October 24, 2007 Houston Coalition proposes i45 parkway

Related Houston Chronicle blog.

Oct. 24, 2007, 8:17PM
Coalition proposes i45 parkway
Member says plan tackles issues TxDOT not solving
By JENNIFER FRIEDBERG for the Houston Chronicle Bellaire/River Oaks/West U. News

Central Houston residents leading a coalition to improve Interstate 45 traffic flow in the future say their plan to provide tunnels under the freeway is smarter than widening it.

A plan called i45 parkway involves two six-lane commuter tunnels, the redevelopment of surface lanes as a parkway for local traffic similar to Allen Parkway, and a commuter rail line. The coalition claims this alternative would not require additional right of way. It would cost $3.1 billion to build the tunnels and the tunnels could be built in three to five years. The construction of HOV lanes would take closer to 10 years because the work would have to be done around existing traffic flow.

The coalition also says TxDOT's plan would increase the average speed on I-45 by 3 miles per hour, from 32 mph to 35 mph from I-10 to Loop 610 North, and from 27 mph to 30 mph from Loop 610 North to Beltway 8. Alternatively, the coalition claims average tunnel speed could be 55 mph to 65 mph. The tunnels would also minimize environmental impact by removing up to 90 percent of car exhaust with electrostatic filtration. "Houstonians in general are concerned about I-45," said coalition president Jim Weston to members of Houston City Council last week. "I realize this is not a city project, but this is your city and my city, and we need your support to make it happen. "This is a solution that can solve problems that TxDOT is not currently solving."

Mayor Bill White along with other council members told coalition members to keep up the good work. "People who say you can't have an impact are wrong," White said.

Closed doors
Although Weston said TxDOT told the coalition it would consider putting the HOV lanes in a tunnel, the coalition would rather the department consider the larger proposal. Furthermore, it would like some acknowledgment that alternative solutions are being evaluated.

Coalition representative James Schriver said his group is having a hard time getting information from TxDOT. "Our appeals to TxDOT for information have been rebuffed," Schriver said. "A Freedom of Information Act request was referred to the Texas Attorney General. We find this unconscionable."

TxDOT letter
TxDOT sent a letter to Weston dated Sept. 12 and signed by TxDOT Associate General Counsel Sharon Alexander acknowledging Weston's public information request dated Aug. 28. Alexander wrote, TxDOT "filed a request for an opinion with the Office of the Attorney General regarding your request for information."

A letter also signed by Alexander dated Sept. 12 was submitted to Greg Simpson, chief of the Open Records Division of the Office of the Attorney General. Alexander wrote, "Jim Weston has requested documents regarding the expansion and/or construction of I-45 North and I-10/or Hardy, north of I-10. "The excepted information is covered by Section 552.111 of the Governement Code, which excepts internal agency memoranda that constitute pre-decisional advice, recommendations, and opinions reflecting the policymaking process of a governmental body."

Schriver said the coalition needs the help of other governmental officials to break through TxDOT's closed-door attitude. "We would like a resolution of support from city council so we can get the information we need to move forward on this project," Schriver said.

Council members said they could send letters of support, but a resolution might take longer and need to go through committee. "We need to send a friendly but firm message to TxDOT saying we don't want any more Katy Freeways in this city," said At Large Position 1 Council Member Peter Brown. "You cannot build your way out of congestion by pouring more concrete."

Norm Wigington, spokesman for TxDOT, said in an e-mail, "this project is at the very earliest stages of development. Although the I-45 Major Investment Study is complete, there are several steps that need to be taken before a successful scoping meeting can be held. "This is the step where all possibilities, including the tunnel, would become part of the feasibility analysis."

"So, yes, the tunnel option is still part of the earliest design options. There has been no assessment of costs as of yet so no decision can be made on the feasibility of one option over another."