I-45 North-Hardy expansion - study released, mtgs in Aug

[crossley]

FYI, the Technical Advisory Committee at H-GAC will have a presentation of the preferred alternative for the IH-45 North Hardy Corridor Planning Study, which will then go to the TPC. Approval will come a month later. Next TAC meeting is Wed July 13 at 9:30 am in H-GAC's offices at 3555 Timmons Ln, Houston, 77027.

[Bob]

This I-45 presentation/report by TxDOT and Carter Burgess should be posted on H-GAC's website about a week before the July 13 TAC meeting. I'll watch for it and post a link to it when it becomes available. I've got a call into H-GAC to find out when that should be...

[Bob]

H-GAC staff told me on July 5th that "TxDOT does NOT intend to post the report prior to the meeting." I was told citizens should contact TxDOT directly to request the report.

However, the draft Executive Summary of the North-Hardy Planning Studies "Alternatives Analysis Report (Highway Component)" prepared by Carter Burgess is online now in two places:

H-GAC has a link to a scan of the draft executive summary as a (huge) 14.2 mb PDF in the TAC meeting agenda:
http://h-gac.com/HGAC/Departments/Transportation/Committees/TAC/July+05_TAC+Agenda.htm
(Thank you to H-GAC staff for scanning this report and making it available online!)

GHASP has both the draft executive summary as a much-smaller-and-faster-to-download 692 kb PDF and also the draft full report:
http://www.ghasp.org/publications/northcorridor/NorthCorridorStudy.html
Kudos to John Wilson for making this public information available when TxDOT failed to!

Unlike many of these reports, which are often posted online for review before meetings, this I-45 report was physically mailed to members on CD. A letter sent to TAC members with the CD seems to convey TxDOT's intent for this information:

Please be aware that the complete report is still a Prelimary Draft being transmitted ONLY to TAC members at this time and is not to be reproduced for any other purpose. The CD will also be mailed out to TPC members for their review prior to the July 22nd meeting.

Any questions regarding this study should be directed to Mr. Pat Henry at the TxDOT Houston District at (713) 802-5241.

An average Houstonian, or even an elected official who represents the I-45 corridor, might get the impression you're not supposed to see or weigh in on this study before it gets formally approved and pushed on to the next planning and design step...

I encourage all citizen-stakeholders in the I-45 corridor to review the report prior to the TAC presentation Wednesday at 9:30 am.
And if you want to get involved, contact the I-45 Coalition!

[Bob]

Here's what the executive summary says about the focus on highway options:

"Per the community's wishes, transit alternatives were examined and a Locally Preferred Investment Strategy (LPIS) was selected prior to detailed evaluation of highway alternatives. The transit alternatives are discussed in the North-Hardy Corridor Alternatives Analysis Report dated July 28, 2003. This document focuses on the evaluation of the highway alternatives to meet the residual corridor travel demand."

-- From the "North-Hardy Planning Studies "Alternatives Analysis Report (Highway Component), dated May 2, 2005, p. ES-1

For reference and comparison, the executive summary of the Alternatives Analysis Report (Transit Component), dated Jan 2004, is available on the project website at:
http://north-hardy.org/media/executivesummary0401.pdf (1.8 mb PDF)

The summary report speaks to goals:

Transportation Goals and Objectives
"The overall transportation goal of the North-Hardy Corridor Planning Studies is to improve the transportation system in the Corridor by maximizing mode coice and mobility with environmentally sensitive transit and roadway projects that encourage economic development and revitalization. This overall transportation goal reflects the regional transportation goals for the metropolitan area.

Specific objectives for the North-Hardy Corridor Planning Studies include the following:

• Seek transportation options that will maximize the use of transit in the Corridor
• Seek transportation options that will maximize the use of the Hardy Toll Road by commuter and truck traffic
• Seek transportation options that will improve freeway operating conditions on IH-45 with no or minimal need for additional right-of-way"

-- From the "North-Hardy Planning Studies "Alternatives Analysis Report (Highway Component), dated May 2, 2005, p. ES-4

The goals sound reasonable. The next question is how well, and how creatively, do the proposed alternatives meet the goals?

[Bob]

For quick reference, I created a summary of the current and proposed lane configurations for each section of I-45 north:

Adjacent communities will be very curious...which parts of these alternatives would require additional ROW?

[tmck]

Your question about additional right-of-way requirements is key to the concerns of adjacent neighborhoods. At the very least, H-GAC should include a conceptual diagram of how each alternative might impact them, and include the required ROW width for each alternative. One of my concerns is that the 5-2-5 configuration will become 2-5-2-5-2, plus plenty of shoulders. If so, there goes Woodland Park and a swath of Woodland Heights.

I don't find an analysis of Camacho's dual tunnel alternative. Is that because their minds closed when this study started? Is TxDOT or its consultant even capable of making such an analysis? Do they need another consultant who can?

[Morgan]

FYI for the I-45 Coalition: I believe I heard Mr. Storey report under the agenda item 13. B. that there is to be a study done by the county on ways to improve the arterial utilization for short trips in the area of the I-45 Coalition's concerns. Can anyone in attendance confirm this?

[Bob]

We helped the I-45 Coalition get some great press for neighborhood concerns -- especially ROW -- for TxDOT's expansion of I-45. Neighborhood leaders from Woodland Heights spoke at the Fri July 22, 2005 meeting of the Transportation Policy Council (TPC) and several media outlets covered the story:

• KUHF News: "Opponents say I-45 expansion is a bad idea" (with click-to-listen)
• Houston Chronicle: "Residents demand voice in I-45 expansion plans"
• Houston Chronicle: "Residents say TxDOT ignores them; Groups want to have more input on I-45 expansion plan"
• KTRK-13 News: "Controversy brewing over proposed project on major freeway"
• KHOU-11 News: "Residents pitch underground I-45 expansion option" (with click-to-watch)

KTRH-740am and KPRC-2 also covered the story.

[Bob]

The I-45 Coalition is hosting a Town Hall meeting this Saturday, August 13, 2005 from 2:00 - 3:30pm at Jeff Davis High School, 1101 Quitman, Houston, 77009.

See Tom Manning's story from Tuesday's Houston Chronicle: "Meeting on I-45 plan will be held Saturday"

Jim Weston, president of the I-45 Coalition and a Woodland Heights resident, said Saturday's meeting is designed to present the public with as much information as possible regarding TxDOT's plan.

"TxDOT will be there to present its report, much the same as it did to the H-GAC committee," Weston said. "Then, John Wilson (executive director of the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention and a member of the H-GAC's Technical Advisory Committee) will go over what he thinks are the good and bad aspects of the report."

Following Wilson's presentation, Gonzalo Camacho, a Heights-area engineer, will present his alternative plan for the I-45 corridor, which includes building a tunnel in place of the highway.

The public meeting will end with a question-and-answer session for residents.

"The goal is to get as many questions as we can on the record for both TxDOT and the politicians who will be in attendance," Weston said. "We need to bring to the table specific concerns that have not been addressed."

CTC volunteers are helping the I-45 Coalition with logistics and media outreach. I encourage you to attend, and if you are able to help, please plan to arrive early, around noon.

[Bob]

The I-45 Coalition's Sat Aug 13 town hall meeting was a resounding success! In addition to a full auditorium of ~900 residents, participation from elected officials was outstanding:

• Federal: US Rep Sheila Jackson Lee and US Rep Gene Green
• State: Rep Jessica Farrar, Rep Garnet Coleman, and Sen Mario Gallegos
• City of Houston: CM Adrian Garcia and CM Gordon Quan
• Harris County: Cmr Sylvia Garcia
• Representatives attended from the offices of US Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison, US Rep John Culberson, Cmr El Franco Lee, and CM Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.

Michael Marcotte (CoH Dir of Public Works & Engineering) also attended, at Mayor White's request. (Mayor White was out of town.)

The purpose of the meeting was to gather all of the stakeholders -- citizens, engineers, and elected officials -- around one "table." The format was designed to give everyone access to the same information. The meeting ran two hours sharp and consisted of several presentations:

• Hassan Nikooei (TxDOT) and Janet Kennison (Carter Burgess) presented TxDOT's preferred alternative for I-45 expansion
• John Wilson (TAC member and Exec Dir of GHASP) walked through a critical assessment of TxDOT's study
• James Schriver introduced Gonzalo Camacho's alternative proposal for a tunnel and parkway system along I-45
• Jim Weston led the question and answer section, and
• Jill Whitten wrapped it all up by restating who the I-45 Coalition is and what needs to happen next

US Rep Gene Green said he would "see how we can maximize our interstate funding to make sure we have the funding needed." State Rep Jessica Farrar talked about public fundraising because "we need money for engineers and hydrologists so we can have our own plan." Harris Cty Cmr Sylvia Garcia said whether I-45 has toll lanes "will be a TxDOT decision because this is a TxDOT project." Houston City CM Adrian Garcia said he wants to make sure TxDOT considers alternatives and in particular the tunnel, even if specifics are not yet available, because "we need alternatives that are responsible and sensitive to the community." Houston City CM Gordon Quan said "now is the time to act" and "today is our opportunity to share with TxDOT and Public Works what you have to say." State Rep Garnet Coleman, who represents part of Old Sixth Ward, said he "will do whatever my constituents need me to do to make this work."

Finally, after TxDOT's presentation, US Rep Sheila Jackson Lee announced that "I spoke to Gary Trietsch [TxDOT Houston District Engineer] yesterday and he has committed to me that we will sit down in a steering committee and do some hard work." She asked TxDOT to "take each of the tracks and show how it will impact each neighborhood." She reminded residents that "this is going to be a long haul and one of the problems is that government can wait you out." She went on to observe that "we’re one of the last cities that are building roads in inner city neighborhoods" and said that "this is intertwined with the whole issue of mobility in Houston."

The resounding theme from the elected officials was that the public is engaged early enough to help shape the outcome of this project in a positive way.

One important and perhaps surprising revelation from the Q&A session was the reminder that even the "no build" option for I-45 will be bigger and wider than the current freeway because even without adding lanes, TxDOT will reconstruct the same lanes up to new (wider but safer) standards.

John Wilson laid out the next steps:

• We need more consideration of arterial improvements (the travel demand benefits),
• We need some kind of assessment of the right-of-way impacts and the frontage roads,
• We need realistic cost estimates,
• We need TxDOT to work together with the I-45 Coalition and with our elected officials to address these issues, and
• Finally, when the revised study is ready, we need TxDOT to present it to the public -- with time to read, review, and ask questions -- before they take it to the regional transportation policy council for approval.

These are the highlights. I took 8 pages of notes during the meeting, which are available as a PDF (41kb). Please email me if you would like a copy. In the meantime, my congratulations to members of the I-45 Coalition for hosting a very successful meeting!

[MarciP]

I must confess that I was more than startled to see off ramps taking up parts of Houston Avenue and even more frightening parts of the adjacent neighborhoods.

It made me realize that all that is currently being presented are the traffic lanes, with no mention of the damage that the off ramps can and will do.
It has lead me to say along with the study of lanes we need a study of off ramps.

Marci

[Bob]

Media coverage of Saturday's meeting:

KTRK-13: "Worried residents voice opposition to freeway expansion plan"
Charles Kuffner's blog write-up: "We don't want another Katy Freeway"

I expect to see Spanish-language coverage from KXLN-45 (Univsion) and Rumbo soon.

[Bob]

Spanish-language coverage of Saturday's meeting:

Diarios Rumbo: " Persisten quejas por ampliacion de la 45 N"

[Bear]

It has lead me to say along with the study of lanes we need a study of off ramps.

Nah, TxDOT has that onramp/offramp thing nailed!

[christof]

from the Chronicle:

North Freeway expansion back to drawing board
DOT now looks to Hardy Toll Road for added capacity

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3334000

The Texas Department of Transportation, faced with opposition from residents to a planned expansion of the North Freeway, is rethinking its proposal and looking at the Hardy Toll Road to help provide added capacity.

"It could be half and half. It could be one or the other. We will look at both alternatives," said TxDOT district engineer Gary Trietsch. "That will probably take us at least a year. We'll see where we are a year from now."

The regional Transportation Policy Council, which screens proposals for federal road funding in the metro area, was scheduled to vote Friday on adding three new lanes to the freeway, which is also Interstate 45 North. But that vote was taken off the agenda.

If the public is vocal enough, politicians listen. Let's do our best to make sure the public stays vocal and the politicians keep listening.

[Bob]

"If the public is vocal enough, politicians listen. Let's do our best to make sure the public stays vocal and the politicians keep listening."

I whole-heartedly agree. However, while the I-45 Coalition is clearly making progress, the I-45 expansion issue is not remotely resolved yet.

Rad Sallee and I were sitting next to each other at last Friday's Transportation Policy Council meeting when Gary Trietsch (TxDOT Houston District Engineer) announced they would bring the I-45 MIS report back to the TPC for approval next month. Rad and I don't seem to have interpreted Trietsch's comments the same way.

Further, the I-45 Coalition chief concern is keeping the expansion in the existing right-of-way. To that end, they are pushing for TxDOT's travel demand study to model the potential to reduce demand on I-45 by improving surface arterials. TxDOT does not appear to be dealing with this issue yet. We need to know more about what they're proposing now...

[joemcl]

Wondering if there is any update on the I-45 plan, also, does anyone have anything more on the proposal to move I-45 west to Houston street? Read Christof's fact sheet on the various I-45 ideas but is there more on that?

[christof]

Wondering if there is any update on the I-45 plan, also, does anyone have anything more on the proposal to move I-45 west to Houston street? Read Christof's fact sheet on the various I-45 ideas but is there more on that?

The idea that was floated at one point of running I-45 along the length of Houston Ave. has shown no sign of life since.

I haven't heard anything recently on the I-45 project. Anyone have any more info?

[Ed Browne]

When I was at the 290 Passenger Rail Coalition meeting last month, the TxDOT representative made it clear that they were not going to release preliminary information anymore because they had to defend their designs too much. I suspect that all of the road agencies are taking a similar tact. My experience has only been in trying to get ‘290 documents - anyone having trouble with other roadways?

[kf5nd]

Stay out of our way, you pesky citizens, and just pay your taxes without complaint so we can do our project?

When I was at the 290 Passenger Rail Coalition meeting last month, the TxDOT representative made it clear that they were not going to release preliminary information anymore because they had to defend their designs too much. I suspect that all of the road agencies are taking a similar tact. My experience has only been in trying to get ‘290 documents - anyone having trouble with other roadways?

[margaretWH]

Here's what I know about I-45.

We're in Woodland Heights, the first neighborhood north of I-10 and White Oak Bayou with I-45 running immediately alongside us to the east. As inner-city residential neighborhoods go, ours is about as pristine as you can get--heavily deed restricted to prevent commercial development, lot-protected to keep out wall-to-wall new builds. You can imagine our horror when we learned about plans to widen I-45 from 225 feet across to 247 feet, from 8 lanes to 16, potentially flattening a significant number of homes in the process.

We and surrounding neighbors from Proctor, Lindale, and others, joined as the I-45 Coalition. Our call-to-action with Tx-DOT was fairly simply: no new ROW, address quality-of-life issues, and consider alternative transportation means. The event that "put us on the map" was a public meeting we held last summer with 600 or 800 people attending (guesstimates vary, but it was an enormous turnout), including elected officials or their representatives from every level—local, county, state, and Federal.

Our objective was to get Tx-DOT and others to realize these residential neighborhoods do exist right outside downtown and flattening them makes no sense (thing one). Objective two was/is to get a say-so about these I-45 plans. Tx-DOT's phase I consultant's report had excluded mention of neighborhood opposition to the expansion. We got that corrected and subsequently, Tx-DOT agreed to come to our meetings and let us know what was going on.

Tx-DOT is now in the "scoping" phase--the design phase—with public presentations scheduled for sometime this summer (watch for that announcement!) As a sort of preemptive move, the I-45 Coalition held a "Design Workshop" this month with 50 or 60 residents to get our preferences on paper for Tx-DOT to review before these upcoming public presentations. We want them to consider the idea of tunneling I-45; somehow piecing our neighborhoods back together that were sliced apart when I-45 came through originally; we want mass transit; we want bikers and walkers accommodated; we want something more imaginative than flyovers and sound walls; and we want a lot less pavement, not more.

We'll keep you apprised of these upcoming Tx-DOT summer presentation dates, once we know them ourselves. We're hopeful their agenda includes the written items they'll have from the I-45 Coalition.

[Bob]

I just came across Tom Manning's article about the design workshop and the I-45 Coalition's current efforts from last week's Houston Chronicle:

I-45 group eyeing project
Residents seek input on plan to expand freeway to Woodlands
By TOM MANNING, Houston Chronicle Correspondent
Thu 05/25/2006

With the Texas Department of Transportation expected to hold public meetings this summer on the planned expansion of Interstate 45, one group is taking pre-emptive steps to ensure residents' voices are heard at those meetings.

The I-45 Coalition hosted a design workshop recently to develop ideas for the planned expansion that would minimize the project's negative effects on nearby neighborhoods.

The Heights-based group has been at the forefront of a push to hold TxDOT accountable to residential needs during the planning process for the proposed expansion.

The project involves expanding I-45 along the 30-mile stretch between downtown Houston and The Woodlands.

The coalition is focusing the majority of its efforts on the section of I-45 between Interstate 10 and the 610 Loop.

Plans for that section of the freeway involve the addition of four managed lanes in the center of the highway, which would expand the total number of lanes from eight to 12.

Concerns about the amount of right of way that would need to be taken for the expansion, as well as the health effects of an expanded freeway and other potential impacts on quality of life, are at the forefront of the I-45 Coalition's concerns.

Before TxDOT's plan receives initial approval from the Houston-Galveston Area Council's Transportation Policy Council, TxDOT addressed a number of the concerns presented by the I-45 Coalition and other advocacy groups.

At the May 6 workshop, John Wilson, president of the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention and a member of the I-45 Coalition, told the 60 attendees the coalition must continue to be proactive in dealing with the expansion project.

"Last fall we had a lot of dialogue," Wilson said. "We got answers to questions before regional approval was granted. TxDOT conceded at the very last meeting to answer our questions.

"We got initial assessments of right-of-way impacts, we got an initial analysis for arterial improvements and we got an explanation of cost estimates."

Wilson said that while initial cost estimates for the project were about $15 million per mile, that estimate is now $70 million per mile, which would make the project a $2.1 billion undertaking.

Addressing concerns about the potential taking of right of way, Wilson said the current width of I-45 and its access roads is 225 feet.

TxDOT's preferred configuration for the expanded freeway includes 247 feet.

"The point is they have not met the objective (of staying within existing right of way), but they've come close," he said.

The concept of turning I-45 into a tunnel has gained momentum over the past year. Engineer Gonzalo Camacho, who initially proposed the idea, said TxDOT is taking the concept seriously as an alternative.

He said not only is the tunnel concept the only idea that adds greenspace, but it can also be completed in far less time than the preferred TxDOT plan, which is estimated to take 14 years.

"You put the highway underground and you can get it done in five years," he said.

Wilson said, "As part of the scoping process for the preliminary engineering and design study, (TxDOT has) to look at the tunnel alternative. It looks to me like they're taking this idea seriously, not just paying it lip service."

Jim Weston, president of the I-45 Coalition, said the goal of the design workshop was to not only brainstorm potential ideas for the expansion, but also keep residents aware they need to remain vigilant.

He said the coalition would present the ideas produced at the workshop to TxDOT.

"We're not trying to come to a consensus," he said. "We're just trying to determine what people want."

Some of the ideas floated at the workshop included covering the portion of the freeway that runs underground near North Main, and adding greenspace, as well as eliminating some of the access roads and feeder streets.

"There are downsides to those ideas too," he said.

"If you take away some access or feeder streets, you're potentially limiting access to businesses."

TxDOT is in the schematic planning and environmental study phase of the project, which is expected to take two years. As part of that phase, the department is required to host two "scoping meetings" that will be open to the public. Those meetings have yet to be scheduled but are expected to be held in the late summer.

The environmental study includes analysis of the project's affects on natural resources, air quality, hazardous materials, cultural resources and noise.

"We may look at these things very broadly, but they look at them very narrowly," Wilson said.

"They have to meet federal guidelines and my experience has been that they actually go a little below them, and then groups like this one force them to go up to the actual guidelines."

Wilson said he wants to ensure that the scoping meetings are not the last opportunities residents have to voice their opinions.

"We want any final results to be presented to stakeholders before it goes for regional approval," he said.

"Usually, TxDOT holds a scoping meeting, the public shows up and says `give us some time to think about it,' they take time to make recommendations, and by the time they get around to that, TxDOT says it's too late and the ideas aren't valid.

"We're doing this now to get ourselves organized."

[Oscar]

We noticed a painted White "X" in front of our house in the last 2 weeks. It had 46L painted in one of the corners of the "X". The the 46 had a line painted through it and a 45 painted next to it. Does anyone know if this "X" marks the spot where the freeway will expand to, or if this is a marking point for the engineers to work from? I have noticed these same marks on other streets on the east and west sides of the freeway. We live on the east side of 45 just south of 610. Thanx.

[Bob]

Welcome to the CTC forums!

One of the engineers can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is... the big white Xs are just reference points for mapping designed to be visible from the air. They are used to align aerial or satellite survey images with specific locations on the ground. The Xs are useful when they want to make aerial-view schematic drawings that combine both real structures and planned structures. I do not believe the Xs correspond to any specific current or proposed structure. TxDOT may not be the only group using the big Xs for survey references. Hope this helps!