I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[mattyt36]

On 8/15/2021 at 11:47 PM, 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. 

For some perspective:

Second Ward population < 20K

Houston MSA population > 7MM

Let's discuss . . . 

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

For some perspective:

Second Ward population < 20K

Houston MSA population > 7MM

Let's discuss . . . 

That doesn't mean anything remember? 

[mattyt36]

23 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

That doesn't mean anything remember? 

It does if you want to change the State Constitution.

[crock]

i am pretty sure if you asked all 7mm "Houstonians" if tripling the width of the highway next to Minute Maid Park was a good idea the plurality would say no.  but maybe thats just me remembering that 290 has been the butt of jokes for damn near two decades now. 

[mattyt36]

12 minutes ago, crock said:

i am pretty sure if you asked all 7mm "Houstonians" if tripling the width of the highway next to Minute Maid Park was a good idea the plurality would say no.  but maybe thats just me remembering that 290 has been the butt of jokes for damn near two decades now. 

Well, sure, if you phrased it that way.  Why not add the word "ugly" and "polluted" to the question, and then were completely disingenuous by adding, "Have you ever parked your car for an Astros game on the other side of 59?  Think how difficult it will be to cross now!"  I'll give you the under on the percentage of respondents believing that means they'd actually need to dodge cars on two freeways.

Now ask the same question with the caveat, "You won't see anything because you'll be walking through a park."  What would they say?

So I'm not sure what this proves, other than leading questions can be, er, misleading.  "What's your opinion on the increase in crime, sir?"

 

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, crock said:

i am pretty sure if you asked all 7mm "Houstonians" if tripling the width of the highway next to Minute Maid Park was a good idea the plurality would say no.  but maybe thats just me remembering that 290 has been the butt of jokes for damn near two decades now. 

 

41 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

Well, sure, if you phrased it that way.  Why not add the word "ugly" and "polluted" to the question, and then were completely disingenuous by adding, "Have you ever parked your car for an Astros game on the other side of 59?  Think how difficult it will be to cross now!"  I'll give you the under on the percentage of respondents believing that means they'd actually need to dodge cars on two freeways.

Now ask the same question with the caveat, "You won't see anything because you'll be walking through a park."  What would they say?

So I'm not sure what this proves, other than leading questions can be, er, misleading.  "What's your opinion on the increase in crime, sir?"

 

Yeah, Crock's suggested polling question is beyond disingenuous.  It is full-on dishonest.  (No one is proposing to triple the width of the highway next to Minute Maid Park.)

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Houston19514

[samagon]

yeah, only a more than doubling of the main lanes of the freeway (from 9 to 19), and the addition of 6 feeder lanes, that's certainly not triple! (it's only 2.777)

and definitely not even in the area code if we're talking about the ROW owned by TxDOT, which goes from 220 to 550, that's so far from triple it's not even funny, it's merely a doubling!

which I mean, what Crock said, IMO is just as preposterous and disingenuous as suggesting that all 7MM people (less those in 2nd ward) would be opposed to the state constitution being updated to reflect something a bit less archaic for how the transportation budget is spent.

Edited August 18, 2021 by samagon

[mattyt36]

21 minutes ago, samagon said:

yeah, only a more than doubling of the main lanes of the freeway (from 9 to 19), and the addition of 6 feeder lanes, that's certainly not triple! (it's only 2.777)

and definitely not even in the area code if we're talking about the ROW owned by TxDOT, which goes from 220 to 550, that's so far from triple it's not even funny, it's merely a doubling!

which I mean, what Crock said, IMO is just as preposterous and disingenuous as suggesting that all 7MM people (less those in 2nd ward) would be opposed to the state constitution being updated to reflect something a bit less archaic for how the transportation budget is spent.

Not disingenuous at all, Sam.

Please outline your theory for getting a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature and a simple majority of Texas voters to decrease highway funding in favor of increased funding for transit that will largely benefit residents of hated cities?

What tea leaves are you reading that says that this is anywhere near feasible given recent political trends.  We can't even enact mask mandates.  Maybe if we just tell people it's "less archaic" they will happily subjugate their personal preferences?  (I suppose it's more realistic than forcing them to move into cities wholesale, which has also been suggested on here.)

What's the phrase?

Out of touch?  (Maybe even galactically so?)

Edited August 18, 2021 by mattyt36

[j_cuevas713]

3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Well, sure, if you phrased it that way.  Why not add the word "ugly" and "polluted" to the question, and then were completely disingenuous by adding, "Have you ever parked your car for an Astros game on the other side of 59?  Think how difficult it will be to cross now!"  I'll give you the under on the percentage of respondents believing that means they'd actually need to dodge cars on two freeways.

Now ask the same question with the caveat, "You won't see anything because you'll be walking through a park."  What would they say?

So I'm not sure what this proves, other than leading questions can be, er, misleading.  "What's your opinion on the increase in crime, sir?"

 

What park are you referring to exactly if we were to word things to have people lean in the direction of tripling the width of the freeway? If you're talking about that cap park, then you're def being disingenuous. That thing is all conceptual with no planned source for funding. 

[samagon]

I mean, that's great for constitutional amendments, but the reality is, it's just a statute, so 2/3rd majority, and vote on a ballot not necessary.

it's a statute that states how the state highway fund is used.

sec. 222.001 use of state highway fund. statutes can be updated via a bill becoming a law.

I get it, you're just going to say that even getting the state government to pass a bill into law is never going to happen and that I'm living in crazy town. 

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.222.htm

and section 49k of the constitution in regards to the Texas Mobility Fund:

Quote

Sec. 49-k. TEXAS MOBILITY FUND. (a) In this section: (1) “Commission” means the Texas Transportation Commission or its successor. (2) “Comptroller” means the comptroller of public accounts of the State of Texas. (3) “Department” means the Texas Department of Transportation or its successor. (4) “Fund” means the Texas Mobility Fund. (5) “Obligations” means bonds, notes, and other public securities. (b) The Texas Mobility Fund is created in the state treasury and shall be administered by the commission as a revolving fund to provide a method of Art. III Sec. 49-k 49 financing the construction, reconstruction, acquisition, and expansion of state highways, including costs of any necessary design and costs of acquisition of rights-of-way, as determined by the commission in accordance with standards and procedures established by law. (c) Money in the fund may also be used to provide participation by the state in the payment of a portion of the costs of constructing and providing publicly owned toll roads and other public transportation projects in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations established by law.

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf

so um, yeah.

Edited August 18, 2021 by samagon

[mattyt36]

31 minutes ago, samagon said:

I mean, that's great for constitutional amendments, but the reality is, it's just a statute, so 2/3rd majority, and vote on a ballot not necessary.

it's a statute that states how the state highway fund is used.

sec. 222.001 use of state highway fund. statutes can be updated via a bill becoming a law.

I get it, you're just going to say that even getting the state government to pass a bill into law is never going to happen and that I'm living in crazy town. 

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.222.htm

and section 49k of the constitution in regards to the Texas Mobility Fund:

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf

so um, yeah.

OK Sam, so tell me your legislative theory of having that pass the Texas Legislature with a simple majority and be signed by the Governor, with the composition of the Legislature including plenty of R-The Woodlands, R-Frisco, and plenty of other equivalents before we even get to the likes of R-Vidor and R-Rusk.  Mask mandates have a plurality of popular support and look where we are.  Perfectly happy with people dying in the name of "freedom," and you think these guys don't associate cars and freeways with "freedom"?  (HINT: Consider the etymology of the word FREEway.)

Surely you saw that question coming.

At the end of the day, I just don't think you're a very serious person.

Edited August 18, 2021 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

45 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

What park are you referring to exactly if we were to word things to have people lean in the direction of tripling the width of the freeway? If you're talking about that cap park, then you're def being disingenuous. That thing is all conceptual with no planned source for funding. 

No funding sources for construction of an actual park planned from TxDOT (because they don't do it anywhere).  There's a tremendous difference.

The initial drawings of Spaceport Houston were CONCEPTUAL (i.e., pretty pictures with no basis in reality).  The cap park between the convention center and the East End is likely most accurately described as being in PLANNING.  The next phase will be DESIGN, and, yes, guess what, it won't be in that phase until Segment 3 is permitted.  The cap park is exactly where you'd expect it to be at this phase.  

The City, Central Houston, and other organizations are all planning for the cap park and have been for YEARS.  You've got a city of philanthropists that have been absolutely committed to funding parks over the past decade.  You think they could get funding for Disco Green, Lynn Wyatt Park, Buffalo Bayou Park, and Memorial Park and wouldn't make this a priority, when funding options are arguably more expansive with HOT, convention, TIRZ taxes, and now the Infrastructure Bill in a Democratic administration?  Not to mention that TxDOT is funding structures and other enabling work. 

Somehow, you accept the park rings around downtown as possible, but not this?  Give me a break.

The cap parks between Midtown and the Museum District?  Well, those are anybody's guess.  But even in those cases you've got people working.

I seriously never thought I would find myself advocating as much as I appear to be for freeways, or feeling any sympathy for TxDOT, but if they have to deal with this nonsense, I probably would be throwing up my hands, too.

Edited August 18, 2021 by mattyt36

[samagon]

35 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

OK Sam, so tell me your legislative theory of having that pass the Texas Legislature with a simple majority and be signed by the Governor, with the composition of the Legislature including plenty of R-The Woodlands, R-Frisco, and plenty of other equivalents before we even get to the likes of R-Vidor and R-Rusk.  Mask mandates have a plurality of popular support and look where we are.  Perfectly happy with people dying in the name of "freedom," and you think these guys don't associate cars and freeways with "freedom"?  (HINT: Consider the etymology of the word FREEway.)

Surely you saw that question coming.

At the end of the day, I just don't think you're a very serious person.

I think a better way for you to contextualize my responses is to say that my level of optimism doesn't jive with your understanding of how dysfunctional our state leadership is.

which I'd probably agree with.

[j_cuevas713]

27 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

No funding sources for construction of an actual park planned from TxDOT (because they don't do it anywhere).  There's a tremendous difference.

The initial drawings of Spaceport Houston were CONCEPTUAL (i.e., pretty pictures with no basis in reality).  The cap park between the convention center and the East End is likely most accurately described as being in PLANNING.  The next phase will be DESIGN, and, yes, guess what, it won't be in that phase until Segment 3 is permitted.  The cap park is exactly where you'd expect it to be at this phase.  

The City, Central Houston, and other organizations are all planning for the cap park and have been for YEARS.  You've got a city of philanthropists that have been absolutely committed to funding parks over the past decade.  You think they could get funding for Disco Green, Lynn Wyatt Park, Buffalo Bayou Park, and Memorial Park and wouldn't make this a priority, when funding options are arguably more expansive with HOT, convention, TIRZ taxes, and now the Infrastructure Bill in a Democratic administration?  Not to mention that TxDOT is funding structures and other enabling work. 

Somehow, you accept the park rings around downtown as possible, but not this?  Give me a break.

The cap parks between Midtown and the Museum District?  Well, those are anybody's guess.  But even in those cases you've got people working.

I seriously never thought I would find myself advocating as much as I appear to be for freeways, or feeling any sympathy for TxDOT, but if they have to deal with this nonsense, I probably would be throwing up my hands, too.

Ok? My whole career revolves around things that go from concept to reality. Again its all conceptual. You can talk about the planning, the philanthropists, and how TxDOT will do whatever, it all doesn’t mean a damn thing. And you’re right, I def want the green loop to happen. I love the concept of using some of the abandoned freeway elements to create elevated park space and retail space beneath, but some of that stuff may never happen. How long has the city been “planning” to create the north canal for BB? Not saying the cap park won’t become a reality but you’re defending this entire project on an idea. All I read was how disingenuous @samagon question was if it was presented as a ballot question. And all I’m pointing out is that as it stands, that park isn’t a guarantee, so if you word things in such a way how is that not actually being disingenuous? The only thing I read from @samagon was an actual fact about how much wider the freeway will be. Hell St Emanuel would become a damn feeder road. And you feel bad for TxDOT because they have to deal with Houstonians who don’t want more freeway construction? Get over yourself man 😆

Edited August 18, 2021 by j_cuevas713

[mattyt36]

Just now, j_cuevas713 said:

Ok? My whole career revolves around things that go from concept to reality. Again its all conceptual. You can talk about the planning, the philanthropists, and how TxDOT will do whatever, it all doesn’t mean a damn thing. And you’re right, I def want the green loop to happen. I love the concept of using some of the abandoned freeway elements to create elevated park space and retail space beneath, but some of that stuff may never happen. How long has the city been “planning” to create the north canal for BB? Not saying the cap park won’t become a reality but you’re defending this entire project on an idea. All I read was how disingenuous @samagon question was if it presented as a ballot question. And all I’m pointing out is that as it stands, that park isn’t a guarantee, so if you word things in such a way how is that not actually being disingenuous? The only thing I read from @samagon was an actual fact about how much wider the freeway will be. Hell St Emanuel would become a damn feeder road. And you feel bad for TxDOT because they have to deal with Houstonians who don’t want more freeway construction? Get over yourself man 😆

J, there's a hell of a lot of difference between CONCEPTS and a demonstrably feasible project that has tacit support from the State (yes, the State!), the City, the Chamber of Commerce and Central Houston.  It's exactly where you'd expect it to be at this phase.

6 minutes ago, samagon said:

I think a better way for you to contextualize my responses is to say that my level of optimism doesn't jive with your understanding of how dysfunctional our state leadership is.

which I'd probably agree with.

It's only going to get worse, I'm afraid, before new coalitions can be built with all of this pathetic, know-nothing posturing to the lowest common denominator.  But let's see how 2022 turns out.

(And it's jibe, not jive.)

[j_cuevas713]

8 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

J, there's a hell of a lot of difference between CONCEPTS and a demonstrably feasible project that has tacit support from the State (yes, the State!), the City, the Chamber of Commerce and Central Houston.  It's exactly where you'd expect it to be at this phase.

How does it have support from the city? The city and county both filed lawsuits against TxDOT at the Federal level. I’m sure the state does support it. Surprise surprise! 

Edited August 18, 2021 by j_cuevas713

[mattyt36]

11 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

How does it have support from the city? The city and county both filed lawsuits again TxDOT at the Federal level. I’m sure the state does support it. Surprise surprise! 

J, we are talking about the CAP PARKS between the GRB and the East End (you know the tripling of the highway width by Minute Maid Park being put to a referendum straw man).  The City has pretty much said it supports segment 3 with minimal changes.  WHY?!  Because this has been the plan for YEARS.

NHHIP Segments 1 & 2 Facilitation Group Meeting #2 (houstontx.gov) (credit to texan for supplying link in prior post)

City's vision on page 13: "MOVE FORWARD NOW"

And I don't believe the City has sued anyone over NHHIP, but I can't keep track.  Actually none of us seem to be able to keep track with all of this misinformation.

Edited August 18, 2021 by mattyt36

[j_cuevas713]

3 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

J, we are talking about the CAP PARKS between the GRB and the East End (you know the tripling of the highway width by Minute Maid Park being put to a referendum straw man).  The City has pretty much said it supports segment 3 with minimal changes.  WHY?!  Because this has been the plan for YEARS.

NHHIP Segments 1 & 2 Facilitation Group Meeting #2 (houstontx.gov) (credit to texan for supplying link in prior post)

City's vision on page 13: "MOVE FORWARD NOW"

And I don't believe the City has sued anyone over NHHIP, but I can't keep track.  Actually none of us seem to be able to keep track with all of this misinformation.

That is true. Again I love the overall positives of this project but we’ll see what happens at this point with everything at a standstill. 

[mattyt36]

I believe the old maxim is don't look a gift horse in the mouth, so I'll take loving the positives versus not caring at all about them.  PROGRESS!

[Big E]

On 8/16/2021 at 11:31 AM, samagon said:

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.

I mean the actual positives of the project for people who will use the freeway (like trucks no longer running into bridges) are things we can calculate to some degree, regardless of whether people who will be using the freeway the most want the project or not. But in regards to that particular point, it must be pointed out that most of the known opposition to the freeway is coming from inner city interests, not suburban interests, and the general assumption by most people in regards to this highway, even in this very thread, has been that the freeway will mainly benefit three groups: 1) suburbanites and commuters,  2) intrastate/interstate traffic, and 3) crosstown traffic. Nobody's polled any of those people either, even though it seems to be the general consensus that it will benefit them, but those groups are not overwhelmingly or even minorly opposed to this project.

And of course they will maintain the freeway as is, as they've continued to do while they were planning for this project. But that's irrelevant to the discussion. This freeway is old, outdated, and has tangible issues, which people have brought up numerous times in this thread. Not engaging this project means those issues don't get fixed, no matter how much preventative maintenance is done on the road. The Pierce Elevated is not getting any younger, and the North Freeway is still one of the most raggedy freeways in Houston. These issues remain, whether the road is still undergoing maintenance or not.

However, if this project goes pear shaped, the state will take the money allocated to it and spend it somewhere else, more than likely in another more reliably Republican part of the state. The TxDOT is obligated to maintain the freeway. It isn't obligated to fix its issues, do anything else with it, or keep fighting with the city and county to get things done. They will just leave Houston holding the bag. So yes, this is a "you take it or you leave it" project. You take it as is, or the state reallocates the funds. The money will get spent, but it doesn't have to get spent in Houston.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Big E

[samagon]

11 hours ago, Big E said:

I mean the actual positives of the project for people who will use the freeway (like trucks no longer running into bridges) are things we can calculate to some degree, regardless of whether people who will be using the freeway the most want the project or not. But in regards to that particular point point, it must be pointed out that most of the known opposition to the freeway is coming from inner city interests, not suburban interests, and the general assumption by most people in regards to this highway, even in this very thread, has been that the freeway will mainly benefit three groups: 1) suburbanites and commuters,  2) intrastate/interstate traffic, and 3) crosstown traffic. Nobody's polled any of those people either, even though it seems to be the general consensus that it will benefit them, but those groups are not overwhelmingly or even minorly opposed to this project.

And of course they will maintain the freeway as is, as they've continued to do while they were planning for this project. But that's irrelevant to the discussion. This freeway is old, outdated, and has tangible issues, which people have brought up numerous times in this thread. Not engaging this project means those issues don't get fixed, no matter how much preventative maintenance is done on the road. The Pierce Elevated is not getting any younger, and the North Freeway is still one of the most raggedy freeways in Houston. These issues remain, whether the road is still undergoing maintenance or not.

However, if this project goes pear shaped, the state will take the money allocated to it and spend it somewhere else, more than likely in another more reliably Republican part of the state. The TxDOT is obligated to maintain the freeway. It isn't obligated to fix its issues, do anything else with it, or keep fighting with the city and county to get things done. They will just leave Houston holding the bag. So yes, this is a "you take it or you leave it" project. You take it as is, or the state reallocates the funds. The money will get spent, but it doesn't have to get spent in Houston.

for this specific design, yes, I agree, but for overall building an i45 that is updated and better fits the needs of Houston, I don't agree.

[samagon]

just read this article https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2021-08-20/austin-at-large-aint-no-highway-wide-enough/

which also links to this article https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2002-09-20/102944/

both good reads, and aside from locations, and the names of those fighting against TxDOT it reads very similar to what we're doing today.

although it does make me rethink, if we reject this current TxDOT plan, they will not take another crack at redesign for a while.

the problem is still, that's not a good enough reason to accept it.

[j_cuevas713]

On 8/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, samagon said:

just read this article https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2021-08-20/austin-at-large-aint-no-highway-wide-enough/

which also links to this article https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2002-09-20/102944/

both good reads, and aside from locations, and the names of those fighting against TxDOT it reads very similar to what we're doing today.

although it does make me rethink, if we reject this current TxDOT plan, they will not take another crack at redesign for a while.

the problem is still, that's not a good enough reason to accept it.

GOLD

[Big E]

On 8/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, samagon said:

just read this article https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2021-08-20/austin-at-large-aint-no-highway-wide-enough/

which also links to this article https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2002-09-20/102944/

both good reads, and aside from locations, and the names of those fighting against TxDOT it reads very similar to what we're doing today.

although it does make me rethink, if we reject this current TxDOT plan, they will not take another crack at redesign for a while.

the problem is still, that's not a good enough reason to accept it.

Austin is no real model to anyone on anything regarding traffic, highways, or transit, considering how bad its own traffic issues are, directly due to its lack of major north-south and east-west routes, how terrible and broken its own street grid is, its persistent suburban sprawl, and lagging transit. I-35 is a mess and probably does need to be rebuilt, especially the double decked portion. But the one thing this article makes supremely clear is that TxDOT is deafly afraid of even attempting to tunnel a highway, and will always throw that idea out first. Which makes the fact that they aren't planning to cap I-45 and I-69 themselves make all the more sense. Also, calling a freeway "racist and toxic" is just stupid. A freeway, by virtue of being a big slab of concrete, can be neither of those things. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Big E

[kennyc05]

5 minutes ago, Big E said:

Austin is no real model to anyone on anything regarding traffic, highways, or transit, considering how bad its own traffic issues are, directly due to its lack of major north-south and east-west routes, how terrible and broken its own street grid is, its persistent suburban sprawl, and lagging transit. I-35 is a mess and probably does need to be rebuilt, especially the double decked portion. But the one thing this article makes supremely clear is that TxDOT is deafly afraid of even attempting to tunnel a highway, and will always throw that idea out first. Which makes the fact that they aren't planning to cap I-45 and I-69 themselves make all the more sense. Also, calling a freeway "racist and toxic" us just stupid. A freeway, by virtue of being a big slab of concrete, can be neither of those things. 

Like I said in a earlier post they should have went with a tunnel between the beltway and 610.

[Big E]

Just now, kennyc05 said:

Like I said in a earlier post they should have went with a tunnel between the beltway and 610.

I definitely agree with that.

[ADCS]

26 minutes ago, Big E said:

Austin is no real model to anyone on anything regarding traffic, highways, or transit, considering how bad its own traffic issues are, directly due to its lack of major north-south and east-west routes, how terrible and broken its own street grid is, its persistent suburban sprawl, and lagging transit. I-35 is a mess and probably does need to be rebuilt, especially the double decked portion. But the one thing this article makes supremely clear is that TxDOT is deafly afraid of even attempting to tunnel a highway, and will always throw that idea out first. Which makes the fact that they aren't planning to cap I-45 and I-69 themselves make all the more sense. Also, calling a freeway "racist and toxic" us just stupid. A freeway, by virtue of being a big slab of concrete, can be neither of those things. 

I think TxDOT and TTI take a lot of pride in the solutions that have been developed in-state (not to mention, the local engineering companies and construction companies have a lot of pull in the Lege). However, given the lack of mountain highways or submarine tunnels built in the last 80 years, not much research into or experience from building tunnels exists within the state. That's why I think there's the bias toward cut-and-cover methods for depressed highways, rather than underground tubes.

It's not geology either - Houston used to have two functioning tunnels (now just the Washburn), and near Vancouver, they're about to rebuild a tunnel through alluvial silt in the middle of a very seismically active area (needs to withstand up to MM9.0 earthquakes).

[samagon]

11 minutes ago, Big E said:

Austin is no real model to anyone on anything regarding traffic, highways, or transit, considering how bad its own traffic issues are, directly due to its lack of major north-south and east-west routes, how terrible and broken its own street grid is, its persistent suburban sprawl, and lagging transit. I-35 is a mess and probably does need to be rebuilt, especially the double decked portion. But the one thing this article makes supremely clear is that TxDOT is deafly afraid of even attempting to tunnel a highway, and will always throw that idea out first. Which makes the fact that they aren't planning to cap I-45 and I-69 themselves make all the more sense. Also, calling a freeway "racist and toxic" us just stupid. A freeway, by virtue of being a big slab of concrete, can be neither of those things. 

fair points, and I didn't link that article to show anything more than we're not unique in being pushed by TxDOT to fit the wider is better philosophy of road building, which seems to be the only song that these guys can sing.

some here seem to want it to be believed that a small group of Houstonians are unique in believing there is a better way.

the freeway certainly can be toxic, by virtue of the cars that it is designed to convey spewing all sorts of toxins that are known to cause asthma among other things to people within a certain distance of the freeway. even if we get to a future where BEV is the primary single occupant vehicle, we're probably 30, or more years away from that.

through the demographics of the residents of areas around freeways, you can make all sorts of logical conclusions about racism and freeway location. specific to segment3 of NHHIP, they're removing the freeway from the rich white side of downtown and relocating it on the poorer and less white side of downtown. it's hard to not jump straight to the racism, and oppression of the underrepresented as at least part of the reason there.

[samagon]

4 minutes ago, ADCS said:

I think TxDOT and TTI take a lot of pride in the solutions that have been developed in-state (not to mention, the local engineering companies and construction companies have a lot of pull in the Lege). However, given the lack of mountain highways or submarine tunnels built in the last 80 years, not much research into or experience from building tunnels exists within the state. That's why I think there's the bias toward cut-and-cover methods for depressed highways, rather than underground tubes.

It's not geology either - Houston used to have two functioning tunnels (now just the Washburn), and near Vancouver, they're about to rebuild a tunnel through alluvial silt in the middle of a very seismically active area (needs to withstand up to MM9.0 earthquakes).

they've been building tunnels through the Netherlands forever, I'd be shocked to learn that their soil is better for tunnels than ours is.

I appreciate the lack of experience, and I appreciate the wanting to do it internally, but know your strengths and know when to call in experts, it's unconscionable that they wouldn't pull in experts from another source if they need some help. for some reason, it makes my despair at the whole thing even more rueful. they're going to do all this negative stuff to all these people because they've got too much pride to call in for some outside help?

[ADCS]

1 minute ago, samagon said:

it's unconscionable that they wouldn't pull in experts from another source if they need some help

As far as they're concerned (remember, this is engineer-thinking we're talking about), they don't need help - perfectly good in-house solutions already exist to the problem they're trying to solve. Bringing in consultants would be unnecessary expense, and there's no political will to cover that expense.