I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Houston19514]

3 hours ago, burt said:

I can't imagine that this project gets cancelled all together, but if it does (or is significantly scaled back) what happens to the land and properties that TxDOT has already purchased? I believe they already paid a hefty sum (~$90MM) to the Housing Authority for Clayton Homes. If that property (and others like it) are no longer required for this project, is there a clawback mechanism for TxDOT to recoup those funds? 

With regard to the Clayton Homes site, the county's objections to the NHHIP plan are almost 100% with regard to Segments 1 and 2.  Segment 3 (the downtown part of NHHIP) is likely to be built as planned.  In any event, there it's unlikely there are any clawback provisions. TxDOT would just have surplus property it could sell.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

With regard to the Clayton Homes site, the county's objections to the NHHIP plan are almost 100% with regard to Segments 1 and 2.  Segment 3 (the downtown part of NHHIP) is likely to be built as planned.  In any event, there it's unlikely there are any clawback provisions. TxDOT would just have surplus property it could sell.

you keep saying that. where are you seeing info that makes you confident that any segment of this will be built?

Edited June 24, 2021 by samagon

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

you keep saying that. where are you seeing info that makes you confident that any segment of this will be built?

For starters, even the county’s lawsuit acknowledges that the existing I-45 desperately needs improvement and makes very little  complaints about Segment 3;  the bulk of their issues are with Segments 1 and 2

[burt]

4 hours ago, samagon said:

specifically with Clayton Homes, as I remember reading here, the city was not at all displeased about Clayton Homes going away, so that land might end up being a detention pond/park area regardless of this projects future.

I suspect it they can't build the realignment, with other land they've already acquired, they'd probably try to get it back out there as taxable properties.

 

I don't disagree that the City was happy to take the $90MM and run, however I can't imagine TxDOT agreeing to pay $90MM for detention. Maybe so, but that just seems expensive for a detention pond/park. I would have to think there was some language in the purchase agreement addressing a scenario where the project doesn't come to fruition. Guess we will find out who has the better set of lawyers. After all, they are the only one's who are going to come out ahead in all of this anyway. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by burt

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

For starters, even the county’s lawsuit acknowledges that the existing I-45 desperately needs improvement and makes very little  complaints about Segment 3;  the bulk of their issues are with Segments 1 and 2

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/houston-interstate.pdf

don't see what you see.

Quote

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. Harris County, Texas (“Harris County” or “the County”) brings this civil action against the Texas Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”), and James M. Bass, in his official capacity as its Executive Director, for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq. and its implementing regulations, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303 (“§ 4(f)”).

2. This litigation arises from the Defendants’ decisions to expand and widen Interstate Highway 45 (“I-45”), from south of downtown Houston north to Beltway 8, to remove the Pierce Elevated section of I-45, and to re-route I-45 to the east and north of downtown, together named the North Houston Highway Improvement Project (“NHHIP” or “the Project”).

3. Harris County files this lawsuit to challenge the actions of TxDOT—a state agency—and its officials in adopting a design and plan that ignored serious harms, disregarded the concerns of the communities impacted by the Project, and brushed off the numerous comments they received as part of their flawed EIS process. The Defendants had already made their mind Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 32 2 about what they were going to do and then simply did it, running roughshod over the procedural requirements of NEPA, the substantive law of Section 4(f) and the APA’s constraint on arbitrary and capricious decision-making.

4. Harris County files this lawsuit because the NHHIP must be more carefully considered and designed to meet the diverse needs of the region’s future, reflect the changing circumstances of altered work patterns and new transit initiatives, learn from the regions’ past experience that wider freeways cause more traffic, not less, and without unnecessarily displacing hundreds of families and businesses.

they outline the entire project "Interstate Highway 45 (“I-45”), from south of downtown Houston north to Beltway 8, to remove the Pierce Elevated section of I-45, and to re-route I-45 to the east and north of downtown, together named the North Houston Highway Improvement Project"

further, 3 entire pages are specifically referencing segment 3.

regarding 'desperately needs improvement' I see this:

Quote

Harris County recognizes that transportation projects are essential to the region

here's the 'relief requested'...

Quote

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED Harris County respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment in its favor, and:

1. Declare that Defendants violated the APA and NEPA by failing to take a hard look at impacts resulting from the NHHIP, failing to evaluate all alternatives, failing to adequately respond to comments, and failing to make the full disclosures required by law; Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 30 of 32 31

2. Declare that Defendants failed to publish a full DEIS that complied with NEPA, that this failure resulted in the inadequate disclosure of all impacts, and impeded the ability of the public to participate in the NEPA process as required by law;

3. Declare that Defendants violated the APA and § 4(f) by refusing to identify the White Oak Bayou Greenway as a recreation or park land, and thereby failing to consider reasonable and prudent alternatives to its actual and constructive use for the NHHIP;

4. Harris County seeks a permanent injunction to vacate the ROD approving of the NHHIP, and remand it back to TxDOT for full and complete compliance with NEPA, its implementing regulations, and § 4(f); and 5. Grant Harris County such other relief as may be necessary and appropriate or as the Court deems just and proper.

particularly 4.

I do think the entire project will happen (segments 1, 2 and 3). the thing is though, TXDOT thought they could ram this project through without taking the consideration of the city and county into account (and the need to adopt more than just car transit options), I think they are going to be stuck now being forced to accept city and county changes as well they will have to accept even more changes 'requested' (required) from the federal level. just my guess though.

Edited June 24, 2021 by samagon

[Houston19514]

41 minutes ago, samagon said:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/houston-interstate.pdf

don't see what you see.

 

regarding 'desperately needs improvement' I see this:

 

No. 7.  Page 2 (Easily found by searching for the word "desperately"):

7. By filing this lawsuit, Harris County does not seek to cancel or unduly delay the NHHIP because the County readily recognizes that the existing I-45 desperately needs improving. But the NHHIP must be undertaken in accordance with applicable law, including NEPA, § 4(f) and the APA.

 

 

The thing is,  TxDOT has always acknowledged that the plan is not final final and is subject to further reivision as they work through the process, especially with regard to Segments 1 and 2.  As I said when this lawsuit was filed and letter sent from FHWA, look for a press conference (attended by Sheila Jackson Lee, of course), announcing TXDoT's agreement to do things that would have been done regardless and things that would have been agreed to in regular course.  Local and federal politicians "win".  The only losers are taxpayers because a whole bunch of money will have been wasted to achieve nothing and time will have been wasted on accomplishing, in the county's own words, "desperately needed improvements."

I'm not necessarily a huge Sylvester Turner fan, but I much prefer has approach to this matter.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Houston19514

[samagon]

thanks, I obviously missed that.

I think the thing is that the city and county want more assurances that the plan is not final final.

and yeah, Sheila Jackson Lee. nothing nice I can say about her, so I'll not say anything at all except that I feel that more could be accomplished if someone else had her seat.

[j_cuevas713]

7 hours ago, MaxConcrete said:

In case you weren't aware, DFW builds more freeways and tollways than Houston and is better off economically than Houston. DFW has more job creation and more consistent job creation. In fact, they're almost always the #1 metro in the U.S. for job creation. Houston only ranks highly when oil prices are high. DFW has more population increase and attracts more domestic migrants (which is a sign that a city is attractive). DFW also has a more highly diversified economy including a much larger tech sector than Houston. DFW is often a viable candidate for national-level corporate expansions such as Amazon and Uber, but Houston is never a viable candidate.

More funding for DFW will mean more success for DFW.

How is expanded freeways considered a success? We need commuter rail in Houston. Screw another freeway expansion. 

[Montrose1100]

15 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

How is expanded freeways considered a success? We need commuter rail in Houston. Screw another freeway expansion. 

It's supposed to be freeway "improvement". I'm all for trenching 59, and wrapping 45 around to get rid of the Pierce Elevated. I'm all for "improving" connections between the freeways, and completely repaving them to get rid of pot holes and flood spots. This is infrastructure and freeways aren't going anywhere. As much as I would love for billions to pour into a rail system, it's not happening. We can't even get more light rail.

[MaxConcrete]

On 6/24/2021 at 10:13 AM, MaxConcrete said:

Now we'll need to await the response of the TxDOT commission. Will they leave the $5 billion funding commitment in place, or will the project funding be reallocated elsewhere?

At today's commission meeting, the commission decided to receive public comment on the removal of funding for NHHIP. Comment will be received starting July 9, and the plan is to have a decision at the August meeting (at the end of August).

From the tone of comments from Chairman Bugg and Houston Commissioner Ryan, it sounds like they are ready to defund NHHIP. Public comment appears to be a necessary step before they can officially remove the projects (and their funding) from the UTP.

Edited June 30, 2021 by MaxConcrete

[samagon]

On 6/25/2021 at 9:28 AM, Montrose1100 said:

It's supposed to be freeway "improvement". I'm all for trenching 59, and wrapping 45 around to get rid of the Pierce Elevated. I'm all for "improving" connections between the freeways, and completely repaving them to get rid of pot holes and flood spots. This is infrastructure and freeways aren't going anywhere. As much as I would love for billions to pour into a rail system, it's not happening. We can't even get more light rail.

I suppose 'improvement' is all relative, and actually the reason for this whole process being stopped.

here's an article on chron:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Massive-I-45-Houston-project-heads-back-to-public-16285062.php?utm_campaign=CMS Sharing Tools (Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral#photo-21160679

Edited June 30, 2021 by samagon

[Big E]

12 hours ago, samagon said:

I suppose 'improvement' is all relative, and actually the reason for this whole process being stopped.

here's an article on chron:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Massive-I-45-Houston-project-heads-back-to-public-16285062.php?utm_campaign=CMS Sharing Tools (Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral#photo-21160679

All this hoopla is just getting embarrassing at this point. I say enough. The courts need to throw out the challenges and let the project move forward. Its been over 10 years that this project's been in development. Some of these officials crying about it now weren't in power for most of it, but some (like that old bird, Sheila Jackson Lee) were, and now they are coming in at the literal ninth hour and wasting tax payer money, and for what? To look important? While our current infrastructure continues to decay, the price of building materials continues to rise, and the project has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars and been through multiple public input sessions. Enough is enough.

This project is not significantly changing at this point. Everybody knows that. This is nothing more than a hail mary pass to keep this project going while this legal circus makes its way through court. You want to know why America doesn't have a high speed rail network to rival China or even Europe? Want to know why our infrastructure is decaying and nothing seems to get done anymore? This is why. Any project that moves forward gets strangled in red tape and BS for a decade or longer, while costs overrun to the tune of hundreds of millions. And at the end of the day, the only people who win are the lawyers and whoever gets the lucrative kick backs for the construction jobs. People say we need and infrastructure investment plan, but such an act of congress, should it ever even pass, would be pointless. Because any project, no matter its perceived or real benefits, would be litigated to death. None of the people complaining about this project are civil engineers. None of them. Not one of them know any of the technical stuff about traffic patterns, nor how bad the infrastructure really is. But when their special interests (or their own personal interest in Lee's case) say jump, they jump.

[samagon]

red tape and BS isn't a US only phenomenon. 

Sheila Jackson Lee is absolutely a US phenomenon and she isn't the only person who is there that is bad for our country. the fact that she (and others like her) can hold office for so long should be all the reason that is needed for term limits to be introduced to all elected officials.

what really rankles about her is that I reached out to her office years ago about this i45 project and I know many others did too. 

Edited July 1, 2021 by samagon

[Houston19514]

1 minute ago, samagon said:

red tape and BS isn't a US only phenomenon. 

True, but we very much seem to be suffering more from it than any country I can think of  Compare the costs to build a mile of subway in this country with the cost anywhere else. 

[samagon]

1 minute ago, Houston19514 said:

True, but we very much seem to be suffering more from it than any country I can think of  Compare the costs to build a mile of subway in this country with the cost anywhere else. 

absolutely, I thought I posted this (timely) news article in the HSR thread, but I guess I didn't.

https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs-america

I think the first graphic is so telling. we are number 6 on the list for spending on rail, but each country that spends more than us is digging through rock, and we're just laying surface tracks.

it goes on to discuss the increase in spending on roads from 1990 to current. 

as they outline in the article, it's a complex problem, and there's not just one reason for the increase. so while obviously special interest groups (and camera seeky people like SJL) seem to show up at the 11th hour, it's not all down to that. 

[mattyt36]

On 6/24/2021 at 10:46 AM, MaxConcrete said:

In case you weren't aware, DFW builds more freeways and tollways than Houston and is better off economically than Houston. DFW has more job creation and more consistent job creation. In fact, they're almost always the #1 metro in the U.S. for job creation. Houston only ranks highly when oil prices are high. DFW has more population increase and attracts more domestic migrants (which is a sign that a city is attractive). DFW also has a more highly diversified economy including a much larger tech sector than Houston. DFW is often a viable candidate for national-level corporate expansions such as Amazon and Uber, but Houston is never a viable candidate.

More funding for DFW will mean more success for DFW.

The implication being more freeways and tollways=more HQ relocations?  Just a tad bit simplistic, don't you think?

 

[j_cuevas713]

9 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

The implication being more freeways and tollways=more HQ relocations?  Just a tad bit simplistic, don't you think?

 

It's already been proven that highways have zero to do with smart growth. Anywhere there is a road, there is the possibility of job growth. But that doesn't make it smart sustainable growth for a city. He's forgetting the possible lost income from businesses not being able to attract the standard pedestrian or cyclist, only the motorist.

[H-Town Man]

Do I understand correctly that the city and county's interest in stopping this is because it forces some racial minority people out of their homes, and the federal government's interest in stopping this is because of environmentalist concerns, and the two interests just happen to dovetail? But that on a deeper level, the real motivation is so that local politicians can say "We blew up something that benefits suburbanites more than inner city people" and so that federal politicians can say "We blew up something in Texas"?

 

[rechlin]

I'm not a suburbanite (I've lived inside the loop for the last >20 years), but I want this project to happen.  Why?  IH-45 is one of the most dangerous highways in the country, and there are so many problems with its current implementation that this project addresses.

Most of TxDOT's plans for this project are to increase safety.  People keep naively going on and on about induced demand, but that isn't even relevant here, because in many sections, this project doesn't even add more regular lanes.  It does add bus (+HOV/HOT) lanes, but improved mass transit is something we should be celebrating, not opposing. 

The number of people being forced to move is exaggerated by most opponents of this project as well.  Regardless of whether this happens, many of the units at Clayton Homes have already been torn down (so the residents already had to move) thanks to damage from Harvey, and it seems the rest will get relocated to a less flood-prone development regardless of whether this goes forward.  And at Kelly Village, the housing authority has voluntarily wanted to tear down more than is necessary to make more greenspace for its residents -- again, it seems the housing authority would rather have more residents elsewhere (as has been determined from the failure of low-income tower blocks, it does not make sense to have a large number of low-income residents in one small area, but it's better to spread them around to give them more opportunities).  And at the Lofts at the Ballpark, this move has been expected anyway, and my impression is that the owners are welcoming this buyout.  Many of the businesses cited by articles in opposition to this as being in the way of the project have either already closed or will soon close anyway (such as Fry's Electronics and Kim Son), so the buyouts are likely to be appreciated as well.  And the renters of business properties in the way have known about this project for many years, probably even before they signed their leases for the property, so many have always been prepared for this day.

If this project goes forward, it will mean safer travel, thanks to fewer (and less tight) curves, broader shoulders, and less dangerous merging.  Road capacity will increase as a side effect, allowing more people to get to their destination with the same traffic speeds as today.

It will also mean fewer problems from trucks striking low bridges.  The West Dallas and Houston Street bridges are infamous for being struck regularly, and this project addresses those.

It will also mean fewer problems with flooding, because this project calls for massive retention/detention ponds and pumping systems, to ensure that both property around the project and the roadway itself can avoid flooding as often.  And by having the segment east of downtown below-grade, in Biblical floods (think Allison, Harvey), they could be setup to fill with water to help protect the property around them, because nobody should be traveling on the roads during events like those.

Yes, it sucks for the people who will be forced to move, especially for those few who own homes that they've lived in for decades.  Few people want that.  But the plans call for very generous relocation assistance (even going as far as rent and mortgage subsidies, not just moving expenses), and we can't let a few people stand in the way of progress.  There are some negatives to this project, and of course the massive cost, but it seems the positives greatly outweigh the negatives.

[mattyt36]

9 minutes ago, rechlin said:

I'm not a suburbanite (I've lived inside the loop for the last >20 years), but I want this project to happen.  Why?  IH-45 is one of the most dangerous highways in the country, and there are so many problems with its current implementation that this project addresses.

Most of TxDOT's plans for this project are to increase safety.  People keep naively going on and on about induced demand, but that isn't even relevant here, because in many sections, this project doesn't even add more regular lanes.  It does add bus (+HOV/HOT) lanes, but improved mass transit is something we should be celebrating, not opposing. 

The number of people being forced to move is exaggerated by most opponents of this project as well.  Regardless of whether this happens, many of the units at Clayton Homes have already been torn down (so the residents already had to move) thanks to damage from Harvey, and it seems the rest will get relocated to a less flood-prone development regardless of whether this goes forward.  And at Kelly Village, the housing authority has voluntarily wanted to tear down more than is necessary to make more greenspace for its residents -- again, it seems the housing authority would rather have more residents elsewhere (as has been determined from the failure of low-income tower blocks, it does not make sense to have a large number of low-income residents in one small area, but it's better to spread them around to give them more opportunities).  And at the Lofts at the Ballpark, this move has been expected anyway, and my impression is that the owners are welcoming this buyout.  Many of the businesses cited by articles in opposition to this as being in the way of the project have either already closed or will soon close anyway (such as Fry's Electronics and Kim Son), so the buyouts are likely to be appreciated as well.  And the renters of business properties in the way have known about this project for many years, probably even before they signed their leases for the property, so many have always been prepared for this day.

If this project goes forward, it will mean safer travel, thanks to fewer (and less tight) curves, broader shoulders, and less dangerous merging.  Road capacity will increase as a side effect, allowing more people to get to their destination with the same traffic speeds as today.

It will also mean fewer problems from trucks striking low bridges.  The West Dallas and Houston Street bridges are infamous for being struck regularly, and this project addresses those.

It will also mean fewer problems with flooding, because this project calls for massive retention/detention ponds and pumping systems, to ensure that both property around the project and the roadway itself can avoid flooding as often.  And by having the segment east of downtown below-grade, in Biblical floods (think Allison, Harvey), they could be setup to fill with water to help protect the property around them, because nobody should be traveling on the roads during events like those.

Yes, it sucks for the people who will be forced to move, especially for those few who own homes that they've lived in for decades.  Few people want that.  But the plans call for very generous relocation assistance (even going as far as rent and mortgage subsidies, not just moving expenses), and we can't let a few people stand in the way of progress.  There are some negatives to this project, and of course the massive cost, but it seems the positives greatly outweigh the negatives.

As far as I'm concerned, "high cost" really isn't an issue because it's not like gas tax rates are going to change if the project proceeds.  If we don't want the $9 billion spent locally (tremendous stimulus in and of itself), it'll (happily) go somewhere else.  The only major unfunded items that I am aware of is for the cap parks.

I, too, hope it proceeds, but the link between freeways and DFW's growth is spurious.  The idea that rail will be some panacea to alleviate congestion is also problematic.  

I hope if it does get scaled back the investment gets redirected elsewhere locally.  I agree that Mayor Turner appears to have the most balanced and pragmatic approach.

[samagon]

2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Do I understand correctly that the city and county's interest in stopping this is because it forces some racial minority people out of their homes, and the federal government's interest in stopping this is because of environmentalist concerns, and the two interests just happen to dovetail? But that on a deeper level, the real motivation is so that local politicians can say "We blew up something that benefits suburbanites more than inner city people" and so that federal politicians can say "We blew up something in Texas"?

 

I feel like this has been gone over previously, but this is a huge understatement of what is actually going on.

as far as the motivation on the national level, I thought that was based on the racial factors. the county brings up environmental issues as only part of the lawsuit against txdot.

so county motivation is racial factors, and environmental. national seems to only be racial factors.

as far as what can be gained on the federal level, I suspect it has less to do with Texas specifically, and more about the fact that a democrat president will have directives that force scrutiny upon federally funded projects when race is a factor.

on the local level, I can certainly say that as a citizen of Houston I appreciate my mayor (and county officials) considering my neighborhood as more important than whoever may be just driving through the city of Houston.

[texan]

Are segments 1 and 2 necessarily linked to segment 3? Based on Mayor Turner's letter to Commissioner Ryan (which was based on community feedback) and many comments here, in general, people seem to be okay with and even supportive of just segment 3. After seeing the schematics for segments 1 and 2, I think it bulldozes way too much of the community. My personal opinion is that segment 3 moves forward and smaller improvements are made to segments 1 and 2. Hopefully TxDOT and Harris County can settle the lawsuit by moving forward with segment 3 but redesigning and significantly reducing the number of lanes required for segments 1 and 2.

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

as far as what can be gained on the federal level, I suspect it has less to do with Texas specifically, and more about the fact that a democrat president will have directives that force scrutiny upon federally funded projects when race is a factor.

It's certainly a "showcase project" for a new administration to make a national example.  Which means bad timing or good timing, depending on one's view.  The cynic in me (given how quickly the project was put on hold) says I highly doubt DoT has a view of what they want the project to be, either.

[dbigtex56]

2 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

As far as I'm concerned, "high cost" really isn't an issue because it's not like gas tax rates are going to change if the project proceeds. 

While it's true that gas tax rates will probably stay the same, the actual amounts collected vary depending on the current market price. I've never understood why fuel isn't taxed by the gallon instead of as a percentage of fuel cost..
We may be approaching a tipping point where ICE's don't power the majority of vehicles. The reliability, low operating costs, and increasing affordability of electric vehicles is attracting an increasing number of consumers. How do we tax gas that isn't being sold? 
The logical answer would be to initiate a usage tax for roads based on miles driven. This way the electric car owners would not be given (if you'll excuse the expression) a free ride. But not many politicians would undertake the task of convincing the public that another tax is needed.
 

[Houston19514]

9 minutes ago, dbigtex56 said:

While it's true that gas tax rates will probably stay the same, the actual amounts collected vary depending on the current market price. I've never understood why fuel isn't taxed by the gallon instead of as a percentage of fuel cost..
We may be approaching a tipping point where ICE's don't power the majority of vehicles. The reliability, low operating costs, and increasing affordability of electric vehicles is attracting an increasing number of consumers. How do we tax gas that isn't being sold? 
The logical answer would be to initiate a usage tax for roads based on miles driven. This way the electric car owners would not be given (if you'll excuse the expression) a free ride. But not many politicians would undertake the task of convincing the public that another tax is needed.
 

Gasoline taxes (both state and federal) ARE on a per gallon basis, not percentage of sale.

[dbigtex56]

6 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Gasoline taxes (both state and federal) ARE on a per gallon basis, not percentage of sale.

Thanks for the correction. I should have verified before posting. 
Some states do have variable-rate gas taxes, but Texas is not among them. 
 

[mattyt36]

I hate to be “that guy” since I’m sure it’s been discussed to death in previous posts, but if the main stated concern of the County and City really is people being dislocated, how many people are we really talking about? For whatever reason the number that sticks out in my head was around 500 housing UNITS, the majority of which were in a single multifamily complex.

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

to displace the fewest residents and businesses, they need to route I-45 around the East Loop. Make the current I-45 inside the loop a spur that links to downtown and to 59.

 

the main difficulty with this is that the Ship Channel Bridge is approaching 50 years of age...

[mattyt36]

4 minutes ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

to displace the fewest residents and businesses, they need to route I-45 around the East Loop. Make the current I-45 inside the loop a spur that links to downtown and to 59.

 

the main difficulty with this is that the Ship Channel Bridge is approaching 50 years of age...

Or … just … widen … the … East … Loop?

In your scenario what difference does it make if it’s signed 45 or not?!

[Big E]

1 hour ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

to displace the fewest residents and businesses, they need to route I-45 around the East Loop. Make the current I-45 inside the loop a spur that links to downtown and to 59.

 

the main difficulty with this is that the Ship Channel Bridge is approaching 50 years of age...

The only thing that would do would be to put more pressure on the East Loop so it becomes as bad as the West loop. Also, as you said, the Ship Channel Bridge is old, and ships have run into it before. Its probably due for replacement, which will take years and be a traffic nightmare, just like what's going on with the Beltway 8 bridge. And if you think an expansion of the East Loop would be less controversial, think again. Many of the people complaining about this project will complain about that as well because they oppose any freeway development, no matter how needed or necessary.

 

3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

(given how quickly the project was put on hold)

I mean they had no choice but to put it on hold, with the federal government breathing down their neck.