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

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, Toronto has Texas-level growth trends, and no new freeways.

I hate to bring Toronto into new threads - I think this happens too much already - but this is not true. The Greater Toronto area has built about 60+ miles of net new highways in the last 15 years, although most of this was toll roads. It's also significantly widening many stretches of existing highways, including about 15 miles of the 401 to extend the express/collector system further west.

One thing I've observed is that in much of the world outside of the US, transit expansion often goes hand-in-hand with highway expansion. While Madrid built hundreds of kilometers of new metro lines, it also built hundreds of kilometers of new autopistas. Same with Chinese cities. Ever seen the freeway network of cycling-friendly, transit-friendly Holland? Somehow, despite the massive highway expansions in Spain, Spanish cities are still probably the most vibrant and urban experiences in the developed world, because land use planning matters more than new transportation links in determining how a city grows and feels.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, Toronto has Texas-level growth trends, and no new freeways. Hell, they barely have any freeways. And it's not like Canada isn't car crazy with tons of SUVs and trucks and sprawl autotopia.

Seattle, Portland, Bay Area, DC are all rapidly growing metros with no new/expanded freeways. NYC and LA are gigantic metro areas with no new/expanded freeways.

Many metros are thinking of removing freeways. NYC already removed the Sheridan Expressway, and major portions of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway are likely to be turned into a surface boulevard. Other existing buried freeways, like the Cross-Bronx, are likely to be covered with platforms for development.

They aren't new freeways. They are expansions of existing ones that are 40-50 years old built when Houston was half the size it is now. Plus the expansions focus on busy arteries where traffic is the heaviest. Anyone who commuted on I-10 10-15 years ago knows the expansion is a huge improvement. No, it's not ideal but it is what it is and I think a lot of folks aren't grounded in reality. People in a fast growing sprawled out car oriented city still have to get around.

Also, those metros you listed have far more robust mass transit, even LA. When I am in the Bay Area, I can take BART/ MUNI and leave my car at home. There is no viable option for that here unless I lived and worked right near the rail.

[Bailey]

I see a lot of non-Houstonians posting on this thread that are not familiar with the "urban" implications.

This is a consolidation of freeways (not new freeways) that will open up downtown to the dense growing area west of it by stacking the freeways to the less urban area East of downtown.

Right now, I-45 is a huge barrier to connectivity of two very popular dense areas- Downtown and Near -Town along Allen Parkway.

There are probably a billion dollars + of developments under construction along Allen Parkway to Shepherd RIGHT NOW!
PLUS more phases breaking ground soon.

Relocating I45 connects the two districts and possibly opens it up for mass transit along Allen Parkway.

Good move in my opinion.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Brooklyn didn't have to build much more infrastructure to absorb the growth because it was returning to historic population peaks. Brooklyn peaked at 2.738 million in 1950 - and was still below that in 2020 at 2.736 million.

That's misleading. The 1950 population might have had on the magnitude of 1 worker per 3 people, often 1 per houshold. In 2020 it would be more like 1 per 2. That's a massive difference in job-related travel. Further, shopping and other day-to-day living tended to be closer to home, and there were basically no supercommuters. National VMT/person has skyrocketed since 1950. Cities have responded very differently.

Otherwise, this thread is Houston doubling down on being Houston, regardless of the other removal. Don't be surprised when people from urban cities are horrified.

[Innsertnamehere]

yes, you aren't wrong. Infrastructure demands are different today than 1950, and Brooklyn does have new infrastructure compared to 1950 which accommodates that.

My point though is that Houston is built on a city which 70 years ago was 1/10th the size. Brooklyn is built on a city which 70 years ago was the same size. that makes a huge difference.

A lot of cities that are growing without new highway infrastructure are focusing new infrastructure spending in transit, which does help by deflecting new and existing trips from the highway.

Make no doubt though that the freeways in those cities are seeing constantly worsening congestion.

The answer, as with most things, lies in the middle. Some cities need a bit more of one thing and a bit more of another.

Houston is a little too far gone to become a transit utopia, the freeways are needed, as well as reasonable transit investments in areas where they make sense.

NYC meanwhile is a whole other beast, and needs a lot of transit investment and little road investment.

The Netherlands, for all it's urban planning utopianess, has massively expanded it's freeway network in the past decade. Go look around on google maps, there are some mega-roads that rival anything you would see in Texas there.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Otherwise, this thread is Houston doubling down on being Houston, regardless of the other removal. Don't be surprised when people from urban cities are horrified.

They can be horrified all they want, but Houston is a sprawled out multi-nodal city with crap transit which means freeways are pretty much the only viable option. Hopefully, in the long term, Houston will be significantly more densely populated (it's already moving in this direction), heavily invested in transit and lessened its dependence on cars but we'll all be dead by then.

[R1070]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

That sounds like an echo from the 1950s urban "renewal" age. Mow down unsightly houses and replace with cars.

It does and I'm not for that at all, but that just tells you how bad some of the stuff along Houston's freeways looks for me to feel like that. lol

[C.]

This thread has been an interesting read. Forumers from any other city would be ashamed for this type of freeway expansion, but the Houstonites are proud of it. Mind blown!

I found a few better article which highlights the amount of displacement and the impacts it will have on the predominantly minority communities. Here is one of them: "The I-45 project is expected to displace more than 1,000 homes and apartments along with 344 businesses, two schools and five places of worship in mostly Black and Latino neighborhoods. The I-45 project is expected to displace more than 1,000 homes and apartments along with 344 businesses, two schools and five places of worship in mostly Black and Latino neighborhoods."

It's well documented that the United States has used highway construction as a form of urban renewal and to intentionally displace black households. In the recently passed infrastructure bill, there is an acknowledgment from Congress appropriating $20 billion for a program that would "reconnect neighborhoods cut off by historic investments." This article provides a great overview of the practice and the tainted legacy that urban communities live with today.

"Planners of the interstate highway system, which began to take shape after the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, routed some highways directly, and sometimes purposefully, through Black and brown communities. In some instances, the government took homes by eminent domain."

Of course with Eminent Domain, homeowners (but not renters) receive just compensation, which is usually fair market value for their property, but that may not be enough to relocate to other nearby neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the appraisers that are hired to determine fair market value may also have their own biases. The DOJ for example is intervening in a civil suit brought on by Black homeowners against an appraisal company that appeared to show a racial bias when determining the value of the property.

While the existing highway can probably use some improvements. Spending $9 billion along with the new lanes is just going to make traffic worse in the long run due to induced demand. It will create bottlenecks and gridlocks on downtown streets which will have the same capacity but would be fed more cars from the expansion. I also don't buy the argument that this will facilitate development. Houston is rapidly growing and will continue to rapidly grow with or without this highway expansion. At some point Houston needs to shift the modal share towards transit. No amount of new freeways is going to solve the traffic problems for a city growing as fast as Houston.

I love Houston. It's an exciting and diverse city that gets a lot of hate from all sides. Yes, traffic is bad, but so is any vibrant city. However, I'm really puzzled how existing residents can view this proposal and be proud of it, especially knowing the damage that it will cause.

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.

Way too diminish the neighborhood. I suppose TxDOT transportation planners see the same thing. This quote really gets me because that's the same argument during used during America's urban renewal phase which saw widespread displacement and destruction of urban areas. I thought we would know better by now.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by C.

This thread has been an interesting read. Forumers from any other city would be ashamed for this type of freeway expansion, but the Houstonites are proud of it. Mind blown!

I found a few better article which highlights the amount of displacement and the impacts it will have on the predominantly minority communities. Here is one of them: "The I-45 project is expected to displace more than 1,000 homes and apartments along with 344 businesses, two schools and five places of worship in mostly Black and Latino neighborhoods. The I-45 project is expected to displace more than 1,000 homes and apartments along with 344 businesses, two schools and five places of worship in mostly Black and Latino neighborhoods."

It's well documented that the United States has used highway construction as a form of urban renewal and to intentionally displace black households. In the recently passed infrastructure bill, there is an acknowledgment from Congress appropriating $20 billion for a program that would "reconnect neighborhoods cut off by historic investments." This article provides a great overview of the practice and the tainted legacy that urban communities live with today.

"Planners of the interstate highway system, which began to take shape after the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, routed some highways directly, and sometimes purposefully, through Black and brown communities. In some instances, the government took homes by eminent domain."

Of course with Eminent Domain, homeowners (but not renters) receive just compensation, which is usually fair market value for their property, but that may not be enough to relocate to other nearby neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the appraisers that are hired to determine fair market value may also have their own biases. The DOJ for example is intervening in a civil suit brought on by Black homeowners against an appraisal company that appeared to show a racial bias when determining the value of the property.

While the existing highway can probably use some improvements. Spending $9 billion along with the new lanes is just going to make traffic worse in the long run due to induced demand. It will create bottlenecks and gridlocks on downtown streets which will have the same capacity but would be fed more cars from the expansion. I also don't buy the argument that this will facilitate development. Houston is rapidly growing and will continue to rapidly grow with or without this highway expansion. At some point Houston needs to shift the modal share towards transit. No amount of new freeways is going to solve the traffic problems for a city growing as fast as Houston.

I love Houston. It's an exciting and diverse city that gets a lot of hate from all sides. Yes, traffic is bad, but so is any vibrant city. However, I'm really puzzled how existing residents can view this proposal and be proud of it, especially knowing the damage that it will cause.



Way too diminish the neighborhood. I suppose TxDOT transportation planners see the same thing. This quote really gets me because that's the same argument during used during America's urban renewal phase which saw widespread displacement and destruction of urban areas. I thought we would know better by now.

Anyone who just posts about how this freeway displaces a few hundred people without looking at the other numerous positive benefits that come along with it which were already stated is just refusing to see the bigger picture. There is even a light rail line nearby which would see more investment. But people get so caught up in cliche freeway arguments that might have worked in the mid 00s when urban forums were new but we should know by now it is not a one side fits all. You need to build all modes of transit/infrastructure which is what Houston is doing.

There was even a poster earlier saying there should be more bus/hov lanes and when I mention this expansion will be adding 3 of those lanes....crickets... Hoiston doesnt have the ability to tunnel newly reconstructed freeways like Seattle due to terrain.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Trae

this expansion will be addong

Speaking the truth there.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by biguc

Speaking the truth there.

I know. More bus and high occupancy lanes being added (the rest of my sentence you cut off). How terrible lol

[benp]

Originally Posted by Trae

I know. More bus and high occupancy lanes being added (the rest of my sentence you cut off). How terrible lol

The Houston HOVs, as currently designed and used, don't do much of a service to the larger Houston driving community.

Per Houston Metro Ridership data, the entire Park&Ride bus system carried only 33,000 bus passengers a day in February 2020 (pre-COVID), meaning only 16,000 round-trip bus passengers a day. The latest data (January 2022) shows only 7,691 bus passengers a day, or less than 4,000 passenger round trips.

I wonder, besides revenue, what having these dedicated lanes actually provide in the big scheme of things. Not sure how much has changed, but I recalled traffic moving at the same speed as the regular lanes, and sometimes stopped entirely on sections of I-45, as 90+% of the vehicles were usually passenger cars, many with only the driver onboard. A Katy-to-downtown trip on the HOV may save no time at all on most days. Even in the case of an accident, HOVs jam up.

Between the barricades and on-off ramps, perhaps 2-for-1 additional "free" lanes could be added to the main lanes if the HOV wasn't present.

Or, make the HOVs exclusive to busses and vans and 3+ carpools (at least) and truly make them a faster system that takes more cars off the main lanes. As is now, there is little advantage or incentive to switch to busses or car pools.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The answer, as with most things, lies in the middle. Some cities need a bit more of one thing and a bit more of another.

Sure, if you don't care about incentivizing efficiency. In my area, we're ok (at the policy level) with very limited road capacity increases and even some limited decreases. Some of that is a sense of resignation by people who might like more roadway but realize we can't afford it, and some is a desire to encourage a larger shift to transit.

I'm in the middle too. But here that means preserving the major routes rather than deleting them.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by benp

The Houston HOVs, as currently designed and used, don't do much of a service to the larger Houston driving community.

Per Houston Metro Ridership data, the entire Park&Ride bus system carried only 33,000 bus passengers a day in February 2020 (pre-COVID), meaning only 16,000 round-trip bus passengers a day. The latest data (January 2022) shows only 7,691 bus passengers a day, or less than 4,000 passenger round trips.

Houston had higher bus commuter park and ride service in the early 2010s because the energy industry was booming. I think the HOVs are actually pretty useful. You're basing it entirely on usage of the bus, but there's several vanpools and personal vehicles with 3+ passengers not counted in those numbers.

I think they do a huge service to the Houston driving community because a lot of people still use them, even if they aren't just riding in a bus.

I wonder, besides revenue, what having these dedicated lanes actually provide in the big scheme of things. Not sure how much has changed, but I recalled traffic moving at the same speed as the regular lanes, and sometimes stopped entirely on sections of I-45, as 90+% of the vehicles were usually passenger cars, many with only the driver onboard. A Katy-to-downtown trip on the HOV may save no time at all on most days. Even in the case of an accident, HOVs jam up.

How long has it been since you were last in Houston?? The design of having multi-lane HOVs in the middle of freeways is not exclusive to the city. Traffic may sometimes be slower in the HOV which happens in pretty much every city during peak times, but it typically will start to move faster before the mainlanes. Here in SoCal that happens all the time.

Today a Katy to Downtown trip on the HOV will most definitely save you 10+ minutes depending on the conditions, especially going through major interchanges like Highway 6 or Beltway 8. It's two lanes each way with shoulders and through Katy one lane each way but wide shoulders to pass in the case of an accident.

Between the barricades and on-off ramps, perhaps 2-for-1 additional "free" lanes could be added to the main lanes if the HOV wasn't present.

Or, make the HOVs exclusive to busses and vans and 3+ carpools (at least) and truly make them a faster system that takes more cars off the main lanes. As is now, there is little advantage or incentive to switch to busses or car pools.

Like I said it already is a faster system, even in peak times. Part of this expansion is to also make the 45N HOV faster by adding lanes (similar to I-10 or 288) which gives Metro the ability to add express bus routes which would first originate in neighborhoods, not PnRs by the freeway.

[Dariusb]

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

These kind of projects are a waste in my opinion. That money could better be used for upgrading the transit network and the actual city streets. People still haven't learned that more or wider freeways doesn't lessen traffic or improve flow.

[Nite]

What a waste of Money.
Investing in a better transit system would handle orders of magnitude more trips than any highway expansion.
Just compare the Yonge subway line to the nearby Don Valley Expressway in Toronto.

Peak Usage:
Don Valley Expressway: 7,000 per hour per direction
Yonge Subway: 30,000 people per hour per direction

Another way to look at this is that Toronto would have to expand the DVP to 32 lanes from 6 now to handle the usage of the Yonge subway line

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Brooklyn didn't have to build much more infrastructure to absorb the growth because it was returning to historic population peaks. Brooklyn peaked at 2.738 million in 1950 - and was still below that in 2020 at 2.736 million.

NYC has expanded its population by about 1 million since 1950, including 650k in the past decade, without adding much in the way of transit infrastructure. NYC can add another 2 million without adding a single inch of roadway.

[TWAK]

Houstonians are being loyal to their town which is admirable, but this is an urbanist forum where many threads have been dedicated to neighborhoods being destroyed by freeways. A ton of forumers are anti-freeway, and this shouldn't be news.
I guess they kinda know how folks in SF feel for each comment about poop or homeless .

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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

I know the areas pretty well. Much of the area in question along the north freeway outside of the loop is commercial land. The biggest take IMO is an aging public housing project with terrible access that lies in a floodplain and sadly has been flooded several times in the last 20 years. It needs to be rebuilt somewhere higher. I don’t really like the freeway plan, seems like lots of trouble for little benefit. But the article is typical race baiting word salad. No context.

[MolsonExport]

Completely going in the wrong direction. Doubling down on the most inefficient way to move volumes of people.