I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Luminare]

me skimming this thread page...

[Jay123]

Is txdot and metro also adding a brt bus lane to the north freeway?

[jadebenn]

You know with all the inflation and delays this could end up being a pyrrhic victory for TxDOT and the highway supporters. From a very cynical point of view, if you can't kill it, pushing back construction into an era of high federal rates and inflation is a great way to ensure the budgeted funds are absolutely inadequate to proceed with the original plan. A descope by fait accompli, as it were.

I guess TxDOT can be stubborn and try to power through without reducing the project scope at all, but every dollar they'll spend here is a dollar they won't be able to spend elsewhere in the state, and considering the scope of the overruns we're looking at in the construction industry in general... I genuinely don't think a doubling of cost is out of the question.

Edited January 3, 2023 by jadebenn

[Big E]

1 hour ago, jadebenn said:

You know with all the inflation and delays this could end up being a pyrrhic victory for TxDOT and the highway supporters. From a very cynical point of view, if you can't kill it, pushing back construction into an era of high federal rates and inflation is a great way to ensure the budgeted funds are absolutely inadequate to proceed with the original plan. A descope by fait accompli, as it were.

I guess TxDOT can be stubborn and try to power through without reducing the project scope at all, but every dollar they'll spend here is a dollar they won't be able to spend elsewhere in the state, and considering the scope of the overruns we're looking at in the construction industry in general... I genuinely don't think a doubling of cost is out of the question.

You act like cost overruns weren't built into the projections. Look at the Big Dig; it cost billions more than what the projected budget was, but was built as originally planned, and Boston is all the better for it.

[Triton]

10 hours ago, jadebenn said:

You know with all the inflation and delays this could end up being a pyrrhic victory for TxDOT and the highway supporters. From a very cynical point of view, if you can't kill it, pushing back construction into an era of high federal rates and inflation is a great way to ensure the budgeted funds are absolutely inadequate to proceed with the original plan. A descope by fait accompli, as it were.

As long as I've been alive, it's been a bipartisan endeavor to throw billions of dollars at a project even if there are overruns. 

 

Quote

I guess TxDOT can be stubborn and try to power through without reducing the project scope at all, but every dollar they'll spend here is a dollar they won't be able to spend elsewhere in the state, and considering the scope of the overruns we're looking at in the construction industry in general... I genuinely don't think a doubling of cost is out of the question.

You're making it sound like the budget is capped. Just because this project overruns, doesn't necessarily mean this affects things elsewhere. There's certainly ways for TXDOT to get more money.

[mattyt36]

9 hours ago, Big E said:

You act like cost overruns weren't built into the projections. 

Well, in fairness, they certainly weren't built into the original projections, by definition.  But the cost overruns were ultimately funded.  Once you start building a billion-dollar project, it typically behooves you to finish.

[Luminare]

On 1/3/2023 at 1:08 PM, Triton said:

As long as I've been alive, it's been a bipartisan endeavor to throw billions of dollars at a project even if there are overruns. 

 

You're making it sound like the budget is capped. Just because this project overruns, doesn't necessarily mean this affects things elsewhere. There's certainly ways for TXDOT to get more money.

As someone who has worked on government projects (schools), I wouldn't say the budgets are capped, but typically the contract is a GMP, Guaranteed Maximum Price, and budgets can be very tight. In most of these contracts if their are cost overruns those who design it are obligated to redesign to bring the project within budget without compensation. If the client, architect, and contractor are smart they will structure the budget and make sure they factor in inflation, usually is at around 50% completion. 50% completion with this project will be sometime 3-5 years later. So yes if there are project overruns then that DOES mean this affects other things. What is affected depends on how savvy the client, architect (or engineer in this case), and contractor are. Contractors in projects like these take on significant risks because it might be that they will have to take a hit when it comes to their profits if there are cost overruns. With the key material in a project like this being concrete and rebar, and with their being concrete scarcity at the moment, getting that priced correctly will be key from my perspective. TXDOT can't just "get more money". Projects like this even if they are funded by the state pull from allotted funds often set aside years in advance. This funds are more than likely coming from government bonds. I don't see them being able to get more money unless there is a situation like the rebuild of parts of 290 where you had an incompetent contractor who did some terrible work which sent that contractor packing and then they had to rebid.

 

On 1/3/2023 at 1:43 PM, mattyt36 said:

Well, in fairness, they certainly weren't built into the original projections, by definition.  But the cost overruns were ultimately funded.  Once you start building a billion-dollar project, it typically behooves you to finish.

Budgets are supposed to include projections such as inflation, and with all the moving pieces there should be contingencies. If there are cost overruns then the government will likely have to issue more government bonds. I say this because Texas doesn't have state income taxes to pull from. I don't know if Texas uses property taxes for infrastructure projects. I don't know how much from the gas taxes or sales tax they use for infrastructure projects. Also their have been plenty of really expensive projects that have been started and failed. The ones that get finished are ones that have great or immediate utility, and when voters make sure the government finishes what they started. Not just money.

On 1/3/2023 at 2:32 AM, jadebenn said:

You know with all the inflation and delays this could end up being a pyrrhic victory for TxDOT and the highway supporters. From a very cynical point of view, if you can't kill it, pushing back construction into an era of high federal rates and inflation is a great way to ensure the budgeted funds are absolutely inadequate to proceed with the original plan. A descope by fait accompli, as it were.

I guess TxDOT can be stubborn and try to power through without reducing the project scope at all, but every dollar they'll spend here is a dollar they won't be able to spend elsewhere in the state, and considering the scope of the overruns we're looking at in the construction industry in general... I genuinely don't think a doubling of cost is out of the question.

I thought you brought up a great point with this btw. What is worrying to me is are we at peak inflation or not? We could easily fall into an inflationary decade, but if we have hit peak inflation then this project might actually have some wiggle room in the coming years if inflation gets back within target of 2-3%. Most project projections of inflation are within that range from what I have studied. The part about pushing back the project to the point of killing it I just don't see happening. From a realpolitik lens, there are simply to many vested interests in a project of this scale for it to simply die. As to your last point, it is very easy to see cost overruns on this project, there are clients that could get stubborn and push projects that go over budget, but it still stands that in most construction contracts there has to be an agreement between all parties to up the budget. Usually there are 3 options, either you renegotiate by redesigning the project within budget, keep the same budget but cut costs in areas, or you find money and up the budget. Most go with the first option. I don't know TXDOT's history with big projects like this, but it should be assumed that they will try to redesign or cut costs first before going back to voters for more cash via bonds.

TDLR: OP had a great point. I support the project, but this point is one people should always consider. Budgets often and do have to calculate inflation as a factor of the overall budget because they take years into the future to build. TXDOT doesn't have magic money to move into this project if their are overruns. Yes overruns happen. Yes the Big Dig did run overbudget, but its not as simple a fix as people in response to OP imagine.

[hindesky]

"Details big and small remain works in progress and a federal pause looms as the last big hurdle, for now, as officials move ahead after last month’s agreements."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/i45-widening-deal-txdot-steps-17711664.php?utm_campaign=centerpiece#photo-21133853

[strickn]

Could anyone please comment on whether TxDOT's press conferences about the demand for the widening have referenced I-14 at all?  
 

This is an interstate corridor that will run from West Texas over to I-95 on the East Coast, via Bryan and Huntsville.  It will decongest I-10 by becoming the preferred route for long distance freight travel and road trips.  I-27 from Lubbock and I-44 from Wichita Falls will very likely connect down to I-20 first, but then it is possible that they will also be able to tie into I-14.  The segment from Fort Hood to I-35 is already open but several other segments just need grade separations / crossing closures as they are already built to interstate geometries.  

Bottom line, without modeling this shift it could be akin to TxDOT if they had predicted in 1980 the Gulf Freeway to need forty lanes by the time Houston grew to hit 7 million metro population.

[strickn]

Which they might have predicted, if extrapolating from the traffic patterns 1955-1979 like a responsible agency would do.

I-14 will be a major rearrangement; Houston trucks headed to/from anywhere west of Bryan will find 290 more direct than 45-North, and anywhere east of Lufkin will find I-69 more direct than 45-North.

Edited January 13, 2023 by strickn
Added last sentence

[strickn]

As I understand it, that leaves the destinations for which I-45N is best as just The Woodlands and maybe Dallas.  

It might remain a little faster to and from Beltway 8 and 610 North Loop (if someone is coming from somewhere south of central Houston) on a good day as compared to I-69 -- and since the Hardy and 290 don't cross and reach downtown, respectively.  

[mattyt36]

4 hours ago, strickn said:

As I understand it, that leaves the destinations for which I-45N is best as just The Woodlands and maybe Dallas.  

"just The Woodlands and maybe Dallas"?

Where on earth do you think the majority of the demand is coming from?

Will all of your I-14 be built to the East Coast on a faster schedule than, say, I dunno, I-69 to Port Huron?

 

[Big E]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:11 PM, strickn said:

Could anyone please comment on whether TxDOT's press conferences about the demand for the widening have referenced I-14 at all?

I-14 is probably decades away from being completed, if its completed at all. It has to go through some of the poorest states in the Union, which lack the money to build it. We know this, because two of those states are also states where I-69 will go through, and only one of them has done the bear minimum of effort to do any work on I-69 and the other has done absolutely and will do absolutely nothing because there is a laundry list of projects ahead of it, and I-14 is almost certainly behind that.

[texan]

Some things of note in the MOUs from the Downtown TIRZ January meeting minutes:

Cap in Segment 2 at N Main. (I think this was already committed to as the structural cap from N Main to Cottage St.

Cantilevered frontage roads to reduce project footprint along depressed sections in Segment 2.

http://www.downtowntirz.com/downtownhouston/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/230110-DRA-TIRZ3-Board-Materials.pdf

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip/project-segments/segment2.html

These may have been discussed and I might have missed it but these seem like much more concrete commitments for segment 2.

[Big E]

18 hours ago, texan said:

Some things of note in the MOUs from the Downtown TIRZ January meeting minutes:

Cap in Segment 2 at N Main. (I think this was already committed to as the structural cap from N Main to Cottage St.

Cantilevered frontage roads to reduce project footprint along depressed sections in Segment 2.

http://www.downtowntirz.com/downtownhouston/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/230110-DRA-TIRZ3-Board-Materials.pdf

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip/project-segments/segment2.html

These may have been discussed and I might have missed it but these seem like much more concrete commitments for segment 2.

What I seem to be getting, and what I've heard others articulate, is that, based on these memorandums of understanding, the TxDOT isn't really obligated to do anything but "try" to mitigate certain impacts, like housing loss. This agreement isn't requiring them to do anything they weren't already planning to do anyway, except pay people more money to move. Am I understanding this correctly? Someone help me out.

[trymahjong]

Who exactly is TxDot accountable to.....? Who makes TxDot quake in their boots  reviewing TxDot actions of " trying" to meditate certain circumstances .....but failing? 

[Houston19514]

On 1/14/2023 at 9:32 AM, texan said:

Some things of note in the MOUs from the Downtown TIRZ January meeting minutes:

Cap in Segment 2 at N Main. (I think this was already committed to as the structural cap from N Main to Cottage St.

Cantilevered frontage roads to reduce project footprint along depressed sections in Segment 2.

http://www.downtowntirz.com/downtownhouston/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/230110-DRA-TIRZ3-Board-Materials.pdf

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip/project-segments/segment2.html

These may have been discussed and I might have missed it but these seem like much more concrete commitments for segment 2.

Nothing very concrete here.  The cap was already planned.  As to the commitment to consider cantilevering frontage roads along depressed sections . . . The only depressed section is where they are installing the cap; so if they cantilever the frontage roads it will reduce the available space for a cap park; and perhaps more important, is an area where they are already planning to take VERY little additional right of way.

 Even more to the point, I just looked again at the plans.  The plan already includes cantilevered frontage roads on the depressed section in Segment 2!

Edited January 15, 2023 by Houston19514

[BEES?!]

It sounds like they’re pretty serious (the Houston stakeholders I mean) about pursuing the Pierce Skypark, just going off the documents from downtown houston. 

If they really do it, it’d be quite a bit wider than the High Line in NYC, wouldn’t it? There’d be some pretty awesome stuff they could do with the structure, lots of potential really neat uses and those views would be outstanding. 

[texan]

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Nothing very concrete here.  The cap was already planned.  As to the commitment to consider cantilevering frontage roads along depressed sections . . . The only depressed section is where they are installing the cap; so if they cantilever the frontage roads it will reduce the available space for a cap park; and perhaps more important, is an area where they are already planning to take VERY little additional right of way.

 Even more to the point, I just looked again at the plans.  The plan already includes cantilevered frontage roads on the depressed section in Segment 2!

Guess it was all political theater 🤷🏼‍♂️

[Houston19514]

Just now, texan said:

Guess it was all political theater 🤷🏼‍♂️

It was indeed.  Orchestrated by our city and county "leaders".  Shameful.

[Big E]

9 hours ago, texan said:

Guess it was all political theater 🤷🏼‍♂️

If you actually read the MOU, this crap is so vague, a lawyer could drive a semi through those holes.

Read under the heading "Reducing the NHHIP Footprint during detailed design" on page 35. It doesn't actually commit TxDOT to reducing anything, and in fact gives them so much wiggle room in regards to what they will consider when discussing any potential "reduction" in the footprint, and gives them an all encompassing out in that "any proposals to reduce the Project footprint must not compromise the safety, flooding mitigation, design standards, freight mobility, and evacuation effectiveness", that that section might as well not exist at all.

[Houston19514]

10 hours ago, Big E said:

If you actually read the MOU, this crap is so vague, a lawyer could drive a semi through those holes.

Read under the heading "Reducing the NHHIP Footprint during detailed design" on page 35. It doesn't actually commit TxDOT to reducing anything, and in fact gives them so much wiggle room in regards to what they will consider when discussing any potential "reduction" in the footprint, and gives them an all encompassing out in that "any proposals to reduce the Project footprint must not compromise the safety, flooding mitigation, design standards, freight mobility, and evacuation effectiveness", that that section might as well not exist at all.

All of which (including minimizing the footprint) was already the plan.

[mattyt36]

As I am (happily) not an engineer, can someone explain cantilever roads?  Is this a design like the LBJ Freeway in Dallas between the Stemmons and Central Exwy?

[Luminare]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:48 PM, Big E said:

If you actually read the MOU, this crap is so vague, a lawyer could drive a semi through those holes.

Read under the heading "Reducing the NHHIP Footprint during detailed design" on page 35. It doesn't actually commit TxDOT to reducing anything, and in fact gives them so much wiggle room in regards to what they will consider when discussing any potential "reduction" in the footprint, and gives them an all encompassing out in that "any proposals to reduce the Project footprint must not compromise the safety, flooding mitigation, design standards, freight mobility, and evacuation effectiveness", that that section might as well not exist at all.

If I were advising the writing and negotiation of the contract they probably have I would say use that exact same language. Its just like in architecture contracts we are seen in the courts eyes as not having to be perfect. Restrictive language in the reducing footprint context is basically designed to be a poison pill, and they will have to make that a priority over the other elements that are in quotations. If they ignore those elements for the sake of reducing the footprint and something goes wrong then whoever is designing this project, including TXDOT open themselves up to liability. For example if a client wants something in a contract like "the design will be the best and conform to all code requirements" that is basically putting myself in a box. Just like "reducing the footprint" is ambiguous, so is what is "best" and even "all". This puts a burden on the designer to be "perfect" and if you agree to a clause like that and you do anything wrong then you have go outside what is normal and reasonable for your profession. For those that might be angry at the language, put yourself in an architects shoes or an engineers shoes or even TXDOT.

[IntheKnowHouston]

Today's Houston Chronicle article touches on the Interstate 45 / I-45 project and the proposed sky park replacing the Pierce Elevated.

Additionally, the article focuses on the sales listing of the Greyhound bus station in Midtown and the possible closure of the nearby McDonald's.


https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/greyhound-mcdonalds-midtown-houston-skypark-pierce-17742026.php

[hindesky]

Pics of what the Pierce Elevated could look like if it was remodeled.

Edited January 28, 2023 by hindesky

[hindesky]

[HoustonMidtown]

Roads are open again around the Lofts by the Ballpark area that was demolished

 

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by HoustonMidtown

[MexAmerican_Moose]

as a bridge engineer, I'm fascinated what other countries are able to do with the space under their bridges....us...errr

[hbg.50]

49 minutes ago, MexAmerican_Moose said:

as a bridge engineer, I'm fascinated what other countries are able to do with the space under their bridges....us...errr

What do other countries do?  Just yesterday I went underneath 45 to get to the east side feeder road near Crosstimbers (for JCI!).  That underpass was so dark and scary.  I practically sped through it.  My imagination ran wild of people coming out of the dark and blocking my passage before I could get on the feeder road on the other side!

It was worth it though.  My chili cheese coneys hit the spot!  😆