In September TxDOT held public meetings for its preferred alternative for future improvements to
Interstate 45 North Freeway from Beltway 8 to Loop 336 (south) in Conroe, and in October meetings were held for
SH 225 and the East Loop.
Both studies recommended the addition of 4 elevated lanes (2 each way) to these freeways, with minimal or negligible right-of-way acquisition.
This can be interpreted as a new reality that it is no longer politically feasible to acquire right-of-way for freeway improvements in the Houston area. Of course, right-of-way acquisition for
NHHIP was the main reason for the controversy which resulted in a two-year pause on the project, and then a revised schedule which delays completion to 2042.
Opposition to right-of-way acquisition is a tactic used by anti-highway activists to block freeway improvements. Of course TxDOT can go up with elevated lanes, which is the recommendation for the corridors of these studies. But this introduces complications.
Complications with Elevated Lanes
The first complication is cost. Elevated lanes are very expensive. There are two elevated lanes projects in progress on I-35 in San Antonio. The I-35
NEX Central project,
awarded in March 2021, adds six elevated lanes to a 9.5 mile section in northeast San Antonio. The low bid was $1.515 million, or $159 million per mile. Highway
construction costs have increased around 56% since March 2021, and the estimated inflation-adjusted cost is around $248 million per mile. The NEX South project,
awarded in May 2023, adds six elevated lanes to a 4 mile section for $700 million, or $175 million per mile with an inflation-adjusted value of $186 million per mile. For comparison, complete reconstruction and expansion of the Gulf Freeway between NASA 1 and Galveston currently in progress costs around
$60 million per mile, although it would cost more (up to $90 million per mile) when adjusted for recent inflation.
Using the $186 million value from this year and adjusting for fewer lanes in the Houston recommendation, we can expect elevated lanes to cost at least $125 million per mile and probably around $150 million per mile. When costs are high, it takes longer to get funding, and it's possible that full funding may never become available if construction costs become too high.
The second complication is access to elevated lanes. Access points to elevated lanes are more widely spaced than managed lanes at ground level. For example, the I-45 study recommends access at Beltway 8 and FM 2920, a distance of 10 miles without any entrances or exits (except for a connector to the Kuykendahl Park & Ride near Beltway 8, which would mainly serve transit vehicles). Long elevated structures also make emergency services access more difficult and complicated. In the case of SH 225, many trucks are making pickups and deliveries in the area, so many would not be able to use elevated lanes.
I-45 Study Recommendation
Elevated lanes are shown in the center of the freeway on a single structure. Generally speaking, the existing freeway configuration and footprint would remain unchanged. The elevated structure would replace the existing reversible HOV lane between Beltway 8 and FM 1960, resulting in a net gain of 3 lanes, and appears to replace the two existing "diamond" lanes north of FM 1960, resulting in a net gain of only two lanes (at a very high cost). As I mention in my detailed comments below, I think there is an opportunity to add a new general purpose lane in one direction, since the columns for the elevated structure don't require the full width of the HOV lane and the diamond lanes.
In addition to four elevated lanes, the study recommends other less expensive improvements to frontage roads and intersections. However there is no specific mention of completing the interchange at SH 99 (Grand Parkway), which is probably the most pressing need in the corridor. Realistically, I don't think we'll see any work on the elevated lanes until the adjacent section of NHNIP south of Beltway 8 is fully completed. The sections between Beltway 8 and Loop 610 are scheduled to be completed between 2034 and 2042.
CLICK HERE to view my detailed public comments for I-45
Alternative 2 (At Grade) would be better
I support the addition of managed lanes to Interstate 45. However, alternative 2 (add lanes at grade) would be a better preferred alternative because it
1. Provides better access to the managed lanes for drivers and emergency vehicles
2. Would probably be less expensive
TxDOT should consider a hybrid approach, bringing the managed lanes to ground level where right-of-way acquisitin is feasible. TxDOT should also recognize that the managed lanes will probably not be built before the 2040s, especially considering that NNHIP section 1 is scheduled to be completed in 2042. By the 2040s, the existing pavement may be nearing the end of its service life, so major reconstruction may be required, which would make adding lanes at grade a more feasible option.
Access to managed lanes is insufficient
For the recommended alternative, page 18 in the presentation script shows managed lane access at Beltway 8 and FM 2920. (The park and ride entrance/exit will not be suitable for most drivers.)
The distance between Beltway 8 and FM 2920 is 10 miles, which is an excessively long distance without access. As I suggest above, the managed lanes should be brought to ground level at some point in this section for access.
An additional general purpose lane can and should be added
Between Beltway 8 and FM 1960, the existing HOV is 20 feet wide, and 24 feet including barriers. The depiction on page 17 of the presentation script suggests that the support column is much narrower than 24 feet. This leaves unused space. The support columns for the managed lanes should be offset to one side, leaving sufficient space for the addition of one general-purpose traffic lane on the main lanes. This lane can be added to the northbound or southbound direction, whichever direction would get the most benefit from an additional lane.
The same principle applies north of FM 1960. The two diamond lanes use around 24 feet of width, and the elevated structure columns need only around 10 to 12 feet. The elevated structure should be offset to one side to allow the addition of a general purpose lane in one direction.
Grand Parkway Interchange
There is no mention of the Grand Parkway interchange in the presentation. Completion of the interchange including all missing connection ramps should be a short or medium-term priority. In fact, it should be among the highest priority projects.
Managed Lanes and Major Interchanges
The presentation script page 17 states "Improvements at the interchanges with Beltway 8 North, State Highway 99, Hardy Toll Road, and State Highway 242 would be needed in order to accommodate the proposed elevated managed lanes."
It's not realistic and probably financially prohibitive to rebuild these interchanges. The managed lanes should go over the top of these interchanges so these interchanges can remain intact.
SH 225 and Loop 610 East Recommendation
While the I-45 north corridor is mostly the same in terms of existing design along its full length, the SH 225 and Loop 610 study area has a wide variety of situations, including the ship channel bridge. My main complaint is applying a "one size fits all" recommendation for expensive elevated lanes, when a variety of design approaches could solve problems better and more quickly at a much lower cost. The study presentation shows two elevated structures, one in each direction with two lanes between the main lanes and frontage roads. See my public comments for specific concerns, and my suggestions for less-expensive and more-effective improvements.
CLICK HERE to view my detailed public comments for the SH 225 and East Loop
I support the study recommendation for additional lanes, but I have the following concerns about this presentation.
1. The information presented in incomplete, neglecting many unique features of the study area.
2. The recommendation for elevated lanes appears to be applied for the entire study area, but the needs of the corridor vary widely and a "one size fits all" blanket recommendation for expensive elevated lanes is not going to cost-effectively meet the needs of the study area.
More details about complaint #1, lack of details in presentation
1. There is no mention of the IH 610 ship channel bridge, or how managed lanes would be integrated into the bridge. I realize there will be a separate study for the bridge, but the bridge should have been mentioned.
2. There is no specific mention of the interchange at IH 610 and IH 45, only mention of "improve interchanges" on presentation page 18. This is probably the most pressing need in the study area, especially for northbound IH 45 traffic which is chronically congested.
3. There is no mention of the interchange at IH 610 and SH 225, only mention of "improve interchanges" on presentation page 18. This interchange was designed to accommodate the westward of extension of SH 225, but of course the extension was cancelled. It needs to be rebuilt to meet actual needs.
4. There is no mention of sections which need special design consideration, for example IH 610 between IH 45 and SH 225.
5. There is no mention of bottleneck points which cause congestion. This includes
a. Lack of auxiliary lanes on northbound IH 610 at IH 10. This contributes to congestion on northbound IH 610.
b. The high incline/grade of the existing ship channel bridge, which slows trucks and can cause a snowball congestion effect on other vehicles.
c. Merging and weaving traffic on IH 610 between IH 45 and SH 225.
More details about complaint #2, recommendation for elevated lanes
1. Elevated lanes are very expensive. For example, the four-mile-long I-35 NEX South Project in San Antonio was awarded in May 2023 for $700 million, or $175 million per mile. The I-35 northeast project (awarded before the recent inflation in construction costs) is $1.514 billion for 9.5 miles, or $159 million per mile. I realize the I-35 project has six elevated lanes, but four elevated lanes will also be very expensive. Estimating $120 million per mile of elevated lanes is $1.7 billion for the 14-mile-long SH 225 section, without even considering the cost to bring the existing lanes to modern standards or any improvements to IH 610. High cost means this can't be financed for a very long time (20+ years), or maybe funding will never be available.
2. Are elevated lanes actually needed on all freeways in the study area? For example, are elevated lanes needed on SH 225 between Beltway 8 and SH 146?
3. One reason for the elevated lanes recommendation seems to be to minimize right-of-way acquisition. However, vacant land or low-value commercial property (e.g. parking lots) is prevalent on much of the SH 225 corridor. Why is there a blanket recommendation for elevated lanes when there are long sections where right-of-way can easily be acquired, for example on SH 225 between Pasadena Blvd. and Beltway 8? A hybrid approach is more sensible and less expensive, keeping the new lanes at freeway level when feasible and using expensive elevated structures only when necessary.
4. Eliminating the "Add General Use Lanes" conceptual alternative was a mistake (reference presentation page 16). For most of SH 225, there is existing right-of-way available to easily add one general purpose lane to have 4x4 main lanes. This could be done at a vastly lower cost than elevated lanes and should better meet the needs for much of the corridor, for example between Beltway 8 and SH 146.
5. For IH 610, right-of-way is normally available for some widening (although not enough ROW for four new lanes). Could needs be meet at a far lower cost by adding one general purpose lane in each direction, plus auxiliary lanes where needed?
6. Has any truck origin-destination data been obtained for this study? Due to the large number of industrial facilities and warehouses in the study area, it seems to me that many trucks are making pickups or deliveries. Elevated lanes are not suitable for local truck traffic because these trucks need access to entrances and exits.
7. There is no mention of how elevated lanes in the study area will be transitioned at the freeway endpoints of the study area. For example, as of now there are no plans for new lanes on any connecting freeways, including IH 610 west and north of the study area, IH 45, IH 10 and SH 146. Connections between elevated lanes and Beltway 8 will also be difficult.
Additional comments
A blanket recommendation for super-expensive elevated lanes is not the best way to meet the needs of the study area in a reasonable amount of time at an affordable cost. There is a variety of different conditions and needs in the study area, and recommendations need to be tailored to the needs. Here are some better ways to meet the needs at a lower cost. Improvements should start at the interchange at Loop 610 and IH 45, and then progress eastward and northward.
1. The interchange at Loop 610 and IH 45 should be improved to eliminate bottlenecks, especially for northbound IH 45 traffic.
2. The section of Loop 610 between IH 45 and SH 225 should be expanded to separate traffic flows to minimize weaving and merging. For example, traffic connecting between IH 45 to SH 225 should not intermingle with Loop 610 traffic. This will require dedicated lanes, similar to the design of Loop 610 between IH-10 west (Katy Freeway) and US 290.
3. The interchange at Loop 610 and SH 225 should be redesigned to meet current needs, including the connecting lanes mentioned in item 2 above.
4. The IH 610 bridge should be rebuilt with more lanes and a lower incline to minimize slow truck traffic.
5. Auxiliary lanes should be added to Loop 610 at IH 10 to minimize backups caused by connecting vehicles.
6. SH 225 between Loop 610 and Beltway 8 should get new lanes. The western section, from Loop 610 to Pasadena Blvd., may justify elevated lanes. However, new lanes should be built at the existing freeway level where sufficient right-of-way already exists or can easily be acquired.
7. SH 225 between Beltway 8 and SH 146 needs 8 general purpose lanes, which can be realized at a low cost. Parts of this section already have 8 general purpose lanes.
8. Right-of-way should be acquired when displacements are minimal, or displacements are lower-tier commercial facilities like warehouses. The section of Loop 610 between IH 45 and SH 225 needs more right-of-way to accommodate separated traffic lanes to minimize merging/weaving.
Why not a hybrid approach, with elevated lanes where needed and freeway-level lanes elsewhere?
Much of the SH 225 corridor has vacant land or low-value commercial property along one or both sides. Does it make sense to build expensive elevated lanes when the impact of expanding the freeway width is minimal? I don't think so. That's why I would prefer to see a hybrid alternative which uses elevated lanes only where ground-level widening has a large impact. The freeway corridor should be widened with new right-of-way where the impact is low or minimal. This reduces construction cost, and also provides access to the new lanes where the new lanes are built at freeway level.
