I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

On 7/2/2021 at 10:30 AM, H-Town Man said:

.

 

Austin had this idea with building 130 to relieve congestion on I-35. They thought all the trucks and through-traffic would opt for this super fast tollway. But everybody just kept going through on I-35 and traffic didn't get any better. Most people have a very basic, instinctual understanding that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and it is hard to get them out of that.

 

the southern end of 130 is 45 miles from San Antonio.

45/610 S and 45/610 N intersections won't move.

[JLWM8609]

4 hours ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

the southern end of 130 is 45 miles from San Antonio.

SH 130 is actually signed along I-410 from I-35 SW of Downtown San Antonio to I-10 east of Downtown San Antonio where it's signed on I-10 to the point where the tollroad picks up outside Seguin. The idea was that truck traffic on I-35 would see the SH 130 sign and bypass San Antonio on SH 130/I-410 and SH 130/I-10 to pick up the tollroad and bypass Austin.

[H-Town Man]

On 7/3/2021 at 11:38 AM, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

the southern end of 130 is 45 miles from San Antonio.

45/610 S and 45/610 N intersections won't move.

SH 45 allows you to drive back to I-35 south of Austin, or you can stay on 130. They made it very easy to bypass just Austin or to bypass the whole congested I-35 corridor from Austin to San Antonio.

 

[samagon]

On 7/3/2021 at 11:13 AM, Houston19514 said:

Of course it's not true. Not even close. That's the thing about this "debate" both here and more broadly.  The opponents (including the county's lawsuit and including the self-proclaimed urban experts like Jeff Speck) routinely rely on misstatements, exaggerations, misunderstandings, and flat out lies.  

really? 

the vote by HGAC seems to paint this as very much a regional vs local transportation issue.

from this article:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-I-45-must-not-go-forward-over-16068321.php

Quote

The Transportation Policy Council — which handles federal transportation money as a part of the Houston-Galveston Area Council — voted 14-9 for a resolution expressing support for the project, even as every single member of the regional council representing either the city, Harris County, or Houston METRO voted no.

translation: the only support for this project lies outside of Houston, IE regional traffic.

so that's where I'm basing my opinion. are you suggesting that my opinion is based on a misstatement, exaggeration, misunderstanding, or a flat out lie?

and of those 4 possibilities, please provide some actual data so that I may better understand the facts, rather than just accusations.

Edited July 6, 2021 by samagon

[H-Town Man]

Studies have shown that people who choose to live next to a freeway are more likely to be displaced by freeway expansions. This is a huge problem, because in no way should these people be more affected by freeway expansions than everybody else. Absolutely none.

 

[mattyt36]

On 7/6/2021 at 9:55 AM, samagon said:

really? 

the vote by HGAC seems to paint this as very much a regional vs local transportation issue.

from this article:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-I-45-must-not-go-forward-over-16068321.php

translation: the only support for this project lies outside of Houston, IE regional traffic.

so that's where I'm basing my opinion. are you suggesting that my opinion is based on a misstatement, exaggeration, misunderstanding, or a flat out lie?

and of those 4 possibilities, please provide some actual data so that I may better understand the facts, rather than just accusations.

Well that's simply fallacious.

How are the Committee members appointed?

Harris County has SUED TxDOT over the project . . . why would anyone appointed by the County vote in support for the resolution?  As the editorial states, Mayor Turner has also made his position clear.  The City has de facto control of the METRO Board, with another 2 of the remaining 4 appointed by the County.  The outcome of the vote shouldn't have surprised anyone . . . or at least anyone who knows how these things work.  (Not to mention it's a toothless resolution . . . )

There is undoubtedly plenty of support within the County and City for this project, and plenty of examples within this post.  They aren't appointed by the Mayor or Commissioner's Court to the HGAC Board, however.

Look at it this way . . . just because Ken Paxton decided to sue GA, PA, WI, and MI because of some wacky partisan plot to undo the 2020 election results doesn't mean that all of Texas supported him.  In fact, even though TX went for Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Texans did not support him.  But people in these political positions tend to be a bit more ideological and catering to their perceived base.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

Well that's simply fallacious.

How are the Committee members appointed?

Harris County has SUED TxDOT over the project . . . why would anyone appointed by the County vote in support for the resolution?  As the editorial states, Mayor Turner has also made his position clear.  The City has de facto control of the METRO Board, with another 2 of the remaining 4 appointed by the County.  The outcome of the vote shouldn't have surprised anyone . . . or at least anyone who knows how these things work.  (Not to mention it's a toothless resolution . . . )

There is undoubtedly plenty of support within the County and City for this project, and plenty of examples within this post.  They aren't appointed by the Mayor or Commissioner's Court to the HGAC Board, however.

Look at it this way . . . just because Ken Paxton decided to sue GA, PA, WI, and MI because of some wacky partisan plot to undo the 2020 election results doesn't mean that all of Texas supported him.  In fact, even though TX went for Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Texans did not support him.  But people in these political positions tend to be a bit more ideological and catering to their perceived base.

I'm not following you at all. please be more specific and direct in showing me how the HGAC vote doesn't paint this as a regional vs local transit issue. 

[H-Town Man]

11 minutes ago, samagon said:

I'm not following you at all. please be more specific and direct in showing me how the HGAC vote doesn't paint this as a regional vs local transit issue. 

Because the HGAC members who oppose are appointed by the politicians who oppose the project. You are beholden to the person who appointed you. An HGAC vote is not the same as a public opinion poll.

 

[mattyt36]

32 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Because the HGAC members who oppose are appointed by the politicians who oppose the project. You are beholden to the person who appointed you. An HGAC vote is not the same as a public opinion poll.

 

That's it, thanks.  Put another way, if Ed Emmett and Buzbee won I'm sure the vote would've gone differently.   But that wouldn't have told you much, either.  

[samagon]

18 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Because the HGAC members who oppose are appointed by the politicians who oppose the project. You are beholden to the person who appointed you. An HGAC vote is not the same as a public opinion poll.

 

right, but they are either voted into office by public opinion (or at least the opinion of those that can be bothered to vote), or they are appointed by the people who have been voted into office by public opinion (or at least the opinion of those that can be bothered to vote).

if the people felt strongly about Houston/Harris county changes being implemented they would have urged their representatives to vote with Houston/Harris (and we would have seen them do so) against the approval for the project as is.

I mean, this is how democracy works.

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

right, but they are either voted into office by public opinion (or at least the opinion of those that can be bothered to vote), or they are appointed by the people who have been voted into office by public opinion (or at least the opinion of those that can be bothered to vote).

if the people felt strongly about Houston/Harris county changes being implemented they would have urged their representatives to vote with Houston/Harris (and we would have seen them do so) against the approval for the project as is.

I mean, this is how democracy works.

This is a very imperfect way of assessing public opinion. People typically have two choices on a politician to vote for and they may decide based on a totally different reason. When the current slate of city and county politicians was voted on, no one had any idea that they were going to sue to stop a freeway expansion. Most of the county commissioners we ended up with came from straight-ticket voting fueled by ire at Trump and people had no idea that voting Democrat meant that the city's largest road project would be halted as the politicians responded to small, vocal activist groups. One could argue that they *should* have known that given that it happens in cities all over the country, but we have never seen it happen like this in Houston.

I really don't think we have any reliable info on public opinion about this project, other than the historical rule of thumb that freeway expansions are opposed by people living next to the freeways as well as urban planning wonks, and supported by just about everyone else.

 

[Houston19514]

More to the point, the HGAC vote was presented not as evidence of public opinion, but as evidence that the purpose of the NHHIP is to make it easier for people in Galveston to get to Conroe.  Of course the HGAC vote provides even less evidence of that premise than it does of public opinion on the project. 

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

right, but they are either voted into office by public opinion (or at least the opinion of those that can be bothered to vote), or they are appointed by the people who have been voted into office by public opinion (or at least the opinion of those that can be bothered to vote).

if the people felt strongly about Houston/Harris county changes being implemented they would have urged their representatives to vote with Houston/Harris (and we would have seen them do so) against the approval for the project as is.

I mean, this is how democracy works.

Absolute nonsense, but not surprising as none of these arguments have not been made in good faith.  ("I'm against poor people losing their houses!" "I'm against pollution!" "Wait, what they really should do is route it around 610!" "Well what I'm really concerned about is safety."  Yeah right.) The last municipal elections were in 2019, and the NHHIP wasn't even an issue in that election.

As for people mobilizing to support the project, it's only in the past 6 months or so that it became clear that this project is really at risk.  So the people who have mobilized thus far are the ones who have been organized against it from the beginning, i.e., there wasn't anything to "mobilize."  I'm sure the vast majority of people who are tacit supporters aren't aware of what's going on at all.  Any political fallout from this has yet to occur.

Edited July 8, 2021 by mattyt36

[iah77]

23 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Well that's simply fallacious.

How are the Committee members appointed?

Harris County has SUED TxDOT over the project . . . why would anyone appointed by the County vote in support for the resolution?  As the editorial states, Mayor Turner has also made his position clear.  The City has de facto control of the METRO Board, with another 2 of the remaining 4 appointed by the County.  The outcome of the vote shouldn't have surprised anyone . . . or at least anyone who knows how these things work.  (Not to mention it's a toothless resolution . . . )

There is undoubtedly plenty of support within the County and City for this project, and plenty of examples within this post.  They aren't appointed by the Mayor or Commissioner's Court to the HGAC Board, however.

Look at it this way . . . just because Ken Paxton decided to sue GA, PA, WI, and MI because of some wacky partisan plot to undo the 2020 election results doesn't mean that all of Texas supported him.  In fact, even though TX went for Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Texans did not support him.  But people in these political positions tend to be a bit more ideological and catering to their perceived base.

Is there anything we can do to publicly support the project and counter this crap?

[mattyt36]

1 minute ago, iah77 said:

Is there anything we can do to publicly support the project and counter this crap?

Great question and one I keep asking myself.  Historically for things like this, there has to be an organization advocating for it.  Usually someone like GHP would take that role, but my understanding is the GHP-City relationship is strained as a result of pressure from Mayor Turner over wanting them to take a public stance on the proposed state voting rights bill.  So that may be part of the reason why we haven't heard from them.  Or maybe the GHP isn't enthusiastically for it, either.  I honestly don't know.

Up until Oscar's (deleted) post in which he essentially said the writing is on the wall and the project is going to be canceled, I was just under the impression this extension of comment period was a way to buy time and develop some compromise between the City, County, and State so everyone could emerge and say "We've gone back to the drawing board and are addressing the City's and County's concerns."  That's essentially how these things have worked in the past.  I'm worried that's not going on now.  There's some (I say misguided) municipal political romance about stopping freeway construction, but there is a tremendous difference between clear cutting neighborhoods for the initial 45, 59, 288, etc. and expanding an existing footprint. 

As H-Town Man implied in his rule of thumb above, urban planning wonks seem to just want to wish reality away.  I used to subscribe to most of their mantra as I studied it myself but my mind has changed since I moved back to Houston about 5 years ago.  As much as urbanists want to pretend it's not the case, people live in suburbs (many not as a first choice, mind you!) and need a way of working in the City.  They seem to prefer that they work somewhere else.  I'm not sure how that's a good or desirable outcome.

[Houston19514]

18 minutes ago, iah77 said:

Is there anything we can do to publicly support the project and counter this crap?

Write to the County Judge, county commissioners, the Mayor, city council members.  And TxDOT at HOU-piowebmail@txdot.gov

I thought there would be official comment sites available again, perhaps they will be coming soon.

[mattyt36]

Well I put my money where my mouth was and answered my own question.

"How many residential units will be displaced in total"?

See page 5-2:

Single family residential: 160

Multi-family residential: 433

Public and low-income housing: 486

Total: 1,079 (on page 5-3, of the 1,079 displaced, 76 are owner-occupied units)

Also shown in this table  . . . other displacements:

Business: 344

Place of worship: 5

School: 2

Parking business: 11

Other: 11

The argument that this is about preventing displacement is simply nonsensical.  Yes, I realize it may suck for some (but probably not all!) of the people who live in the 1,079 units to have to move, but to me it is a straw man.

DRAFT_NHHIP_CIA_TR_Public_Comment_Version_2.pdf (ih45northandmore.com)

Edited July 8, 2021 by mattyt36

[H-Town Man]

19 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

Well I put my money where my mouth was and answered my own question.

"How many residential units will be displaced in total"?

See page 5-2:

Single family residential: 160

Multi-family residential: 433

Public and low-income housing: 486

Total: 1,079 (on page 5-3, of the 1,079 displaced, 76 are owner-occupied units)

Also shown in this table  . . . other displacements:

Business: 344

Place of worship: 5

School: 2

Parking business: 11

Other: 11

The argument that this is about preventing displacement is simply nonsensical.  Yes, I realize it may suck for some (but probably not all!) of the people who live in the 1,079 units to have to move, but to me it is a straw man.

DRAFT_NHHIP_CIA_TR_Public_Comment_Version_2.pdf (ih45northandmore.com)

I wonder what the turnover of all those residents would have been anyway? Multi-family resident moves, on average, once every 18-24 months? Single-family resident in low-income neighborhood along a freeway moves, on average, once every 3 years? Public and low-income housing resident probably less time?

 

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

More to the point, the HGAC vote was presented not as evidence of public opinion, but as evidence that the purpose of the NHHIP is to make it easier for people in Galveston to get to Conroe.  Of course the HGAC vote provides even less evidence of that premise than it does of public opinion on the project. 

correction: evidence that the HGAC officials that voted yes were more focused on regional mobility than local needs.

I provided proof that the HGAC voted according to reginal and local lines.

so tell me, what proof have you that the regional vote of yes was not cast based on regional mobility at the expense of the local needs?

Galveston to Conroe is a singular example of regional mobility, not the only example. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by samagon

[samagon]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

...extension of comment period...

this isn't anyone creating an extension of anything, it's a standard process of comment period. it has been spun by some as a "see we're re-opening the comments here to make sure everyone has a chance to speak!" when the reality is, it is a very regular part of the process, and they aren't doing this as some process of re-opening any closed comment period.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/unified-transportation-program.html

Quote

TxDOT's 10-year plan, the Unified Transportation Program (UTP) guides the development of projects around Texas (UTP Fact Sheet). Updated annually, TxDOT has been working with its transportation partners to identify projects to be included in the 2022 UTP. Public comments and feedback are very important in developing the plan. The public comment form will be available on this page on Friday, July 9, 2021. As part of the 2022 UTP public involvement, TxDOT will conduct a public meeting and a public hearing.

either way though, there were some above asking how they could be heard, well, starting July 9 (tomorrow), you can be heard. go make your comments about how lovely the NHHIP will be.

Edited July 8, 2021 by samagon

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

correction: evidence that the HGAC officials that voted yes were more focused on regional mobility than local needs.

I provided proof that the HGAC voted according to reginal and local lines.

so tell me, what proof have you that the regional vote of yes was not cast based on regional mobility at the expense of the local needs?

Galveston to Conroe is a singular example of regional mobility, not the only example. 

I have to tip my hat to you and your ability to go down new rhetorical rabbit holes without actually engaging with any substantive arguments.

You didn't provide proof of anything.  You reported out a vote count.  There's a perfectly logical explanation for how those people voted, which has been presented to you.  But you want to introduce another straw man (and bring up this Conroe to Galveston straw "king" yet again).

And local versus regional?  Give me a break.  It's just as local to the other board members as it is to the City of Houston and Harris County.   

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

this isn't anyone creating an extension of anything, it's a standard process of comment period. it has been spun by some as a "see we're re-opening the comments here to make sure everyone has a chance to speak!" when the reality is, it is a very regular part of the process, and they aren't doing this as some process of re-opening any closed comment period.

Well, regardless of what "official" comment period it is, it hasn't been linked to the future of the NHHIP until now and that is because of USDOT.  So I'm not sure the glib "nothing to see here" attitude is justified.

[H-Town Man]

29 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

I have to tip my hat to you and your ability to go down new rhetorical rabbit holes without actually engaging with any substantive arguments.

You didn't provide proof of anything.  You reported out a vote count.  There's a perfectly logical explanation for how those people voted, which has been presented to you.  But you want to introduce another straw man (and bring up this Conroe to Galveston straw "king" yet again).

And local versus regional?  Give me a break.  It's just as local to the other board members as it is to the City of Houston and Harris County.   

Come on man, this HGAC vote is like the 2017 World Series for him. You're not going to take it away. It's going to be cherished forever.

 

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

correction: evidence that the HGAC officials that voted yes were more focused on regional mobility than local needs.

I provided proof that the HGAC voted according to reginal and local lines.

so tell me, what proof have you that the regional vote of yes was not cast based on regional mobility at the expense of the local needs?

Galveston to Conroe is a singular example of regional mobility, not the only example. 

 "Regional mobility" also includes inner loopers accessing downtown, inner loopers accessing points of the city on the other side of downtown, car-poolers, users of transit services, downtown dwellers (and other inner loopers) accessing suburban jobs, etc, all of whom will benefit from this project, not just suburbanites.

Regional mobility is the mission of the HGAC.  Interesting that the suburban reps are fulfilling the mission while the city and county reps are shirking theirs, focusing instead on more parochial concerns.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Houston19514

[jadebenn]

I'm glad this project is dead and wish you all the worst of luck in saving it. Not that I really need to at this point, considering how this comment period seems to be the first move to reallocate funding.

Cities should not bend over backwards to cater to regional traffic - and I say this as a Houston suburbanite. It is especially indefensible to cater to this outdated thinking with a 50+ year investment. The last thing Houston needs to be is saddled with even bigger highways through the 2070s.

Edited July 9, 2021 by jadebenn

[samagon]

15 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 "Regional mobility" also includes inner loopers accessing downtown, inner loopers accessing points of the city on the other side of downtown, car-poolers, users of transit services, downtown dwellers (and other inner loopers) accessing suburban jobs, etc, all of whom will benefit from this project, not just suburbanites.

Regional mobility is the mission of the HGAC.  Interesting that the suburban reps are fulfilling the mission while the city and county reps are shirking theirs, focusing instead on more parochial concerns.

I fully agree, and I'm glad you finally are saying that the HGAC members that voted no represent the people you reference in your first paragraph. 

obviously, you disagree with them though, but they still represent the people you referenced. so maybe when they come up for election (or the people that appointed them come up for election), go vote for the other person.

Edited July 9, 2021 by samagon

[wilcal]

15 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 "Regional mobility" also includes inner loopers accessing downtown, inner loopers accessing points of the city on the other side of downtown, car-poolers, users of transit services, downtown dwellers (and other inner loopers) accessing suburban jobs, etc, all of whom will benefit from this project, not just suburbanites.

Regional mobility is the mission of the HGAC.  

Wait, you don't happen to be the TXDOT employee that came up with those claims that if we don't do the NHHIP that it'll take 1.5 hours to drive from Lindale Park to the Med Center, do you? 

Honestly, inner loopers don't need any more regional mobility and we shouldn't be spending billions on increasing mobility for mostly single-occupant private cars just so they can get home a few minutes faster just at peak times. 

Quote

Interesting that the suburban reps are fulfilling the mission while the city and county reps are shirking theirs, focusing instead on more parochial concerns.

Local reps wanting projects that actually benefit them. *pikachu face*

[mattyt36]

Well I'm going to drive from Conroe to Galveston this weekend.  I must be missing out on something.

[H-Town Man]

59 is still being sunk through the Museum District, correct? Is the 59/288 extra-wide section still being rebuilt?

How long until you think TxDOT comes back with another (scaled-back) plan for I-45? I could see it being widened north of 610 but left at its current size inside 610, similar to the Katy Freeway.

 

[wilcal]

9 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

Well I'm going to drive from Conroe to Galveston this weekend.  I must be missing out on something.

Yeah, any traffic if it is like last Saturday morning.

10 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

59 is still being sunk through the Museum District, correct? Is the 59/288 extra-wide section still being rebuilt?

How long until you think TxDOT comes back with another (scaled-back) plan for I-45? I could see it being widened north of 610 but left at its current size inside 610, similar to the Katy Freeway.

 

That is basically what the CoH asked for last summer IIRC, so I could see that being something politically feasible.