I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[mattyt36]

16 hours ago, Big E said:

If Turner is really for the project, then he needs to start being more vocal and shooting these bad ideas down before they start.

(1) I'd have to think a lot hinged on this past election and people were in "wait-and-see" mode.  I think @Triton is right that we may see some movement either one way or the other soon (although I have nothing to base that on).

(2) As a longtime State pol, I think Mayor Turner sees his role as an intermediary between the County and the State and the business community, so he has been pretty deliberate and not being the loudest voice in the room (although I have nothing to base that on, either).

Regardless the mantra of these anti-NHHIP groups appears to be, "Well we complained, so they're supposed to cancel everything," again, based on what happened in like 1950s Baltimore when whole neighborhoods nowhere near any existing freeway were being demolished for the first time.  

At no point have they offered any alternative other than to not build, it is absolutely performative and juvenile and not in the best interest of the city or the region as it's not like the problem goes away.  I mean, sheesh, at least put something up that says, "Spend the $7 billion on commuter rail, and here's an alignment that would work."  If they tried, I'd definitely have more empathy.

[Triton]

On 11/21/2022 at 1:41 PM, mattyt36 said:

Classic cutting off one's nose to spite one's face as I am sure no one has a full appreciation of the real (i.e., feasible) alternatives.  Not to mention where were all of these people, what, 10 years ago, when the planning process started?  At the very least they should have the burden of presenting an actual, preferred alternative to advance start a meaningful dialogue.

However, Turner is by all appearances for it, the GHP is for it, I am confident Turner will be able to "herd the cats" when it comes to a City Council vote, if any.

Hidalgo is the wild card.  It remains amazing to me that Mealer didn't make this a centerpiece campaign issue instead of going on and on about crime--it would've diluted some of the crazy for the moderate voting block.

100% this.

I was there in the meetings in the very beginning (because I live close to I-45) and no one was raising any idea about mass transit until too far into the project when they are trying to finalize the design. When TXDOT first proposed doing this project, the city should have been working with them hand in hand. 

Would be curious how that section south of the Westpark Tollway got there. Did the city and the toll road authority work together to keep that land available? It's clearly meant for mass transit with even the highway pillars being set so that light rail or BRT can travel between them. 

That sort of engagement should have been here on this project but it never was. I didn't see BRT diagrams until the final months of decision making for the I-45 project.

The most my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods were trying to do were working on connections that TXDOT was removing, such as the North St Bridge (which is gone unfortunately in the design) and ramps on the northside of N Main which I still don't understand. There was also the talk of sound barriers. That was literally it. 

[samagon]

On 11/21/2022 at 8:16 PM, Big E said:

This makes absolutely no sense. There is already a freeway over that part of the bayou. What do they really hope to accomplish. 

🙄🙄🙄🙄

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by samagon

[Big E]

18 hours ago, samagon said:

🙄🙄🙄🙄

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. The freeway is already there. You can see the current alignment in the picture. They are just moving over not even a mile.

[TXK]

On 11/24/2022 at 4:32 AM, Big E said:

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. The freeway is already there. You can see the current alignment in the picture. They are just moving over not even a mile.

I think the argument, at least in the context of the bayou greenway, is that the new alignment cuts into existing green space along the bayou and removing the current alignment between I-45 and Elysian won't add much green space back because there are parking lots/streets underneath I-10 already, unless they're going to be removing some of those. I can anticipate a similar argument for the Pierce Elevated - if a park is built there, it would either be on top of the highway, so the existing concrete structure is still there, or it'd be limited/broken up by all of the perpendicular streets. I'm not sure if those arguments have been made in a very clear way by anyone involved, but that would be my good faith interpretation.

 

I hope that this project proceeds because the highways around downtown are a mess but even though I think it will be a net positive for city, I can respect that every change may not be a positive one. Loss of green space is a tough trade off for any development project, not to mention one this size. I also can barely keep up with this project on HAIF so I sympathize with the average person trying to process all of the information (and am very impressed how all of the rest of you are able to keep up with this so well!).

[ADCS]

More greenspace around UHD is a good thing. Likewise, installing ivy and other crawling plants (akin to 59 in Montrose) can provide an attractive landscape to the bridge columns within the greenway

[Big E]

9 hours ago, TXK said:

I think the argument, at least in the context of the bayou greenway, is that the new alignment cuts into existing green space along the bayou and removing the current alignment between I-45 and Elysian won't add much green space back because there are parking lots/streets underneath I-10 already, unless they're going to be removing some of those. I can anticipate a similar argument for the Pierce Elevated - if a park is built there, it would either be on top of the highway, so the existing concrete structure is still there, or it'd be limited/broken up by all of the perpendicular streets. I'm not sure if those arguments have been made in a very clear way by anyone involved, but that would be my good faith interpretation.

 

I hope that this project proceeds because the highways around downtown are a mess but even though I think it will be a net positive for city, I can respect that every change may not be a positive one. Loss of green space is a tough trade off for any development project, not to mention one this size. I also can barely keep up with this project on HAIF so I sympathize with the average person trying to process all of the information (and am very impressed how all of the rest of you are able to keep up with this so well!).

I mean, in the end, we aren't losing much. Its still crossing the bayou, just in a different spot. Any land the highway vacates can be redeveloped, and most of what the new highway will be covering is existing parking lots.

[samagon]

On 11/25/2022 at 9:39 PM, Big E said:

I mean, in the end, we aren't losing much. Its still crossing the bayou, just in a different spot. Any land the highway vacates can be redeveloped, and most of what the new highway will be covering is existing parking lots.

it isn't though. look at the screenshot from the project plan, overlay on the image from google earth, sure there is a bit of parking lot, but most is very green.

 

it's also true that there is a lot of green space that will be created when the alignment is shifted north, which might make great parkland, but it's just very weird that you would suggest that the shift of the freeway location isn't taking away any greenspace, when it so clearly does. and to answer your question from a few posts up, I'm not proving anything, just pointing out that your statement is false. 

[Big E]

On 12/1/2022 at 10:47 AM, samagon said:

it isn't though. look at the screenshot from the project plan, overlay on the image from google earth, sure there is a bit of parking lot, but most is very green.

 

it's also true that there is a lot of green space that will be created when the alignment is shifted north, which might make great parkland, but it's just very weird that you would suggest that the shift of the freeway location isn't taking away any greenspace, when it so clearly does. and to answer your question from a few posts up, I'm not proving anything, just pointing out that your statement is false. 

You are only looking at the bayou. I've moved on from that. I'm talking about the large parking lots that are already fronting the bayou in this picture, which will be what will be taken out once the highway is moved. The bayou is just a small part of the land the new freeway will cover when moved, and, as has already been pointed out, the freeway already crosses the bayou right next to that location, so nothing of value is really lost. You're just trading one area of underutilized greenway for another.

[hindesky]

From the Big Dig in Boston, before and after pics.

[samagon]

On 12/3/2022 at 6:19 PM, Big E said:

You are only looking at the bayou. I've moved on from that. I'm talking about the large parking lots that are already fronting the bayou in this picture, which will be what will be taken out once the highway is moved. The bayou is just a small part of the land the new freeway will cover when moved, and, as has already been pointed out, the freeway already crosses the bayou right next to that location, so nothing of value is really lost. You're just trading one area of underutilized greenway for another.

you're right, there is going to be new area opened up to potential green space where I-10's current ROW exists, but I'm not aware of the city, or state proposing that the vacated area becomes accessible park area? all it says on the available segment 3 view is 'surplus ROW'.

and the width of existing ROW is somewhere between 200-320'. the new ROW width will be between 370-500', and while the old segment crossed the bayou at more or less a perpendicular, the new freeway will cross that area at a much more oblique angle, which will provide for a much larger footprint. anyway.

there's potential for things to shake down just right, and there will be accessible park area in what is removed of that old TXDoT ROW, and what's left that's not part of the new TXDoT ROW.

[Big E]

9 hours ago, samagon said:

you're right, there is going to be new area opened up to potential green space where I-10's current ROW exists, but I'm not aware of the city, or state proposing that the vacated area becomes accessible park area? all it says on the available segment 3 view is 'surplus ROW'.

and the width of existing ROW is somewhere between 200-320'. the new ROW width will be between 370-500', and while the old segment crossed the bayou at more or less a perpendicular, the new freeway will cross that area at a much more oblique angle, which will provide for a much larger footprint. anyway.

there's potential for things to shake down just right, and there will be accessible park area in what is removed of that old TXDoT ROW, and what's left that's not part of the new TXDoT ROW.

They haven't stated what they are doing with the ROW, which leaves the door open for something good to be done with it. Just moving the freeway will be a boon for the area because it will give that whole surrounding neighborhood a little more room to breathe. couple that with the canal they are planning to build and redevelopment of the bayou shore near downtown, and they can do something really nice with it all.

[j_cuevas713]

I'm so torn on the reroute. While I agree the land that would be freed up would be great, I can't get over the negative impact this project will create on minority neighborhoods. If the city designates White Oak bayou as park space, the reroute is likely finished. 

[mattyt36]

On 12/17/2022 at 2:20 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I can't get over the negative impact this project will create on minority neighborhoods. 

Just so we're all clear on what you mean by this . . . can you, er, tell us exactly what you what mean by this?

[mattyt36]

I heard that this involved some announcement of an MoU between the City, County, and State to allow the NHHIP to proceed.  Unfortunately, we don't have great news organizations that can write up a brief summary in an hour (or the Mayor's Office to issue a press release concurrently)--maybe they'll get to it by the end of the week. 

https://twitter.com/SylvesterTurner/status/1604891838074290177?s=20&t=hqhJJSIAAsBBZTY_IqeaIA

[samagon]

On 12/17/2022 at 2:20 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I'm so torn on the reroute. While I agree the land that would be freed up would be great, I can't get over the negative impact this project will create on minority neighborhoods. If the city designates White Oak bayou as park space, the reroute is likely finished. 

I like to look at TXDoT projects in Houston that take land to expand freeways from the angle of "WWAOD", or "What Would Afton Oaks Do".

would Afton Oaks (or the Uptown residents in general) fight against TXDoT taking ROW to expand the 610 loop to ease congestion and make travel easier through this part of town?

[HoustonMidtown]

 

 

[mattyt36]

29 minutes ago, samagon said:

would Afton Oaks (or the Uptown residents in general) fight against TXDoT taking ROW to expand the 610 loop to ease congestion and make travel easier through this part of town?

If only that were a valid comparison (granted, I know that's never stopped you before).

29 minutes ago, HoustonMidtown said:

 

 

Sure would be nice to know the details!

Edited December 19, 2022 by mattyt36

[JClark54]

54 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

I heard that this involved some announcement of an MoU between the City, County, and State to allow the NHHIP to proceed.  Unfortunately, we don't have great news organizations that can write up a brief summary in an hour (or the Mayor's Office to issue a press release concurrently)--maybe they'll get to it by the end of the week. 

https://twitter.com/SylvesterTurner/status/1604891838074290177?s=20&t=hqhJJSIAAsBBZTY_IqeaIA

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/I45-expansion-project-back-on-17663766.php

The Chron's piece was up 10 minutes after the press conference concluded. 

[mattyt36]

8 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/I45-expansion-project-back-on-17663766.php

The Chron's piece was up 10 minutes after the press conference concluded. 

Must've been a long press conference.  Usually for these things I'd expect a canned press release ready to go coinciding with the press conference.

The following seems to be the substance of the agreement:

After spending months at loggerheads, but working on some consensus, the Texas Department of Transportation committed to a handful of concessions, such as increasing the money it will pay the Houston Housing Authority for relocation and development of affordable housing, and assurances to design the project as much within the current freeway footprint as possible. The project also connects trails for running and biking, adds air monitoring in certain areas, adds features aimed at encouraging transit use and commits to stormwater design changes sought by the Harris County Flood Control District.

Within the agreement, TxDOT leaves open some of the design of segments north of the central business district and additional sound barriers if neighborhoods want them. TxDOT, in writing, also said it would increase funding for connecting local bike lanes and paths to nearby bayou trails.

Edited December 19, 2022 by mattyt36

[Texasota]

I really want to see the text of the MOU. This could be great, or it could just be lip service. I'm cautiously optimistic though.

[Houston19514]

23 minutes ago, Texasota said:

I really want to see the text of the MOU. This could be great, or it could just be lip service. I'm cautiously optimistic though.

https://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/press/2022/nhhip-mou.pdf

[mattyt36]

9 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

https://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/press/2022/nhhip-mou.pdf

Well now I'm confused as Adrian Garcia was quoted in the Chronicle article, but the County is not a party to the MoU and is the entity taking legal action.  I'd assume that lawsuit would need to be dropped for work to proceed.  Is there a separate MoU with the County?

edited--I guess this implies there is a separate County-TxDOT MoU:

City of Houston, Harris County And TxDOT Announce New Memorandum of Understanding For The North Houston Highway Improvement Project (houstontx.gov)

Edited December 19, 2022 by mattyt36

[hindesky]

“We are ready to move forward together,” said Texas Transportation Commissioner Laura Ryan."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/I45-expansion-project-back-on-17663766.php

[kennyc05]

Glad it's back on track!

[samagon]

10 minutes ago, kennyc05 said:

Glad it's back on track!

isn't the FHWA still investigating possible civil rights and environmental violation?

maybe once the FHWA reviews the MOU between city, county, and TXDoT they will agree that the potential violations have been removed and allow it to proceed, I don't know that they can really do anything without the federal go ahead.

[Houston19514]

34 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

Well now I'm confused as Adrian Garcia was quoted in the Chronicle article, but the County is not a party to the MoU and is the entity taking legal action.  I'd assume that lawsuit would need to be dropped for work to proceed.  Is there a separate MoU with the County?

edited--I guess this implies there is a separate County-TxDOT MoU:

City of Houston, Harris County And TxDOT Announce New Memorandum of Understanding For The North Houston Highway Improvement Project (houstontx.gov)

Yes, the Mayor said there is a separate MOU with the county and the two have to be viewed together.  County is set to vote Thursday.

Sadly, this is turning out just as I predicted when the County threw their wrench into the process almost 2 years ago.  They've come to an agreement by which TxDOT agrees to do a list of things they had already committed to do.  The only thing I got wrong in my prediction is that Sheila Jackson Lee was not at the press conference (but her name was mentioned).  I'll bet someone got an earful for this being scheduled without her presence.

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

Sadly, this is turning out just as I predicted when the County threw their wrench into the process almost 2 years ago.  They've come to an agreement by which TxDOT agrees to do a list of things they had already committed to do.  

That was my read as well.

IMO the opposition was so misguided and half-baked on this, although I know people will disagree.  It was just about stopping the project, with no feasible alternatives presented.  Unlike the County, Turner advocated for the project in general with certain changes and steered clear of the ridiculous grandstanding (e.g., converting Lofts at the Ballpark to affordable housing), which is an approach that makes more sense.  I still would love to know who funded and organized the opposition--my sense is it was not "grassroots" as was presented. 

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

isn't the FHWA still investigating possible civil rights and environmental violation?

maybe once the FHWA reviews the MOU between city, county, and TXDoT they will agree that the potential violations have been removed and allow it to proceed, I don't know that they can really do anything without the federal go ahead.

It's in the article . . . 

Houston I-45 expansion project back on with new construction timeline (houstonchronicle.com)

The FHWA told TxDOT to halt development of the project as it reviewed concerns raised by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and others that the outreach to some minority communities was insufficient and violated civil rights laws by harming some Black and Latino neighborhoods.

[. . .]

As of now, the project, which remakes the entire downtown freeway system, remains listed to start work in 2024 on segments south of downtown where Interstate 69 and Texas 288 meet. Much of that, however, depends on what changes are needed and when the federal pause is formally lifted.

"We are having productive conversations with FHWA and are making progress towards a resolution with them," TxDOT spokeswoman Raquelle Lewis said. "That said, until our agreement with them is signed we are not able to offer a timeframe."

[Houston19514]

33 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

It's in the article . . . 

Houston I-45 expansion project back on with new construction timeline (houstonchronicle.com)

The FHWA told TxDOT to halt development of the project as it reviewed concerns raised by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and others that the outreach to some minority communities was insufficient and violated civil rights laws by harming some Black and Latino neighborhoods.

[. . .]

As of now, the project, which remakes the entire downtown freeway system, remains listed to start work in 2024 on segments south of downtown where Interstate 69 and Texas 288 meet. Much of that, however, depends on what changes are needed and when the federal pause is formally lifted.

"We are having productive conversations with FHWA and are making progress towards a resolution with them," TxDOT spokeswoman Raquelle Lewis said. "That said, until our agreement with them is signed we are not able to offer a timeframe."

and (FWIW): ". . .  But with blessing of local, state and federal elected officials, it is likely TxDOT and the FHWA could come to a separate agreement and work could proceed, people involved in the deal said."