TXDoT responds to issues with I45N redevelopment plan, no Pierce Elevated Park
A while back I posted my thoughts on TXDoT's proposed plan to redevelop I45N
. Oscar Slotboom, author of Houston Freeways
, shared similar concerns and recently met with TXDoT to discuss them. I've included his summary of his key findings below from his HAIF post here
, or you can find a more comprehensive issue-by-issue list and TXDoT response here
. It's important to note that nothing is final at this time, and all of this is subject to change as TXDoT goes through the process, but this is the preliminary feedback he received.
The headliner for most people is that they're intent on selling the land under the Pierce Elevated to fund other right-of-way purchases, so that disappointingly kills the idea of a Pierce Elevated Park
). I'm also disappointed they're declining to connect Midtown and Memorial to the new downtown connector
(or 59, in Midtown's case), which I think is a big mistake (although they are adding one for Allen Parkway, thank goodness). They're also still not considering connecting up the managed lanes through downtown to create a more comprehensive network
- instead they just terminate downtown the same as they always have. The only benefit left I'm really excited about is fixing the inbound 59S bottleneck at Spur 527 and the elevated, and that could be done without doing the whole project.
Overall, I'm personally pretty disappointed with the response and the constraints of the new plan, and am now concerned that in some ways we may end up worse off
than the current configuration (hard to imagine, I know), at least inside the Loop. I45 actually drops from six to four lanes through downtown under the plan - not an improvement. We could end up spending six+ billion dollars and enduring years of very painful and disruptive construction only to end up with very minor benefits - and that's hard to swallow. The downtown boosters will be happy losing the 59 and Pierce elevateds, but I think the majority of Houston drivers will see few or negative benefits inside the Loop. As much of a supporter as I am in freeway investments, I'm now half hoping the funding doesn't come through for this one...
On to Oscar's summary:
On Monday I met with a TxDOT representatives and representatives from HNTB, the consulting firm developing the design for the project. We reviewed my points of concern, and I updated my web page with the status of these issues
Although most of my concerns cannot or will not be addressed to the extent I would like to see, I appreciate that TxDOT took a close look at the issues and I think the ultimate design will be the best it can be within the financial limits, political constraints and traffic model results.
In most cases, issues are still under study and the any adjustments to the design won't be known until the next round of public meetings when the updated schematic is released. But it appears likely that the following items will be in the next iteration
Note that nothing below is final or officially decided for the next version of the plan until TxDOT officially releases it.
See the web link for the status of all issues
- Eastbound Allen Parkway will get loop ramp to the northbound downtown connector, similar to the existing loop ramp
- There will not be connections from Memorial to the downtown connector. Both the City of Houston and TxDOT are against connections. The COH and Downtown Management District are going to provide a recommendation for adjustments to the surface street design around Houston Avenue.
- The George Brown Convention center uses the area under the US 59 elevated as a staging area, and the need to retain a staging area is expected to require changes to the proposed design and will likely preclude widening the trench for additional I-45 lanes.
- The current proposed plan reduces Interstate 45 to two lanes in each direction through downtown. It appears TxDOT will try to add lanes, but due to GRB issue, it is uncertain to me how much relief can actually be provided.
- The proposed design has a built-in bottleneck at I-45 and North Main (Hollywood Cemetery area) due to the right-of-way issue. They are studying ways to get more lanes through, but I'm not optimistic that the choke point can be fixed.
- TxDOT's preference is to sell the Pierce Elevated land and use the revenue to purchase property needed for the project. Before selling on the open market, TxDOT is first obligated to offer the land to the COH, and then to adjacent land owners. It is unclear what price the COH would have to pay if it wanted the land. But I sensed no indication that the COH is interested in the land. If the COH has any money, it would likely go to a deck park over the trench near the GRB (my opinion, not a TxDOT remark). I expect a full deck park to cost in the $200-300 million range (my number, not TxDOT's).
- Poor connections to the I-45 managed lanes in the downtown area are likely to be fixed in the next plan iteration.
- TxDOT agrees that I-45 would perform better with five regular lanes in each direction between Loop 610 and BW8, and this is under study. I'm hopeful we'll get longer sections with five lanes, hopefully the full length from Loop 610 to BW 8.
- TxDOT's goal is to have signature bridges wherever feasible and is looking to work with neighborhoods and districts to realize local preferences. But signature bridges will cost more and funding could be an issue.
Labels: mobility strategies, transportation plan
Firefighter pension solution, disturbing METRORail numbers, #1 Food City in America, and more
A few items this week...
"While the average annual income in Texas is $45,330, only slightly above the national average, MoneyRates.com says "workers in Texas get good value from those wages." That's due to our below-average cost of living and no state income tax."
"Adding all of this early data up, these three new rail lines are attracting only between 10 – 35 percent of their predicted ridership estimates.
All of this for some $2.2 billion in local and federal tax money. If you apply the U.S. FTA formulas for grant consideration to current ridership on these three rail lines (total capital cost $2.2 billion, multiplied by 7 percent ($154 million), then add the annual operating expense of these rail lines at roughly $1 million per direction mile for $25 – 30 million in annual operating costs), it would work out to costing somewhere close to $50 every time a new rider boarded along these new rail lines."
Ugh. If that doesn't make you nauseous as a taxpayer, I'm not sure what will. Let's really hope the bus network redesign implementation and fall semester start at UH and TSU boost the ridership big time...
Finally, this data shows that firefighters have increased as rapidly as fires have *decreased*
, yet we keep finding new jobs for them to do. Maybe a solution for Houston's firefighter pension problem could be to scale back the department to just focus on fires and find more efficient ways to meet the other needs like emergency medical response?...
Labels: economy, emergency response, governance, Metro, mobility strategies, rail, rankings
How Houston can grow gracefully: Snow White and the Nine Dwarves
A lot of people shudder when they see growth projections of the Houston metro area from the current 6.5 million to 9 or even 10 million people over the next couple of decades. If traffic is this bad now, how can we possibly handle it? Is there any way this can be handled gracefully, or at least less painfully? I think it can be if we look at it with the right perspective, and I call that perspective "Snow White and the Nine Dwarves" (yes, even the fairy tales are bigger in Texas - I considered "Asgard and the Nine Realms" of Norse mythology, but I think that's too obscure a reference for most people).
If you look at a lot of modest-sized cities, they can operate effectively on as little as two crossing interstates/freeways. As you can see in this map, Houston's rapidly growing Grand Parkway outer loop is creating many more of these crossings along our radial spoke freeways.
I think each of these crossings will essentially form the center of a new self-contained suburban village or edge city, with the nine "dwarves" being roughly (clockwise from north)
- The Woodlands
- Kingwood/Humble (already growing that way)
- Clear Lake/League City
- Sugar Land
If nine makes your head spin, I think most of the growth will likely center on the Big Two of The Woodlands (drawing from Tomball to Kingwood) and Katy (drawing from Sugar Land to Cypress). Houston remains the center of the big amenities: professional sports, museums, performing arts, bars, live music/nightclubs, signature parks, the zoo, universities, festivals, high-end restaurants and shopping, etc. - thus "Snow White" (no snickering ;-)
I think each of these "villages" could comfortably grow to as much as a million people themselves, which, when added to 2-3 million in Houston, gets us as high as 12 million people in the metro area, almost doubling our current population and handling several decades of growth. Under this scenario, I would see much of the job growth increasing along Beltway 8, with workers with families commuting in from the villages and young inner loop singles commuting out, with both able to keep commutes under the magic half-hour limit (hopefully).
As part of this vision, I think it would be good for Houston to encourage a healthy competition among the villages similar to the many hospitals of the medical center (and, um, how the dwarves competed for Snow White's attention ;-) In both cases, the friendly competition makes the overall entity stronger and healthier. Of course much of that comparative competition would be on quality of life amenities, but I think the most important competition among them would be cooperating with METRO to provide the best express park-and-ride services to the most job centers in the core (downtown, uptown, med center, Greenway, Energy Corridor, Westchase, etc.). That's how this growth happens without traffic armageddon, and it will be a big factor in which village those young inner loopers choose when they decide it's time to have a family and move out to the suburbs. I think The Woodlands has a clear lead in this competition and sets the standard for the other dwarves to aspire to - always good to have a role model to point to (guess that's "Doc" in this case - nickname the other dwarf villages as you wish ;-)
This is somewhat similar to how DFW has grown over the last decades, although almost all of their villages/edge cities went straight north and northwest, which has shifted the metro's center-of-gravity towards the airport and has not been very healthy for the City of Dallas itself. If Houston can encourage somewhat balanced growth among the nine dwarves, it will help the core stay healthy as well, since employers will want to stay there to be able to draw employees from the entire metro (not to mention the young inner loopers) rather than commit to moving out to a single village like Exxon.
That's my vision for how Houston grows gracefully over the coming decades. I'm looking forward to your thoughts in the comments...
Labels: growth, Metro, planning, quality of place
Summing up Houston, realistic transit, better policy platform for cities, very bad rail, and more
Lots of items this week:
- Others will ride it which will clear up the road for me (never happens - transit does not reduce traffic congestion, all of the big transit cities also have big traffic congestion)
- The perfect route to my workplace will be created and it will be faster than my drive now with convenient schedules (rarely happens)
Not arguing against good, cost-effective transit - it is absolutely very important - just saying you have to take support surveys with a grain of salt and make intelligent, pragmatic decisions about road vs. transit investments based on real-world usage.
“For me, Houston is an intimate and kind-hearted city. A city as innovative as New York but with a Southern pace and a Western openness.”
"I ask Glassman a few times in a few different ways, What makes Houston Houston?
There's a "misfit tinkerer" mystique to the place, he finally answers.
"Think of the Astrodome," he says. "The Art Car Parade. Wes Anderson. The Orange Show. The Beer Can House ... "
"We’ve all heard the claim that a rail line can move as many people as an eight- (or sometimes ten-) lane freeway. Not so much. Orlando’s billion-dollar commuter-rail line carries less than 2,000 people to work each weekday morning and home in the evenings. (Amortized over 30 years at 3 percent, it would have cost less to buy every single daily round-trip rider a new Prius every year for the next 30 years.)"
- I generally like to avoid politics on the blog, but found this a compelling argument that the Republicans should adopt an urban policy of openness and affordability (second item). Hear, hear! Would love to see the Democrats adopt it as well!
"As a result of decades of Democratic governance and misplaced priorities…American cities do not offer the opportunities for success and growth that they should, especially for those looking to climb the socio-economic ladder. In many cases, city governments are utterly dysfunctional. And the reason for this dysfunction is that our cities are too often closed—closed to businesses and closed to outsiders. For the middle class and those striving to make it up the ladder, the taxes, housing, and other costs leave cities simply too expensive to afford—especially with a family. Excessive regulation makes it difficult, if not downright impossible, to get the permits necessary to start a business. Cronyism and a lack of transparency make it difficult to know whether anyone is trying to fix the situation."
"Housing regulations have been used by the urban left to restrict new construction, as if city neighborhoods are gated country clubs that should never allow change or new people. The liberal business elite have fortified the business permitting process so much that, in many cities, it is nearly-impossible for competing entrepreneurs to enter basic professions like hair-styling. And to carve out a voting bloc, the left has defended unionized public monopolies that deliver services at far higher cost, and less efficiency, than is necessary.
To the authors, making cities more “open” would mean embracing economic and administrative liberalization. They call for housing deregulation, so that cities can accommodate growing populations; one-stop shops for business permitting; and civil service reform, so that bureaucracies are either held to better standards, or replaced through privatization. They also call for better online data, so that residents can easily view info on their cities’ spending and debt, and gain access to officials."
Finally I want to end with an excerpt from Gov. Perry's National Press Club Speech
highlighted in the Wall Street Journal. Hat tip to Wendell.
"There's a lot of talk in Washington about inequality, income inequality. But there is a lot less talk about the inequality that arises from the high cost of everyday life. In blue state coastal cities you have these strict zoning laws, environmental regulations that have prevented buildings from expanding the housing supply. And that may be great for the venture capitalist who wants to keep a nice view of San Francisco Bay. But it’s not so great for the single mother working two jobs in order to pay rent and still put food on the table for her kids.
It's not just about how many dollars you earn, though there are still pretty substantial opportunities for that in the State of Texas. It's also about how far each dollar that you do earn can take you. After you’ve paid your taxes, you’ve paid your rent, your tuition, your grocery bills. "
Labels: affordability, commuter rail, governance, government transparency, home affordability, identity, land-use regulation, Metro, mobility strategies, opportunity urbanism, politics, rail, transit, zoning
Jurrassic Park Houston, defending Texas exceptionalism, passing Chicago, Market Urbanism, and more
Before getting too a few smaller items this week, I need to debunk this absurd post attempting to debunk Texas growth exceptionalism
. It claims we're not growing because of our policies, but because we simply have the space with greenfield growth opportunities as opposed to the northern cities. But there are plenty of greenfields around the northern cities once you get outside their cores. There's not much growth happening in them for a reason: people and businesses are choosing Texas over those places. It's as simple as that, and that is, quite clearly, Texas exceptionalism.
Moving on to this week's items:
- National NPR Here and Now story on Houston's lack of zoning.
- Cool column about how Miami has staved off gentrification in certain neighborhoods by allowing unlimited building heights in the popular areas, so the wealthy aren't displaced into adjacent neighborhoods. Not quite Houston's no-zoning, but a similar benefit.
- If you're curious when Houston will pass Chicago as the country's third largest city, Kinder has done the analysis: ~2030, assuming current growth trends continue. And we should pass their metro population too soon after that, although I don't see us catching up to DFW, so we'll be fourth in the metro rankings, not third. Chronicle story.
- An amazing list of rankings for Houston. Well worth a skim. Very impressive - will make you proud to be a Houstonian.
- Scott Beyer introduces his Market Urbanism concept in Forbes with a book coming down the road. The concept has many similarities to Opportunity Urbanism: cities needing to let land-use markets work instead of regulatorily distorting them with serious negative consequences. I'm looking forward to sharing more of Scott's posts over time like the Miami one above.
Finally, to end on a little tongue-in-cheek humor, The Atlantic CityLab asks "Where Should We Build Jurassic Park?
" And the winner is... Houston!
The single best place to build Jurassic Park: Houston
Houston is the nation’s most demographically diverse metropolitan area. Its broad base of religious communities and ethnic enclaves, plus its sizable LGBT population, would help to host the millions of visitors who would make the prehistoric pilgrimage every year.
Houston is characterized by its low density—a negative in many respects, but an undeniable plus when it comes to containing the tragic-yet-frequent dinosaur outbreaks. The city’s growth and urban sprawl only indicates the sore need for the kinds of transit and infrastructure upgrades that such a major development could help to facilitate.
The city enjoys a progressive economy that is weathering the downturn in oil prices reasonably well. (Best not to mention oil around the dinosaurs.) According to Area Development, a trade publication that covers, well, area development, Houston ranks second among U.S. metro statistical areas in terms of economic diversity, workforce skills, and other business factors.
Plus, no zoning in Houston means no exclusionary mammal zoning.
Houston is already home to NASA; if past is prologue, then the city’s successes as the host of the nation’s explorations into the final frontier (space) will serve it well when we conquer the next one (time). Put a Jurassic Park next to the Johnson Space Center and call the campus the Space-Time Continuum!
Finally, putting a dinosaur theme park in Houston solves two problems in one. The Astrodome—whose fate is still uncertain—is just begging to be rehabbed as a T-Rex paddock.
Lol. I also love the digs against NIMBYs at the beginning of the article
Labels: growth, land-use regulation, opportunity urbanism, perspectives, rankings, zoning
The Economist tallies the cost of excessive land-use regulation
A couple of months ago, The Economist magazine had a cover story
on "Space and the City: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost
," and I'm finally getting around to writing a complete post about this excellent piece (rather than including it in my usual lists of smaller items). It included both an opening editorial leader
and an in-depth briefing article
, and reiterates several of the long-term themes of both this blog and The Center for Opportunity Urbanism
around the high cost of excessive land-use regulation. Since most of you may not have the time or the subscriber access to read the whole thing, here are what I think are the most key excerpts below. I realize this it is a bit long, but it just goes to show how many good points there are here:
"...land-use regulations in the West End of London inflate the price of office space by about 800%; in Milan and Paris the rules push up prices by around 300%. Most of the enormous value captured by landowners exists because it is well-nigh impossible to build new offices to compete those profits away.
The costs of this misfiring property market are huge, mainly because of their effects on individuals. High housing prices force workers towards cheaper but less productive places. According to one study, employment in the Bay Area around San Francisco would be about five times larger than it is but for tight limits on construction. Tot up these costs in lost earnings and unrealised human potential, and the figures become dizzying. Lifting all the barriers to urban growth in America could raise the country’s GDP by between 6.5% and 13.5%, or by about $1 trillion-2 trillion. It is difficult to think of many other policies that would yield anything like that.
San Francisco could squeeze in twice as many and remain half as dense as Manhattan.
Zoning codes were conceived as a way to balance the social good of a growing, productive city and the private costs that growth sometimes imposes. But land-use rules have evolved into something more pernicious: a mechanism through which landowners are handed both unwarranted windfalls and the means to prevent others from exercising control over their property. Even small steps to restore a healthier balance between private and public good would yield handsome returns.
One estimate suggests that since the 1960s such distortions have reduced America’s GDP by more than 13%.
...in America land accounts for a third of total housing costs, and close to half in some metropolitan areas. A high share of land in housing costs results in the creation of large rents for landowners.
If regulatory limits on building heights and density were relaxed, fewer plots of land would be needed to satisfy a given level of demand. That would reduce the rents collected by landowners, since any uptick in demand could quickly be met by new development. Just as soaring agricultural productivity led to a decline in the relative economic power of rural landowners in the 19th and 20th centuries, the relaxation of strict limits on development would lead to a decline in property wealth relative to the economy as a whole. More of the gains of economic activity would flow to workers and investors.
Instead building regulations keep urban-land productivity low, and the costs are staggering. A 2005 study by Mr Glaeser and Raven Saks, of America’s Federal Reserve, and Joseph Gyourko, of the University of Pennsylvania, attempted to derive the share of property costs attributable to regulatory limits on supply. In 1998 this “shadow tax”, as they call it, was about 20% in Washington, DC, and Boston and about 50% in San Francisco and Manhattan. Matters have almost certainly got worse since then.
Similar work by Paul Cheshire and Christian Hilber, of the London School of Economics, estimated that in the early 2000s this regulatory shadow tax was roughly 300% in Milan and Paris, 450% in the City of London, and 800% in its West End. The lion’s share of the value of commercial real estate in Europe’s most economically important cities is thus attributable to rules that make building difficult.
One may find it hard to sympathise with Mayfair hedge funds facing high rents. But the net effect of these costs is felt more by the poor than by the rich. Take American homeowners. The fact that 60% of households own property might seem to suggest that rising house prices and inflated land values were good for a large swathe of the middle class. Yet Edward Wolff of New York University notes that the middle class enjoyed much less of a boost to wealth because of an accompanying rise in mortgage debt (see chart 3). Meanwhile poorer Americans, who rent their homes, experienced soaring housing prices as a large and sustained increase in their cost of living.
Housing wealth has played a critical role in rising inequality, to which Thomas Piketty, an economist at the Paris School of Economics, drew attention in his bestselling book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”. In a recent paper Matthew Rognlie, a doctoral student at MIT, noted that the rising share of national income flowing to owners of capital, rather than workers, is largely attributable to increased payments to owners of housing. Capital income from housing accounted for just 3% of the total in 1950 but is responsible for about 10% today.
Growth in the rents available to property owners fuels corruption and wastes resources. Landowners work to strengthen development restrictions while politicians cash in on their ability, through selective development approval, to grant fortunate supplicants a windfall. In economies where political corruption is already a problem the renaissance of land may be especially corrosive. In October 2014 the Times of India reported that the bribes required to clear the various stages of the planning-permission process in central Mumbai could add up to as much as half of basic building costs.
...American GDP in 2009 was as much as 13.5% lower than it otherwise could have been. At current levels of output that is a cost of more than $2 trillion a year, or nearly $10,000 per person.
The good news is that the world’s urban-land scarcity is largely an artificial problem.
Those already blessed with property may also object to the other obvious approach to the problem: faster and higher-capacity transport links allowing the benefits to be spread farther afield."
To paraphrase Goode Co., you may want to to thank your lucky stars you live in unzoned, relatively free market Houston, Texas...
Labels: affordability, corruption, density, development, home affordability, land-use regulation, zoning
Houston demonstrates social mobility, attracts millenials, ranks #1 for charity, beats Dallas; fixing transit to Galveston, and more
Lots of items this week:
"Notably, cities where incomes grew at the top overlapped very little with those where incomes grew at the bottom. Of the 11 cities where 20th-percentile incomes increased by a statistically significant margin from 2012 to 2013, just two (Jacksonville and Houston) also posted gains at the 95th percentile."
- Can somebody explain to me why it's news that low-income individuals can't afford median-price apartments? (which, btw, have on average more than one bedroom, so are really designed to accommodate two or more anyway) Why would you ask if bottom of the bell curve incomes can afford middle of the bell curve rents? Wouldn't it make more sense to see if median-income individuals can afford median-price one-bedroom apartments, and assume that low-incomers are going to be renting the half of apartments below the median? It just seems like a strange mismatch of a comparison to me.
- Forget New York and San Francisco; Millennials are flocking to Houston, according to Bloomberg LP - Houston Business Journal
- Houston ranks #1 in national charity rankings. I think Houston's strong philanthropic culture is one of our great unsung strengths.
- Interesting infographic on where people are moving and which cities and metros are the most dense (and increasing). Houston is in there. Hat tip to Matt.
- Growth Concentrated in Most Suburbanized Core Cities. "An analysis of the just-released municipal population trends shows that core city growth is centered in the municipalities that have the largest percentage of their population living in suburban (or exurban) neighborhoods." In other words, cities that let their suburbs grow the most also enable their urban core to grow the most.
- Hooray for this - I love Houston's responsiveness: New fee to speed review process for developers
- An interesting analysis of "transit deserts" in Houston, identifying areas where METRO needs to improve bus service for the people who truly need it outside the loop instead of more light rail in the core.
- Houston ranks #9 on the Brookings list of the hottest 15 metros for advanced industries, ahead of Austin at #11. Not bad, and not bad company on the list (sorry, Dallas ;-)
- METRO doesn't do too badly on this chart of how much each transit agency loses/tax-subsidizes per trip. It's a reasonably efficient system, and one that hopefully will get more so when the bus system redesign rolls out in August. We certainly do *much* better than Dallas DART, which sank way too much money into underutilized rail - glad we didn't make (as much of) that mistake. We made a superior strategic choice to use Park-and-Ride HOV buses for long-distance commuting. Hat tip to Mihir.
Finally, a Chronicle piece on how difficult it is to use transit to get from Houston to Galveston
, which reminded me of my old proposal to move the Clear Lake Park-and-Ride to Space Center Houston
to improve tourist access. It would be pretty awesome if both Metro and Island Transit cut a deal with Space Center Houston to use their underutilized-on-weekdays parking lot for Park-and-Ride service, enabling tourists both from Houston and Galveston (like cruise-shippers) to visit NASA (Houston’s #1 tourist attraction) while also creating a natural Houston-Galveston connection…
Labels: affordability, commuter rail, density, economy, growth, Metro, mobility strategies, NASA, opportunity urbanism, philanthropy, rail, rankings, sprawl, tourism, transit
Speaking at HPRA lunch event on Friday
Just passing this along if any of you would like to attend. Would love to see you there...
Houston as an
Urban model for America
speaker this Friday noon will be Tory Gattis – Senior
Founding Fellow with the new Houston-based think tank Center for Opportunity
the original Opportunity Urbanism study with noted urbanist and Center Director
Joel Kotkin, creating a city philosophy around upward social mobility for all
citizens as an alternative to the trendy concepts of “smart
growth” and "new urbanism", and the less famous creative class
movements, with Houston as its exemplar city.
Houston Property Rights
PUBLIC INVITED: $11.49 plus 10%
gratuity - buffet
self-serve - all you can eat.
Coffee and tea are
The Lam Bo Restaurant (Chinese and
American food), is at
Road, about a
mile west of Chimney Rock on the south side.
(look for us in the back room)
Buffet lunch - 12:00 to 2:00 -
Program starts at 12:30
Please tell your friends and neighbors
about our meetings.