I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[samagon]

21 hours ago, Big E said:

 

News flash to both of you gentlemen. When most of these freeways were first being developed and built, neighborhoods like the Galleria area and Sharpstown were also undeveloped or developing suburbs. Those skyscrapers and the Galleria didn't exist when the loop was put in, it was farmland. Sharpstown was still developing when the right of way was taken for the Southwest Freeway. The Beltway's right of way was mostly through farmland, except when it came to Jersey Village, which did exist at the time, and, as Samagon pointed out, the freeway was diverted around that town, which is why it has that weird notch in it. Ever wonder why Houston's freeways are so straight? Its because they were traveling through farmland and undeveloped land, except the parts closest to downtown

not sure how this is a news flash? this is exactly what I said. 

people want their community to grow near a freeway, they don't want the freeway to be built through their community.

[august948]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

not sure how this is a news flash? this is exactly what I said. 

people want their community to grow near a freeway, they don't want the freeway to be built through their community.

Are new highways currently being built through neighborhoods or are we just talking about how things used to be.

[samagon]

13 hours ago, august948 said:

Are new highways currently being built through neighborhoods or are we just talking about how things used to be.

pretty sure expanding a freeway through an existing community is just as frowned upon.

[august948]

23 hours ago, samagon said:

pretty sure expanding a freeway through an existing community is just as frowned upon.

Expanding an existing freeway is somewhat different from tearing up the "integrity" of a neighborhood to build a brand new one.  You can argue, as in the case of the I45 expansion, that the loss of homes and businesses on the borders is bad, but it's really not the same as the old, and to my knowledge abandoned, practice of actually destroying the integrity of existing neighborhoods by creating a new freeway where one did not exist before.  Try connecting I10 with 610 and 45 by creating a new "Yale Freeway" through the heights and see what happens.

[samagon]

9 minutes ago, august948 said:

Expanding an existing freeway is somewhat different from tearing up the "integrity" of a neighborhood to build a brand new one.  You can argue, as in the case of the I45 expansion, that the loss of homes and businesses on the borders is bad, but it's really not the same as the old, and to my knowledge abandoned, practice of actually destroying the integrity of existing neighborhoods by creating a new freeway where one did not exist before.  Try connecting I10 with 610 and 45 by creating a new "Yale Freeway" through the heights and see what happens.

well, you really should go back and ask @iah77 to not bring up the subject then.

[JClark54]

I was presented with a TIRZ 15 mobility study, and within it is a claim Polk Street will not connect to downtown if the NHHIP moves forward. Please see the image. 

This development, if true, differs from prior TxDOT presentations where Polk crossed the highway. Please view this image, which was pulled from the active project presentation on TxDOT's web site. 

People driving towards downtown from areas further east use the Polk underpass to cross the East End II rail line. Forcing them to jag from Polk to another street, likely Leeland, to continue downtown will increase cut-throughs on otherwise residential streets or non-major thoroughfares, especially for those unfamiliar with the area. Happens already when a train blocks crossings, and people who're not knowledgeable with which streets cross the rail line go racing around at great speeds, making u-turns or off-roading on curbing (in the case of freight traffic), etc., trying to find passage. This would just make the high-speed urban exploration on traditionally quieter roads more regular.  

Polk also has the most well-developed bicycle crossing in the study area, which will be lost. Could be moved to Leeland, but the roadway split on the downtown side makes it less friendly than Polk. 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by JClark54

[samagon]

On 3/28/2022 at 6:51 AM, JClark54 said:

I was presented with a TIRZ 15 mobility study, and within it is a claim Polk Street will not connect to downtown if the NHHIP moves forward. Please see the image. 

 

This development, if true, differs from prior TxDOT presentations where Polk crossed the highway. Please view this image, which was pulled from the active project presentation on TxDOT's web site. 

 

People driving towards downtown from areas further east use the Polk underpass to cross the East End II rail line. Forcing them to jag from Polk to another street, likely Leeland, to continue downtown will increase cut-throughs on otherwise residential streets or non-major thoroughfares, especially for those unfamiliar with the area. Happens already when a train blocks crossings, and people who're not knowledgeable with which streets cross the rail line go racing around at great speeds, making u-turns or off-roading on curbing (in the case of freight traffic), etc., trying to find passage. This would just make the high-speed urban exploration on traditionally quieter roads more regular.  

Polk also has the most well-developed bicycle crossing in the study area, which will be lost. Could be moved to Leeland, but the roadway split on the downtown side makes it less friendly than Polk. 

 

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip/timeline.html

it's not a claim. it's been designed this way since at least April of 2015 (according to the date on the map):

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-02-eastern-half.pdf

this design has been this way for a while, for TIRZ 15 to only now notice is bad handling on their part.

under the current design, the intent is for Polk traffic heading into town to turn left onto St. Emanuel (which will be 2 way at that point), and then turn right onto Leeland.

Edited March 29, 2022 by samagon

[JClark54]

I see. Thank you for the guidance. 

[Houston19514]

13 hours ago, samagon said:

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip/timeline.html

it's not a claim. it's been designed this way since at least April of 2015 (according to the date on the map):

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-02-eastern-half.pdf

this design has been this way for a while, for TIRZ 15 to only now notice is bad handling on their part.

under the current design, the intent is for Polk traffic heading into town to turn left onto St. Emanuel (which will be 2 way at that point), and then turn right onto Leeland.

I don't think the linked map is the current state-of-the-art plan for the area.  I believe it now  routes in-bound Polk Street traffic north (right-turn) on St Emanuel (which is a one-way going north), then take a U-Turn lane at Lamar, which puts you directly on to Hamilton.  From there, you can turn on to Polk.  (Per the interactive map they have on the front page of the NHHIP website.)  

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip.html

"Realigning" Metro's 40/41 routes should be a pretty easy task.  Maybe the TIRZ was looking for an easy success story.  😉

Edited March 30, 2022 by Houston19514

[sapo2367]

9 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I don't think the linked map is the current state-of-the-art plan for the area.  I believe it now  routes in-bound Polk Street traffic north (right-turn) on St Emanuel (which is a one-way going north), then take a U-Turn lane at Lamar, which puts you directly on to Hamilton.  From there, you can turn on to Polk.  (Per the interactive map they have on the front page of the NHHIP website.)  

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip.html

"Realigning" Metro's 40/41 routes should be a pretty easy task.  Maybe the TIRZ was looking for an easy success story.  😉

From the e-brochure on the website listed above 

https://7afd0778.flowpaper.com/FactsHighlightsPapersENGLISHclickable/#page=12

[hindesky]

According to Dug Begley of the Houston Chronicle, the rebuild of IH 45 will cost $750mil more than expected.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Rebuild-of-I-45-will-cost-750M-more-than-17037618.php
 

[Big E]

15 minutes ago, hindesky said:

According to Dug Begley of the Houston Chronicle, the rebuild of IH 45 will cost $750mil more than expected.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Rebuild-of-I-45-will-cost-750M-more-than-17037618.php
 

To be expected with all the delays and the rising costs of key materials.

[freundb]

Costs will just continue to rise the more its on hold. 

[samagon]

15 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I don't think the linked map is the current state-of-the-art plan for the area.  I believe it now  routes in-bound Polk Street traffic north (right-turn) on St Emanuel (which is a one-way going north), then take a U-Turn lane at Lamar, which puts you directly on to Hamilton.  From there, you can turn on to Polk.  (Per the interactive map they have on the front page of the NHHIP website.)  

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip.html

"Realigning" Metro's 40/41 routes should be a pretty easy task.  Maybe the TIRZ was looking for an easy success story.  😉

you're right, the linked map was specifically the first map I could find that showed Polk gone.

the most recent map also shows that there is no overpass on Polk. it also shows you can turn left onto St. Emanuel, and then right onto Leeland.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

so even though the map I linked wasn't the newest, the functionality of how a person can get into town is exactly the same.

Edited March 30, 2022 by samagon

[Houston19514]

8 minutes ago, samagon said:

no, the linked map was specifically the first map I could find that showed Polk gone.

the most recent map also shows that there is no overpass on Polk. it also shows you can turn left onto St. Emanuel, and then right onto Leeland.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

so even though the map I linked wasn't the newest, the functionality of how a person can get into town is exactly the same.

Contrary to the interactive map on the front page of the website and contrary to the description quoted by sapo2367 above . . .   

[samagon]

9 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Contrary to the interactive map on the front page of the website and contrary to the description quoted by sapo2367 above . . .   

right, TXDoT is doing a great job of ensuring everyone knows what's going on.

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

you're right, the linked map was specifically the first map I could find that showed Polk gone.

the most recent map also shows that there is no overpass on Polk. it also shows you can turn left onto St. Emanuel, and then right onto Leeland.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

so even though the map I linked wasn't the newest, the functionality of how a person can get into town is exactly the same.

Where is this "most recent map" you speak of?  The functionality presented in the FEIS is contrary to what you are claiming.  The functionality shown in the interactive map on the front page of the website is contrary to what you are claiming. The functionality described in the brochure linked above (from April 2021) is contrary to what you are claiming. . .

To be clear, and completely forthcoming, it appears the U-turn lane I mentioned above may not have made the cut.  Nevertheless, in-bound Polk Street traffic will turn right on St Emanuel (which will be a one-way going North), left on the Lamar overpass, and left on Hamilton (which will be  a one-way going South), and back to Polk.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Houston19514

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

Where is this "most recent map" you speak of?  The functionality presented in the FEIS is contrary to what you are claiming.  The functionality shown in the interactive map on the front page of the website is contrary to what you are claiming. The functionality described in the brochure linked above (from April 2021) is contrary to what you are claiming. . .

To be clear, and completely forthcoming, it appears the U-turn lane I mentioned above may not have made the cut.  Nevertheless, in-bound Polk Street traffic will turn right on St Emanuel (which will be a one-way going North), left on the Lamar overpass, and left on Hamilton (which will be  a one-way going South), and back to Polk.

ugh, you're right, the TXDoT site doesn't have the right documents in the right places.

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip/timeline.html

under 2019, the downtown loop overall plan links to what I was looking at. my mistake for trusting TXDoT site admins.

anyway, this map definitely is dated December 2019 https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/nhhip-segment-3-i-69-rollplot-2005.pdf

the updated version removes the ability to turn left onto St. Emanuel, and also removes the link from Leeland to Bell. the u-turn on Lamar is there, but if you look at the proximity to the u-turn lane with the exit from the freeway, you'll agree that accessing that u-turn from St. Emanuel isn't going to really be feasible. 

I'd love to see Leeland have one EB lane to Chenvert, where you could turn right, then left onto Bell.

Edited March 30, 2022 by samagon

[Triton]

When is this thing going to finally start? As far as I can tell, the 59/I-69 portion near Midtown should be able to start moving forward right? That's the first phase and I don't believe the federal government is reviewing that section...?

[Big E]

6 hours ago, Triton said:

When is this thing going to finally start? As far as I can tell, the 59/I-69 portion near Midtown should be able to start moving forward right? That's the first phase and I don't believe the federal government is reviewing that section...?

If I remember correctly, the federal government is only allowing some preliminary work to be done on parts of Section 3. But no major construction is forthcoming, nor will there be much, is any, right of way acquisition, until the federal government finally gets out of the way.

[ADCS]

19 hours ago, freundb said:

Costs will just continue to rise the more its on hold. 

NIMBYs love running out the clock...

[Amlaham]

Nice :) not only is this on hold, but also the Texas Central Rail and the lovely lower Westheimer. Also, am I crazy or is Metro taking their sweet time expanding BRT/ LRT? They just spent 22 million on electric buses, which is cool but priority? All these major projects should be well underway.....

Houston.......get it together 👺 (Yes, I know Houston isn't the only one to blame)

[hindesky]

"State Transportation Leaders urge feds to end pause" Dug Begley reports in the Houston Chronicle.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/State-transportation-leaders-urge-feds-to-end-17049589.php

[Big E]

On 4/1/2022 at 11:19 AM, hindesky said:

"State Transportation Leaders urge feds to end pause" Dug Begley reports in the Houston Chronicle.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/State-transportation-leaders-urge-feds-to-end-17049589.php

Seriously, it should not have taken them this long to review this project. The stoppage was BS to begin with, but there is no reason this should have taken another year.

[Erik Asuncion]

On 4/2/2022 at 8:32 PM, Big E said:

Seriously, it should not have taken them this long to review this project. The stoppage was BS to begin with, but there is no reason this should have taken another year.

Yes, the reality of this project displacing thousands of low-income and minority residents and multiple small businesses is a BS reason to halt a project.

Everyone who agrees with moving the project forward is not adversely affected by it.

[editor]

On 3/31/2022 at 2:46 PM, Amlaham said:

Also, am I crazy or is Metro taking their sweet time expanding BRT/ LRT?

Didn't Metro get approval for the Downtown to Northwest Transit Center BRT line just last week?

[Big E]

9 hours ago, Erik Asuncion said:

Yes, the reality of this project displacing thousands of low-income and minority residents and multiple small businesses is a BS reason to halt a project.

Everyone who agrees with moving the project forward is not adversely affected by it.

First, the so called "small businesses" are overwhelmingly national chains, strip malls, car lots, fast food restaurants, etc. when it comes to Section 1, while most of the "businesses" to be destroyed by section 3 are abandoned or already closed, with a handful remaining in the effected areas. Lets not act like this is some great loss in businesses that won't be immediately replaced by new ones once construction is over. We've been over this multiple times in this thread already.

Second, most of the people displaced are renters, who will simply rent somewhere else. And every resident effected by this will be compensated by the state and/or receive housing assistance, which that article linked to earlier points out:

 

Quote

That, coupled with $27 million in affordable housing assistance TxDOT must provide to make up for lost apartments and homes, will allow many residents to stay in the area despite risk of gentrification,

 Seriously, this is all known, and the federal government has this information, along with all other relevant info from the project, to judge by whatever BS criteria they want to use. With all the information they have, they should not have taken a year to review this project. You can't talk about wanting to "Build back better" while going out of your way to stifle a major infrastructure project and expect anyone to take you seriously.

[mattyt36]

9 hours ago, Erik Asuncion said:

Yes, the reality of this project displacing thousands of low-income and minority residents and multiple small businesses is a BS reason to halt a project.

Everyone who agrees with moving the project forward is not adversely affected by it.

“Thousands”? 

[samagon]

opinion piece:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Opinion-Did-we-learn-nothing-from-the-Katy-17051502.php

and that $27 million that keeps being bandied about so people feel better about the people who will lose their homes, that's way less than CoH requested. see page 3:

https://mcusercontent.com/bbc8dea1a49ed98f626812405/files/1c7fe691-65a6-4f60-926d-923497847f8b/Mayor_s_NHHIP_Letter_12_08_2020.pdf

 

 

if you break down the 27 million that keeps being referenced as some significant number to the amount per unit to rebuild, you get just over $45,500 per unit. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by samagon

[Ross]

6 hours ago, Big E said:

First, the so called "small businesses" are overwhelmingly national chains, strip malls, car lots, fast food restaurants, etc. when it comes to Section 1, while most of the "businesses" to be destroyed by section 3 are abandoned or already closed, with a handful remaining in the effected areas. Lets not act like this is some great loss in businesses that won't be immediately replaced by new ones once construction is over. We've been over this multiple times in this thread already.

Second, most of the people displaced are renters, who will simply rent somewhere else. And every resident effected by this will be compensated by the state and/or receive housing assistance, which that article linked to earlier points out:

 

 Seriously, this is all known, and the federal government has this information, along with all other relevant info from the project, to judge by whatever BS criteria they want to use. With all the information they have, they should not have taken a year to review this project. You can't talk about wanting to "Build back better" while going out of your way to stifle a major infrastructure project and expect anyone to take you seriously.

That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car. I don't really care if their commutes suck, they should be taking park and ride or car pooling. The local benefits for reducing flooding and such could be accomplished without the expense of ripping people out of their businesses and homes.

Why do you hate renters? Or the businesses in strip malls? 

There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8. There are no benefits to rerouting the freeway East of Downtown. In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result. There will also never, ever be parks on the caps over the underground portions. That's  pie in the sky thinking with no basis in reality.