I thought they stopped doing this- Houston communities may lose homes due to freeway

[DCReid]

A booming spike in Houston's population is making traffic terrible. To help with this, a massive $9 billion freeway-widening project was put in place to widen 24 miles of interstate. But the project is threatening to disrupt the lives of thousands of people — most of them are from communities of color...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ho...ion/ar-AAUduF4

[Trae]

Originally Posted by DCReid

A booming spike in Houston's population is making traffic terrible. To help with this, a massive $9 billion freeway-widening project was put in place to widen 24 miles of interstate. But the project is threatening to disrupt the lives of thousands of people — most of them are from communities of color...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ho...ion/ar-AAUduF4

A lot of buzzwords lol. What this article obviously doesn't say is the expansion of this freeway is key to DEMOLISHING an elevated section of the freeway near downtown (or making it an elevated park like Hi-Line in NYC) thus opening it up to neighborhoods to its west. There are going to be a few hundred people displaced yes (not over 1k because not all those structures are occupied) but they will be well compensated and the freeway is literally already there. It's not like they're talking about building a brand new freeway in the middle of the neighborhood.

Now IMO it's on the state to offer more than market value, which completely throws away the generational wealth argument because often times folks wouldn't even be receiving this money if it wasn't for the new development displacing them. I remember when the Katy Freeway was expanded in Houston's affluent west side that a few residents and businesses were displaced then too. This happens all over and I think is okay so long as you are provided adequate compensation (above market value). There's an entire neighborhood near LAX that was emptied out over time to allow the airport to expand and place a rental car facility there. The homeowners were mostly minority but were well compensated.

[Busy Bee]

Edit

[iheartthed]

Saw this story on TV this morning. Unbelievable.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Trae

A lot of buzzwords lol. What this article obviously doesn't say is the expansion of this freeway is key to DEMOLISHING an elevated section of the freeway near downtown (or making it an elevated park like Hi-Line in NYC) thus opening it up to neighborhoods to its west. There are going to be a few hundred people displaced yes (not over 1k because not all those structures are occupied) but they will be well compensated and the freeway is literally already there. It's not like they're talking about building a brand new freeway in the middle of the neighborhood.

They are being eminent domained for a stupid freeway. It doesn't matter if they are being "well compensated".

[Trae]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They are being eminent domained for a stupid freeway. It doesn't matter if they are being "well compensated".

The freeway is already there and the expansion of the freeway includes better neighborhood connectivity elsewhere (more parks, trails, demolishing elevated sections). And freeways aren't stupid, are very much needed, and important for regional movement.

So you think things should just stay as they are. Let a wide freeway continue to get more crowded without any improvements done? I'm looking at the bigger picture as far as the region goes and see how the expansion will lead to numerous improvements in other areas that I already mentioned.

[Crawford]

What is that gigantic freeway on the west side of Houston? That has to be the most epic freeway in the U.S.

Texas loves big trucks and big roads.

[TWAK]

At least in Stockton, they built over the poor neighborhood (Highway 4).

[benp]

Originally Posted by Trae

The freeway is already there and the expansion of the freeway includes better neighborhood connectivity elsewhere (more parks, trails, demolishing elevated sections). And freeways aren't stupid, are very much needed, and important for regional movement.

So you think things should just stay as they are. Let a wide freeway continue to get more crowded without any improvements done? I'm looking at the bigger picture as far as the region goes and see how the expansion will lead to numerous improvements in other areas that I already mentioned.

It will remove the Pierce Elevated portion of I45 in Midtown, but destroy a whole lot of the areas along I10, I45N, and I69(US59) along the north and east sides of downtown just so more cars can theoretically more easily bypass the downtown area when construction is completed. This does not benefit anyone living on the north or east sides of downtown, only the commuters driving through Houston (ie whose destination is not downtown) and parts of Midtown made available for new "development." It essentially combines 3 interstates (already crowded) into a single highway around downtown.

This also means that there will be 5-10 years of construction and congestion added to every single freeway entering downtown.

People who actually live inside the loop don't need a wider road.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by benp

It will remove the Pierce Elevated portion of I45 in Midtown, but destroy a whole lot of the areas along I10, I45N, and I69(US59) along the north and east sides of downtown just so more cars can theoretically more easily bypass the downtown area when construction is completed. This does not benefit anyone living on the north or east sides of downtown, only the commuters driving through Houston (ie whose destination is not downtown) and parts of Midtown made available for new "development." It essentially combines 3 interstates (already crowded) into a single highway around downtown.

This also means that there will be 5-10 years of construction and congestion added to every single freeway entering downtown.

People who actually live inside the loop don't need a wider road.

It's really not that much displacement if you look at a map. We're talking slivers of land already hugging freeways on the periphery of neighborhoods. This for certain benefits people on the north and east sides because there is a good chance they will use this freeway or interchange. I-45 literally goes to the northern suburbs. I forgot to mention the deck park they want to build over the freeway too, which would CONNECT the neighborhood to the other side. Also it's not really putting three freeways into one (something similar to the ATL DT Connector) because they will have dedicated ramps vs all traffic merging together.

Another thing people aren't talking about is the current freeway design. I-45 North has, IIRC, the highest accidents per mile than any other freeway in the country between downtown and BW8. The reason for this is because of freeway design. This expansion is going to make the freeway safer to drive on with wider lanes, better merges, improved sight distance, etc. Of course that's not discussed in the article either.

Edit: I-45N deck park if freeway moves forward:



So basically what this expansion will do is:

1. Remove a few hundred residents, giving them market level (or above) compensation
2. Doing the same for the businesses in the area

But it will also:

1. Improve a poorly designed freeway
2. Add a deck park connecting neighborhoods across a freeway
3. Lead to the demolition of an elevated freeway downtown or turning it into an elevated park like Hi-Line NYC
4. Adding new trails and paths near the freeway through the improvement of neighborhood streets that will cross it

Pros outweigh the cons to me, especially since the freeway is there already.

[Crawford]

It will also massively expand the freeway, which is pretty much the last thing you want to do from an urbanist perspective. "The freeway was already there, so let's take out more cityscape for more lanes" doesn't make much sense.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It will also massively expand the freeway, which is pretty much the last thing you want to do from an urbanist perspective. "The freeway was already there, so let's take out more cityscape for more lanes" doesn't make much sense.

But what you're saying isn't true. First of all, what urbanity are you going to get on this freeway now, and how is expanding it going to change that? The light rail line is already several blocks away from the freeway so the expansion won't affect the rail at all. Wouldn't the "urbanist perspective" prefer mixed-use development be built along the light rail line vs near a freeway?

So you say they are taking out cityscape, but how much more are they going to add to the city. Wouldn't a brand new deck park connecting a once divided neighborhood and a brand new linear park downtown be more beneficial to the cityscape and used by more people? Will drivers feel safer using 45N to get to Houston's main airport with a more updated/safely designed freeway versus the skinny lane clusterfuck currently there now?

I think too often folks get tunnel vision anytime freeway expansion comes up. They aren't all the same and freeway expansion isn't the only "progress" that has displaced people (I mentioned the LAX example earlier).

[benp]

Originally Posted by Trae

It's really not that much displacement if you look at a map. We're talking slivers of land already hugging freeways on the periphery of neighborhoods. This for certain benefits people on the north and east sides because there is a good chance they will use this freeway or interchange. I-45 literally goes to the northern suburbs.

Another thing people aren't talking about is the current freeway design. I-45N has, IIRC, the highest accidents per mile than any other freeway in the country. The reason for this is because of freeway design. This expansion is going to make the freeway safer to drive on with wider lanes, better merges, and removed the concrete barrier HOV in the middle. Of course that's not discussed in the article either.

It is a lot more than "slivers" as the areas along the freeways are already developed land requiring quite a bit of displacement. The 69N area between the GRB and the soccer stadium will likely be tripled in width, losing multiple blocks and isolating EADO from the rest of downtown even more than it is today.

But that's just one problem with the updates.

The bigger problem is Houston has few alternate routes than freeways, so traffic and congestion funnels into very few roads. In Houstonian terms, just like a bayou, a "flood plain" is needed for cars when the existing engineered channels (freeways) become overcrowded, and multiple exists and alternate paths need to be available to reduce the load on a single highway.

This "fix" - essential combining 3 highways into 1 along the north side of downtown - just creates a single bottleneck that in-turn can produce worse impacts on mobility than having separate paths.

And of course any "fix" requires things to become worse during the years of construction, and as I-10 has shown roads tend to fill back up as soon as they are expanded, so although there may be a "benefit" of higher capacity, the value to an individual driver is lost as soon as the roads fill back up. It is never ending.

Houston needs more alternate routes, not just bigger freeways.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by benp

It is a lot more than "slivers" as the areas along the freeways are already developed land requiring quite a bit of displacement. The 69N area between the GRB and the soccer stadium will likely be tripled in width, losing multiple blocks and isolating EADO from the rest of downtown even more than it is today.

But that's just one problem with the updates.

Or it'll bring the parts of EADO with the most development closer to downtown. Those parts which would be paved over don't have much on them at all. Where everyone goes in EaDo will be unaffected other than having the freeway slightly closer.

The bigger problem is Houston has few alternate routes than freeways, so traffic and congestion funnels into very few roads. In Houstonian terms, just like a bayou, a "flood plain" is needed for cars when the existing engineered channels (freeways) become overcrowded, and multiple exists and alternate paths need to be available to reduce the load on a single highway.

I disagree here. Houston has quite an extensive arterial road system. Yeah if you want to go across the metro using the freeway is quicker, as it is in every large metro in the US, but many local city trips are done without even getting on a freeway.

This "fix" - essential combining 3 highways into 1 along the north side of downtown - just creates a single bottleneck that in-turn can produce worse impacts on mobility than having separate paths.

And of course any "fix" requires things to become worse during the years of construction, and as I-10 has shown roads tend to fill back up as soon as they are expanded, so although there may be a "benefit" of higher capacity, the value to an individual driver is lost as soon as the roads fill back up. It is never ending.

Houston needs more alternate routes, not just bigger freeways.

They aren't combining three highways into one. Traffic won't have to merge into one roadway for one as there will be dedicated ramps. This will improve traffic safety in DT Houston.

I-10 the Katy Freeway is a great example of an expansion done right. I remember that thing would have bumper to bumper traffic 7 days a week before it was expanded. The only times you'd be able to avoid traffic would be between 8p-6am. That freeway was the worst. As they were expanding it, TxDot and the traffic folks would always say "rush hour traffic will still be bumper to bumper but the freeway will flow throughout the day". I believe it was completed in 2005 and what they said then has held true. The freeway will back up during rush hour as usual, but outside of rush hour it is free flowing. That wasn't the case before expansion.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What is that gigantic freeway on the west side of Houston? That has to be the most epic freeway in the U.S.

Texas loves big trucks and big roads.

WTF do trucks have to do with it? Katy Frwy is a massive corridor connecting the most populated areas of town...west of downtown. Compared to what it replaced, the wider road is far more efficient. I don't know a whole lot about 610 and Independent Heights but that's a fairly busy route as well as it connects 10, 290, 45 and heads into Uptown. It's always stopped up.

[benp]

Well, all I can say is as former resident who lived along Montrose, I can see nothing good coming from this redesign for people who live inside the loop.

[R1070]

The freeways mentioned have a lot of blight and derelict looking development built up along them. While some people will be displaced, this is a good opportunity for Houston to clean up these corridors.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by benp

Well, all I can say is as former resident who lived along Montrose, I can see nothing good coming from this redesign for people who live inside the loop.

Right like what will those Midtown residents ever do with a brand new large linear park connecting them with downtown. And those Woodland Heights/Near Northside residents must hate the fact the city wants to build a new deck park over the freeway for them connecting their neighborhoods together. I bet they hope the city doesn't put something crazy like a dog park on that deck park. Who needs that? And I bet everyone who takes 45N to catch a flight wishes TxDot keeps those sharp curves, terrible sight-lines, and skinny lanes on the freeway. Maybe even repaint to put the far left lane even closer to the HOV concrete barrier. The margin for error is already half an inch there, why not make it half a centimeter?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

WTF do trucks have to do with it?

Bigger vehicles require more space. The U.S. has gigantic lanes and everything overengineered. TX takes it up a level with enormous freeways with huge parallel retail arterials. And most places stopped building freeways decades ago; it appears TX never stopped.

Originally Posted by JManc

Katy Frwy is a massive corridor connecting the most populated areas of town...west of downtown. Compared to what it replaced, the wider road is far more efficient.

Yeah, a 30 lane freeway is more "efficient" than a six lane freeway, but is horrible planning. Efficiency shouldn't drive public policy.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Bigger vehicles require more space. The U.S. has gigantic lanes and everything overengineered. TX takes it up a level with enormous freeways with huge parallel retail arterials. And most places stopped building freeways decades ago; it appears TX never stopped.

Which places, especially fast growing ones like Texas, stopped building freeways, and are you not including tollways when you say this? Also do you realize 45N has been where it's at since the 50s? Not exactly a new freeway.

Yeah, a 30 lane freeway is more "efficient" than a six lane freeway, but is horrible planning. Efficiency shouldn't drive public policy.

It's not 30 lanes. At it's widest it is 14, including the tollway in the middle, and this is just for a short segment at an interchange with another freeway.