to the other side of town.

When the interstate highway system was built, that was the intent.  Traffic to a city uses different roads than traffic through a city.  It's why loop roads start with even numbers, and spurs start with odd numbers.  Back when the world was black-and-white, I used to drive across country a lot, and navigating from city to city was pretty easy, even without reaching for a map. 

• Highways with odd root numbers: North and south
• Highways with even root numbers: East and west
• Highways divisible by 5: Long distance routes
• Three-digit highways starting with an even number: city bypass
• Three-digit highways starting with an odd number: spur into downtown

Exceptions to those rules have become numerous over the years (*cough* I-99*cough*), but it was a pretty effective means of navigation at the time.

 

[samagon]

10 hours ago, Ross said:

There have been people wanting the freeways through downtown demolished for some time. Their argument is that the people passing through town should take Loop 610 around to the other side of town. We use to see a lot of posts here from Slick Vik on this topic. I think the people who want to do that are all wrong, but that's just me.

demolishing the Pierce elevated in any capacity is a bad idea.

routing i45 through traffic (and even routing traffic that will be transferring to 59 or i10) onto 610 is a good idea. distance between large interchanges is increased, the state already owns a lot of ROW on that portion of the loop (north and east of town) to expand.

it's a better idea than the one TXDoT is going with.

[Big E]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

routing i45 through traffic (and even routing traffic that will be transferring to 59 or i10) onto 610 is a good idea.

That's a TERRIBLE idea. The 610 can barely handle the traffic it has now, and would have to be massively expanded to handle the extra load, necessity a far more extensive ROW acquisition and neighborhood destruction than what this is proposing.

[samagon]

17 minutes ago, Big E said:

That's a TERRIBLE idea. The 610 can barely handle the traffic it has now, and would have to be massively expanded to handle the extra load, necessity a far more extensive ROW acquisition and neighborhood destruction than what this is proposing.

CLEARLY, you haven't looked at how much ROW TXDoT already has on the north and east side along 610, and hey, it doesn't matter because that's not what TXDoT is doing. 

anyway, as to the news of the last few days, I'm kind of shocked that TXDoT didn't think tearing down housing would create some negative optics and hold off on the move, all this is doing is creating negative press for the project and creating more people who will fight against it.

whoever wrote this didn't do any favors either:

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by samagon

[JLWM8609]

How much was rent at the lofts? It never struck me as something that would be considered affordable housing since it was located close to things considered a premium.

On a side note, I was watching some of the uncut interviews in the UH archive from "This Is Our Home It Is Not For Sale" and many of the residents living in Riverside Terrace said 288 was a plus to living in the area. 35 years later, some newer residents probably wouldn't agree and would be anti-freeway. Then again, all those suburbs in Pearland didn't exist 35 years ago, and 288 didn't start getting traffic jams until the early 2000s. 🤷🏾‍♂️

[samagon]

32 minutes ago, JLWM8609 said:

How much was rent at the lofts? It never struck me as something that would be considered affordable housing since it was located close to things considered a premium.

On a side note, I was watching some of the uncut interviews in the UH archive from "This Is Our Home It Is Not For Sale" and many of the residents living in Riverside Terrace said 288 was a plus to living in the area. 35 years later, some newer residents probably wouldn't agree and would be anti-freeway. Then again, all those suburbs in Pearland didn't exist 35 years ago, and 288 didn't start getting traffic jams until the early 2000s. 🤷🏾‍♂️

I don't think it was affordable at all, probably middle of the road price on what you expect for midtown, or other close in areas to downtown.

but that's optics that the opposition doesn't need in order to be successful. the message "housing shortage, TXDoT is demoing housing for freeways" will be way more sticky than the knowledge of what it would have cost to lease a space in those apartments.

[mattyt36]

2 hours ago, Big E said:

That's a TERRIBLE idea. The 610 can barely handle the traffic it has now, and would have to be massively expanded to handle the extra load, necessity a far more extensive ROW acquisition and neighborhood destruction than what this is proposing.

The absurdity of this idea has already been discussed in detail months before.  

1) Through traffic can use 610 now if they want to--sure you can hang a sign for the interchange saying 610 East to Galveston, but what he's proposing already exists.  You can add two lanes each way in capacity, but . . . most importantly . . . 

2) What percentage of traffic during rush hour is actually through traffic?  Enough with this Conroe-Galveston nonsense.  Rush hour I-45 traffic is north and south suburbs to downtown, the Medical Center, and Greenway Plaza, end of story.

Tilting at windmills.  But more proof, per se, that a certain individual is not ideologically anti-freeway or even this project were it being constructed somewhere else (even though it is often presented otherwise), just pro his (or her) own convenience, i.e., a classic NIMBY, and certainly not concerned with anyone else's convenience, at least those who disagree with him (or her).  Nothing wrong with that--it makes total sense--but boy wouldn't it have been more efficient if we started with simply acknowledging that.

As stated above in re the Stop IH-45 group, don't be surprised that the list of people in support of (or indifferent to) this project is much longer than those against.  Have your voice, of course, but don't expect your opinion to get to override the input of others who disagree.  It sure would be helpful if people made their points in good faith instead of obfuscating the real root of one's opposition and relying on tropes and (not even) half-truths.

Edited June 22, 2022 by mattyt36

[Triton]

I can't possibly imagine traffic that was once on I-45 coming through my neighborhood to downtown. The idea of removing I-45 and channeling it into 610 would face backlash from almost all sides of this debate. The residents here wouldn't accept it. 

[mattyt36]

2 hours ago, JLWM8609 said:

How much was rent at the lofts? It never struck me as something that would be considered affordable housing since it was located close to things considered a premium.

On a side note, I was watching some of the uncut interviews in the UH archive from "This Is Our Home It Is Not For Sale" and many of the residents living in Riverside Terrace said 288 was a plus to living in the area. 35 years later, some newer residents probably wouldn't agree and would be anti-freeway. Then again, all those suburbs in Pearland didn't exist 35 years ago, and 288 didn't start getting traffic jams until the early 2000s. 🤷🏾‍♂️

I'm sure their argument is "now that it's owned by the government, the housing should be public," i.e., free.  Rent doesn't even enter the equation.

4 hours ago, samagon said:

demolishing the Pierce elevated in any capacity is a bad idea.

I know I won't have any luck, but maybe someone else can get him to expand on this--unqualified statements like this really beg explanation.

Edited June 22, 2022 by mattyt36

[samagon]

1 minute ago, Triton said:

I can't possibly imagine traffic that was once on I-45 coming through my neighborhood to downtown. The idea of removing I-45 and channeling it into 610 would face backlash from almost all sides of this debate. The residents here wouldn't accept it. 

only the most extreme want to remove i45, not allowing it to connect through downtown (or any freeway) is kind of silly.

however, recommending an alternate path for through traffic? not sure how that could be a bad thing.