I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[samagon]

18 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

... If they requested I " pause before initiating any further contract solicitation efforts for the project, including issuance of any Requests for Proposals", I would endeavor to do so, but I would NOT read it expansively to include things it does not obviously include.  ..

I guess this is a point I'll always be confused about. reading it, it looks very much like it obviously includes any further contract solicitation efforts for the project. any further meaning "no more contracts". and the project meaning "the NHHIP project".

as you say though, at this point, it's very moot from a project standpoint. they interpreted it how they did, and federal came back and said, no, we meant it this way. they have moved on from a project standpoint.

but from a personal confidence in TxDOT standpoint, which if you go back to his comment that sparked this whole thread of conversation, is what I think @j_cuevas713 is trying to say, he has far less confidence in TxDOT.

I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.

Edited August 11, 2021 by samagon

[mattyt36]

Solicitation in a government context typically means advertising to procure contracts, eg design and construction.

You don’t issue RFPs or “solicit” for land acquisition.

And to the extent TXDoT would be expecting to be reimbursed for federal share of the project, I think it’s pretty clear what it means.

Edited August 11, 2021 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

A question that I hope those in opposition will consider in good faith.

If TXDoT adopted the alternatives developed by the City, would your position change?

[ADCS]

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

If the Feds sent you a personal letter requesting you to stop doing something, I bet you anything you wouldn't sit there and question what they mean by the word "request" 

If you're the sort of person who has a lawyer on retainer, you would.

[ADCS]

3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

This makes sense.  I can't think of a politician saying no to $10 billion in what really can be thought of as free money to appease a very small constituency that won't be material in an election, especially given the support from Central Houston and downtown business interests.

I'd really like to hear the "real story" of how we got here.  And, while the City may be proposing alternatives now, what was it doing 5 years ago?  I can understand TxDOT frustration with an about-face.  I also don't understand why TxDOT would take a "take-it-or-leave-it" approach for any reason other than posturing.  I feel like I follow it closely enough, but the Chronicle articles haven't been particularly enlightening.

As a former State Rep, Turner has a history of working well with the State (which I feel is a tremendous asset).  Can't say the same about Hidalgo, though, and with Abbott going full DeSantis, who knows, maybe his next move will be to pick a stupid fight with someone the GOP recognizes is a rising Democratic star over a highway project just to try to torpedo her in 2022.

I get the sense that Hidalgo, while well-intentioned, is absolutely setting herself up for federal office of some sort. Opposing a highway project in a time where that action gets you high-profile attention does that. Working on the bread-and-butter aspects of improving regional mobility doesn't, since that just involves being a quiet facilitator.

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, ADCS said:

I get the sense that Hidalgo, while well-intentioned, is absolutely setting herself up for federal office of some sort. Opposing a highway project in a time where that action gets you high-profile attention does that. Working on the bread-and-butter aspects of improving regional mobility doesn't, since that just involves being a quiet facilitator.

That thought also crossed my mind, but from how she's governed the past couple of years, I think she's way smarter than thinking some 1960s anti-freeway coalition (when miles of freeways were literally being cut through fully intact neighborhoods) is worth anything winning today.  I don't see how the headlines "30-Year-Old First Term County Judge Kills $10 Billion in I-45 Improvements and X Thousand Jobs" would create anything more than a political death sentence.  There are two kinds of seats she could grab . . . solid D or toss-up R.  In solid D districts, she wouldn't need these voters.  In toss-up R districts, it would only work against her.

Or did you mean like a Cabinet-level position?

[ADCS]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

That thought also crossed my mind, but from how she's governed the past couple of years, I think she's way smarter than thinking some 1960s anti-freeway coalition (when miles of freeways were literally being cut through fully intact neighborhoods) is worth anything winning today.  I don't see how the headlines "30-Year-Old First Term County Judge Kills $10 Billion in I-45 Improvements and X Thousand Jobs" would create anything more than a political death sentence.  There are two kinds of seats she could grab . . . solid D or toss-up R.  In solid D districts, she wouldn't need these voters.  In toss-up R districts, it would only work against her.

Or did you mean like a Cabinet-level position?

Cabinet level, or high-prestige NGO job. It would be tough to win any statewide election.

[samagon]

17 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

A question that I hope those in opposition will consider in good faith.

If TXDoT adopted the alternatives developed by the City, would your position change?

in good faith, we'll see...

presuming they adopted the Cities changes, and there was guaranteed funding for all of the parks designed as part of this then yes, my position would change, I would not be so vocally opposed to it, but I still would not support the project.

there's a lot of reasons (which I have delved into on previous pages), but at the heart of it is that I just don't see single occupant vehicles as part of the long term future. this project only prolongs that inevitability and squanders resources that could be put to better use elsewhere that would work towards a more sustainable future without disrupting and ruining the lives of those that would be impacted negatively by this project being implemented.

at the end of the day I'm stoked that this conversation is as lively as it is. it shows that there are a lot of people that are very passionate about the future of our city.

[kennyc05]

It would have been cool if they would have used Camachos idea to tunnel the freeway.

Edited August 12, 2021 by kennyc05

[iah77]

On 8/11/2021 at 2:15 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

Fair enough. I get that some of my observations on things are very anecdotal. But you can't dismiss anecdotal evidence as inaccurate or meaningless. I guarantee you there are lots of people in this city without a car that wish they had the ability to get around more easily. I'm def passionate about making sure something sustainable is built here, and I firmly believe this isn't it. I say all of that not to argue with you, but I can't say my experience riding transit has been bad. If anything I left many of those cities wanting more transit here in Houston. 

I don't understand why you view it as a zero sum game when in reality the highway and rail should be built. Houston and the port are growing fast enough where both are necessary. 

[mattyt36]

21 hours ago, samagon said:

in good faith, we'll see...

presuming they adopted the Cities changes, and there was guaranteed funding for all of the parks designed as part of this then yes, my position would change, I would not be so vocally opposed to it, but I still would not support the project.

there's a lot of reasons (which I have delved into on previous pages), but at the heart of it is that I just don't see single occupant vehicles as part of the long term future. this project only prolongs that inevitability and squanders resources that could be put to better use elsewhere that would work towards a more sustainable future without disrupting and ruining the lives of those that would be impacted negatively by this project being implemented.

at the end of the day I'm stoked that this conversation is as lively as it is. it shows that there are a lot of people that are very passionate about the future of our city.

Thank you.

In re the park funding, not sure the problem is that TxDOT isn't funding because they don't want to fund necessarily, but rather because they statutorily can't, so that'd be a mountain to climb.

Let's see what the City can squeeze out of the Infrastructure Bill.

[burt]

No new information, but a quick read...

https://www.bisnow.com/houston/news/construction-development/two-decades-in-the-making-the-i-45-expansion-project-remains-a-beacon-for-controversy-109851

[Big E]

On 8/11/2021 at 12:29 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I could care less about the positives of this project.

If you don't care about the positives of the project, then why should anyone give anything you say any weight? Its clear your just biased from the beginning, so talking to you about the project is pointless.

 

On 8/11/2021 at 12:29 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

It’s clear Houstonians want more options plain and simple.

No, that's not clear. One of the prevailing messages in this thread is that its not actually all that clear what the majority of people in Houston or Harris County, for that matter, want. A few politicians are acting against the project for their own self-interest. That is all. But it doesn't indicate how the majority of the population feel one way or another. And nobody has actually asked them either. This was never a major campaign issue, so no election was a referendum on the subject and no county wide votes have been held on it either.

[j_cuevas713]

29 minutes ago, Big E said:

If you don't care about the positives of the project, then why should anyone give anything you say any weight? Its clear your just biased from the beginning, so talking to you about the project is pointless.

 

No, that's not clear. One of the prevailing messages in this thread is that its not actually all that clear what the majority of people in Houston or Harris County, for that matter, want. A few politicians are acting against the project for their own self-interest. That is all. But it doesn't indicate how the majority of the population feel one way or another. And nobody has actually asked them either. This was never a major campaign issue, so no election was a referendum on the subject and no county wide votes have been held on it either.

You mad Big E? Hell yeah I’m biased on the project. The positives don’t outweigh the negatives at the moment. You prob don’t mind adding another layer to the mental wall dividing some of these minority neighborhoods but as a minority I do. And speaking on people wanting options, I’m talking about public transit specifically not this highway project. The Metro bond passed easily. That’s the most recent poll that shows where Houstonians are at on transit. It’s a much different picture from the 2004 referendum that barely passed. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by j_cuevas713

[Big E]

8 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I’m talking about public transit specifically not this highway project. The Metro bond passed easily. That’s the most recent poll that shows where Houstonians are at on transit. It’s a much different picture from the 2004 referendum that barely passed. 

But we are not talking about transit here. We are talking about this highway project, and there has been no referendum on it. And the majority of people in Harris County supporting transit does not translate to the majority of people in Harris County not supporting this project. This isn't a zero sum game, and if/then does not come into play here.

[j_cuevas713]

9 minutes ago, Big E said:

But we are not talking about transit here. We are talking about this highway project, and there has been no referendum on it. And the majority of people in Harris County supporting transit does not translate to the majority of people in Harris County not supporting this project. This isn't a zero sum game, and if/then does not come into play here.

So what Big E decides who and what can be talked about in each forum? gtfoh The point I was making doesn’t take much to understand. All I was saying is there seems to be a growing number of Houstonians becoming much more vocal about not wanting another highway from TxDOT, while support for more public transit continues to grow. The positives sound great but all of that is going to take money outside of this project. So while conceptually it looks great, I’m not going to spend the next 10+ years watching my city under construction for the IDEA of something. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by j_cuevas713

[Big E]

2 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So what Big E decides who and what can be talked about in each forum? gtfoh The point I was making doesn’t take much to understand. All I was saying is there seems to be a growing number of Houstonians becoming much more vocal about not wanting another highway from TxDOT, while support for more public transit continues to grow. 

Did I say that? In any case, its considered bad form in any forum to bring up things that are off topic. And as I've said before, your declaratory statements have no basis in fact. "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." You say "there seems to be a growing number of Houstonians becoming much more vocal about not wanting another highway from TxDOT"? Prove it. A referendum on a completely different project proves nothing. 

[j_cuevas713]

11 minutes ago, Big E said:

Did I say that? In any case, its considered bad form in any forum to bring up things that are off topic. And as I've said before, your declaratory statements have no basis in fact. "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." You say "there seems to be a growing number of Houstonians becoming much more vocal about not wanting another highway from TxDOT"? Prove it. A referendum on a completely different project proves nothing. 

So none of that data proves anything? That’s hilarious. All of that conceptual stuff looks great to people who won’t have to spend the next 10+ years next to a bulldozer. The current project does nothing but create an even deeper divide between those that live in 2nd/3rd Ward and the rest of the city. I’m all up for discussion but I can speak for a lot of people in 2nd Ward cause I live here. Many people here rely on transit to move around, some don’t even own cars. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by j_cuevas713

[Big E]

56 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I’m all up for discussion but I can speak for a lot of people in 2nd Ward cause I live here.

Anecdotal evidence at best. Even then, you and your friends don't speak for the entire second ward.

56 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Many people here rely on transit to move around, some don’t even own cars. 

That would only be relevant if the project was being done to specifically benefit them. It isn't. And most people in the Greater Houston region do own cars and do drive them and the entire region is car centric. One small neighborhood not having a high rate of car ownership means little in regards to this project.

58 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So none of that data proves anything?

What data? You've offered nothing.

59 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

All of that conceptual stuff looks great to people who won’t have to spend the next 10+ years next to a bulldozer.

Everyone in the city is going to have to put up with that construction, including other neighborhoods. That fact alone is not reason enough to stop any project.

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

The current project does nothing but create an even deeper divide between those that live in 2nd/3rd Ward and the rest of the city.

This project creates nothing. The freeway is already there. The divide happened decades ago, before many of the current residents were born, and will still be there, whether this project goes through or not.

[j_cuevas713]

6 minutes ago, Big E said:

Anecdotal evidence at best. Even then, you and your friends don't speak for the entire second ward.

That would only be relevant if the project was being done to specifically benefit them. It isn't. And most people in the Greater Houston region do own cars and do drive them and the entire region is car centric. One small neighborhood not having a high rate of car ownership means little in regards to this project.

What data? You've offered nothing.

Everyone in the city is going to have to put up with that construction, including other neighborhoods. That fact alone is not reason enough to stop any project.

This project creates nothing. The freeway is already there. The divide happened decades ago, before many of the current residents were born, and will still be there, whether this project goes through or not.

So the way this highway is currently designed is ok why? You’re clearly in favor of a project that is going to destroy and displace countless businesses, homes, etc. for the next 10+ years for what, to save people 5 minutes in traffic? I don’t speak for all of 2nd Ward you’re right but you don’t seem to care either way. And my point of bringing up public transit is to bring more awareness to the countless billions we spend on highways. The fact TxDOT hasn’t evolved to want to incorporate other modes of transit or local ideas is ridiculous. I’m happy to see push back from community leaders and local grassroots movements. All of that for whatever reason seems to not mean much to you along with any current data we have about how Houstonians want to travel.

Edited August 16, 2021 by j_cuevas713

[Big E]

11 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So the way this highway is currently designed is ok why?

Seriously, stop putting words into my mouth. I said nothing about the highway's design as it is. I am completely fine with it as is? No. honestly, I would have preferred to tunnel the entirely of I-45, but I know that's not going to happen. I understand that I'm not going to get everything I want. However, I am not violently opposed to this project. I think it does more than enough good to make up for any issues I would have had with the design.

 

13 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

You’re clearly in favor of a project that is going to destroy and displace countless businesses, homes, etc. for the next 10+ years for what, to save people 5 minutes in traffic?

It is not going to destroy "countless" anything. People have already gone over the numbers of what will and will not be destroyed in this thread. Some of the stuff that is being destroyed, like Clayton Homes, is already slated for demolition anyway. Most of the residential buildings being destroyed are multi-family residential primarily populated by renters, who will just rent somewhere else. The businesses are car centric, dime a dozen garbage joints that nobody in this thread actually cares about, like used car dealerships, fast food joints, and gas stations. And no, this isn't only going to save people time in traffic. If you had actually been paying attention to this thread, people have actually brought up other benefits, such as making transit improvements, removing dangerous low hanging bridges that trucks smash into, and other improvements to make the road safer and more modern.

 

18 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

 I don’t speak for all of 2nd Ward you’re right but you don’t seem to care either way.

I do care. I also have perspective. Its unfortunate when people lose their homes, but this is just something that will happen with any major infrastructure project. I've have perspective to see the greater benefit of the highway and how it will benefit the region, beyond the few homes to be removed.

 

20 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

And my point of bringing up public transit is to bring more awareness to the countless billions we spend on highways. The fact TxDOT hasn’t evolved to want to incorporate other modes of transit or local ideas is ridiculous.

As I've said earlier in this thread, rapid transit is not their prerogative. Its METRO's. And, as has already been brought up in this thread, transit improvements ARE PART OF THE PROJECT. Stop expecting TxDOT to do something it wasn't even brought in to do in the first place. It wasn't brought in to put in a mass transit system. It was brought in to improve a highway.

23 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

 I’m happy to see push back from community leaders and local grassroots movements.

Well that makes one of us.

23 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

All of that for whatever reason seems to not mean much to you along with any current data we have about how Houstonians want to travel.

Still waiting on that mythological data...

[Ross]

6 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So the way this highway is currently designed is ok why? You’re clearly in favor of a project that is going to destroy and displace countless businesses, homes, etc. for the next 10+ years for what, to save people 5 minutes in traffic? I don’t speak for all of 2nd Ward you’re right but you don’t seem to care either way. And my point of bringing up public transit is to bring more awareness to the countless billions we spend on highways. The fact TxDOT hasn’t evolved to want to incorporate other modes of transit or local ideas is ridiculous. I’m happy to see push back from community leaders and local grassroots movements. All of that for whatever reason seems to not mean much to you along with any current data we have about how Houstonians want to travel.

TxDOT is required to spend 97% of its budget on roads(according to something I saw a couple of days ago), so there will never be an y emphasis from them on transit.

[samagon]

10 hours ago, Big E said:

No, that's not clear. One of the prevailing messages in this thread is that its not actually all that clear what the majority of people in Houston or Harris County, for that matter, want. A few politicians are acting against the project for their own self-interest.

it isn't clear what the people in farther outlying areas want either. and at the same time there are a lot of politicians that represent outlying areas that are acting for this project for their own self interest as well.

10 hours ago, Big E said:

That is all. But it doesn't indicate how the majority of the population feel one way or another. And nobody has actually asked them either. This was never a major campaign issue, so no election was a referendum on the subject and no county wide votes have been held on it either.

this is very absolutely true.

[samagon]

2 hours ago, Ross said:

TxDOT is required to spend 97% of its budget on roads(according to something I saw a couple of days ago), so there will never be an y emphasis from them on transit.

so what you're saying is that now that the project has been put on hold, we need to do our part to ensure it is stopped entirely, and then need to lobby out state to change the rules for how TxDOT spends their money.

it's such a mindlessly cyclical argument.. Houston is developed as a car centric town so we have to develop with that in mind, meanwhile, TxDOT is forced to spend 97% of their budget on roads. well, we the people should demand change, but we can't because we've been forced to drive cars.

it reminds me of the scene in idiocracy where they're talking about plants and electrolytes. Brawndo has what plants crave! It's got electrolytes! '...Okay - what are electrolytes? Do you know? Yeah. It's what they use to make Brawndo.' But why do they use them in Brawndo? What do they do?''They're part of what plants crave.'But why do plants crave them?'Because plants crave Brawndo, and Brawndo has electrolytes.

Edited August 16, 2021 by samagon

[Big E]

38 minutes ago, samagon said:

it isn't clear what the people in farther outlying areas want either. and at the same time there are a lot of politicians that represent outlying areas that are acting for this project for their own self interest as well.

Which I've never discounted, nor have I ever seen anyone in this thread discount either, but I've seen people in this thread act like the actions of a few inner city politicians equals everyone in Houston opposing the project, not the other way around. I've also seen people try to discount the support provided by other such inner city politicians. It works both ways, and my point has always been that nobody has actually asked the general population how they feel about the project, and maybe they should.

[j_cuevas713]

2 hours ago, Ross said:

TxDOT is required to spend 97% of its budget on roads(according to something I saw a couple of days ago), so there will never be an y emphasis from them on transit.

Right I saw that as well. I believe it’s in the TX Constitution. And that’s my argument, why are we ok with this? You would think the agency would evolve with time but it’s like they’re stuck in the past. 

[j_cuevas713]

8 hours ago, Big E said:

Seriously, stop putting words into my mouth. I said nothing about the highway's design as it is. I am completely fine with it as is? No. honestly, I would have preferred to tunnel the entirely of I-45, but I know that's not going to happen. I understand that I'm not going to get everything I want. However, I am not violently opposed to this project. I think it does more than enough good to make up for any issues I would have had with the design.

 

It is not going to destroy "countless" anything. People have already gone over the numbers of what will and will not be destroyed in this thread. Some of the stuff that is being destroyed, like Clayton Homes, is already slated for demolition anyway. Most of the residential buildings being destroyed are multi-family residential primarily populated by renters, who will just rent somewhere else. The businesses are car centric, dime a dozen garbage joints that nobody in this thread actually cares about, like used car dealerships, fast food joints, and gas stations. And no, this isn't only going to save people time in traffic. If you had actually been paying attention to this thread, people have actually brought up other benefits, such as making transit improvements, removing dangerous low hanging bridges that trucks smash into, and other improvements to make the road safer and more modern.

 

I do care. I also have perspective. Its unfortunate when people lose their homes, but this is just something that will happen with any major infrastructure project. I've have perspective to see the greater benefit of the highway and how it will benefit the region, beyond the few homes to be removed.

 

As I've said earlier in this thread, rapid transit is not their prerogative. Its METRO's. And, as has already been brought up in this thread, transit improvements ARE PART OF THE PROJECT. Stop expecting TxDOT to do something it wasn't even brought in to do in the first place. It wasn't brought in to put in a mass transit system. It was brought in to improve a highway.

Well that makes one of us.

Still waiting on that mythological data...

I do see the positives of this project but I also don’t want to see our city torn up for the next decade plus. And nobody cares unless it’s your home, your business. 

[samagon]

17 minutes ago, Big E said:

Which I've never discounted, nor have I ever seen anyone in this thread discount either, but I've seen people in this thread act like the actions of a few inner city politicians equals everyone in Houston opposing the project, not the other way around. I've also seen people try to discount the support provided by other such inner city politicians. It works both ways, and my point has always been that nobody has actually asked the general population how they feel about the project, and maybe they should.

well I've seen plenty of people in this same thread talk about how good this will be for people who drive cars without knowing what the people who drive cars actually want. so many people, we just have to let them build it, and if we don't let them build it, then nothing will be built.

this bolded part is beyond asinine, it is TxDOT's duty to maintain our highways, whether this project goes forward or not doesn't mean they get to toss up their hands and say 'well, we tried, sorry Houston, you are SOL with this freeway in perpetuity', they are still on the hook to maintain and update as our city needs.

people here may not be saying it, but TxDOT is suggesting it, and many stories about the project seem to suggest that this is a you take it or leave it prospect, and that just isn't a thing.

[Ross]

8 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Right I saw that as well. I believe it’s in the TX Constitution. And that’s my argument, why are we ok with this? You would think the agency would evolve with time but it’s like they’re stuck in the past. 

Amending the state Constitution is difficult. It takes a 2/3 majority vote in the Legislature, then approval by voters in an election. There is no way we will see TxDoT rules change any time soon. The current majority in the Legislature hates rail with the heat of 1000 suns, considering it a commie plot to take over the state and steal our precious bodily fluids. They also seem to think that we were given two feet to be able to cover up to three pedals in a road vehicle.

TxDoT has no choice in the matter - the agency has to follow the Constitution and statutes.

[mattyt36]

23 hours ago, samagon said:

it's such a mindlessly cyclical argument.. Houston is developed as a car centric town so we have to develop with that in mind, meanwhile, TxDOT is forced to spend 97% of their budget on roads. well, we the people should demand change, but we can't because we've been forced to drive cars.

It's not cyclical at all.  You are the guys tilting at windmills saying the money should be spent elsewhere when it's not even legal OR part of what's being evaluated here.  

Before you can effectively advocate for change to the system to get us out of this "cycle," you might as well understand how the system works and start there, no?  I'd say the lack of any understanding there has led to pretty "mindless" arguments.

That and the unbelievable arrogance that simply by not supplying freeway capacity the city would densify as people happily move from the suburbs into the core, when it's way more likely it would result in the exact opposite of what you want . . . decentralization.