`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-cv-00805
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
`Plaintiff
`
`vs.
`
`TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
`TRANSPORTATION; AND JAMES M.
`BASS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
`AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
`TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
`TRANSPORTATION
`Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`1.
`
`Harris County, Texas (“Harris County” or “the County”) brings this civil action
`
`against the Texas Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”), and James M. Bass, in his official
`
`capacity as its Executive Director, for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the provisions of
`
`the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706, and the National Environmental
`
`Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq. and its implementing regulations, and Section 4(f) of
`
`the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303 (“§ 4(f)”).
`
`2.
`
`This litigation arises from the Defendants’ decisions to expand and widen Interstate
`
`Highway 45 (“I-45”), from south of downtown Houston north to Beltway 8, to remove the Pierce
`
`Elevated section of I-45, and to re-route I-45 to the east and north of downtown, together named
`
`the North Houston Highway Improvement Project (“NHHIP” or “the Project”).
`
`3.
`
`Harris County files this lawsuit to challenge the actions of TxDOT—a state
`
`agency—and its officials in adopting a design and plan that ignored serious harms, disregarded the
`
`concerns of the communities impacted by the Project, and brushed off the numerous comments
`
`they received as part of their flawed EIS process. The Defendants had already made their mind
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 32
`
`about what they were going to do and then simply did it, running roughshod over the procedural
`
`requirements of NEPA, the substantive law of Section 4(f) and the APA’s constraint on arbitrary
`
`and capricious decision-making.
`
`4.
`
`Harris County files this lawsuit because the NHHIP must be more carefully
`
`considered and designed to meet the diverse needs of the region’s future, reflect the changing
`
`circumstances of altered work patterns and new transit initiatives, learn from the regions’ past
`
`experience that wider freeways cause more traffic, not less, and without unnecessarily displacing
`
`hundreds of families and businesses.
`
`5.
`
`Harris County recognizes that transportation projects are essential to the region, but
`
`also maintains that it is time to re-imagine the traditional highway expansion projects in a way that
`
`will benefit everyone by allowing improved mobility for all modes of transportation–including cars,
`
`trucks, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians–addressing current safety concerns such as narrow
`
`shoulders and short merge lanes, while minimizing the right-of-way taken from people to do so.
`
`6.
`
`The NHHIP is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve our region’s mobility,
`
`enhance our region’s image, and advance economic opportunity, while enriching our quality of life
`
`and mitigating the worst impacts on low-income and minority neighborhoods from highway
`
`construction.
`
`7.
`
`By filing this lawsuit, Harris County does not seek to cancel or unduly delay the
`
`NHHIP because the County readily recognizes that the existing I-45 desperately needs improving.
`
`But the NHHIP must be undertaken in accordance with applicable law, including NEPA, § 4(f) and
`
`the APA.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 32
`
`I.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq., and its implementing
`
`regulations, particularly those of the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) found at 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1500 et seq. as well as those of the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), 23 C.F.R. § 770 et.
`
`seq., and under § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303. Judicial review is
`
`sought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706. This Court has
`
`jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question Jurisdiction). This Court
`
`can grant declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgment), 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2202 (injunctive relief), and 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, 701–706, for violations of, inter alia, the APA, NEPA,
`
`and § 4(f).
`
`II.
`
`VENUE
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c)(2) and (e)
`
`because the location of the property where the proposed expansion of I-45 is to take place is located
`
`within this district, Defendants reside in the district maintaining offices at 7600 Washington Ave,
`
`Houston, TX 77007, and Harris County is a governmental entity in this district.
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Harris County, Texas is a body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of
`
`Texas.
`
`11.
`
`The Texas Department of Transportation is a government agency of the State of
`
`Texas and may be served at 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701–2483.
`
`12.
`
`James M. Bass is sued in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas
`
`Department of Transportation and may be served at 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701–
`
`2483.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 32
`
`IV.
`
`STANDING
`
`13.
`
`Harris County has significant interests at stake in this litigation, and as detailed
`
`below, the County has standing to seek redress of the specific concrete injuries it will suffer. The
`
`footprint of the NHHIP is entirely within Harris County. The Project will impact Harris County
`
`residents, businesses, neighborhoods, property owners, and commuters for generations to come.
`
`14.
`
`The County Commissioners (members of the County’s five-person legislative body),
`
`County staff, and retained consultants devoted countless hours and resources to reviewing the Draft
`
`Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement
`
`(“FEIS”), both of which are documents prepared and issued by TxDOT (required by law) to
`
`describe the effects for the NHHIP on the environment. The County submitted comments on the
`
`DEIS and the FEIS. The Record of Decision (“ROD”) issued by TxDOT does not adequately
`
`address the County’s comments.
`
`15.
`
`After TxDOT’s release of the DEIS, Harris County and the City of Houston
`
`conducted a months-long community and stakeholder engagement to seek the public’s input and
`
`ideas for changes to TxDOT’s proposals in the DEIS. This public input resulted in a new vision—
`
`which the County and the City submitted to TxDOT—that proposes an alternative way for TxDOT
`
`to accomplish many of the safety, flood mitigation, and other benefits of the NHHIP while retaining
`
`the freeway’s current footprint as much as possible in Segments 1 and 2 to minimize its impact on
`
`existing homes, businesses, and communities. The new vision also provides for improved local
`
`connectivity and transit access, including implementing a voter-approved and funded plan for easing
`
`traffic congestion, the METRONext Moving Forward Plan.
`
`16.
`
`The alternative selected in the FEIS/ROD issued by TxDOT will have several
`
`adverse impacts on the residents and property of Harris County. For example:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 32
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`It would displace 1,079 residential housing units and 344 businesses, resulting in the
`
`loss of significant tax base and revenues to the County.
`
`It will impede public access to the downtown Harris County Court complex.
`
`Real property owned by Harris County will be taken for additional right-of-way for
`
`the Project including, for example, the Harris County employee parking lot on
`
`Nance Street.
`
`17.
`
`Harris County has specific government interests at stake in this litigation including its
`
`responsibilities over air quality, water quality, flood control, roadways, and emergency management,
`
`among others. For instance, stormwater runoff from the expanded I-45 will increase flows in the
`
`bayous and drainage ditches of Harris County, and will carry increased loads of pollutants, both
`
`during construction, and after the Project is complete. The Project construction period will likely
`
`result in disruption of traffic flows, longer travel times, an increase on local street traffic, and
`
`increased air pollution levels along all segments of the expansion and re-routing.
`
`18.
`
`Harris County Pollution Control Services Department operates to protect the health
`
`and welfare of County residents through programs such as those that monitor and protect air
`
`quality. Harris County is a designated serious nonattainment area for the Environmental Protection
`
`Agency’s (“EPA”) 8-hour ozone 2008 standard, and marginal nonattainment area for the EPA’s 8-
`
`hour ozone 2015 standard. This means that the EPA has found that areas in the County do not meet
`
`the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standards. Ozone forms at ground level when
`
`nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) and volatile organic compounds (“VOC”) combine in the presence of
`
`sunlight. NOx is found in car exhaust and VOC enters the atmosphere from evaporated gasoline
`
`from vehicles.
`
`19.
`
`Through the adoption of a resolution on August 11, 2020, Harris County launched
`
`its Vision Zero Initiative to reach zero traffic deaths or severe injuries by the year 2030, to be
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 32
`
`achieved through the work of Harris County Engineering Department (“HCED”) to integrate safe
`
`mobility in future transportation plans and projects.
`
`20.
`
`Harris County oversees emergency management, and I-45 is a major hurricane
`
`evacuation route for the entire region. The Project construction period will span many hurricane
`
`seasons and may require Harris County to alter its existing evacuation plans.
`
`21.
`
`Harris County coordinates and participates with other local governmental entities to
`
`oversee traffic and transit in the region, including through Houston Transtar and METRO, whose
`
`operations will be impacted by the NHHIP.
`
`22.
`
`Harris County Toll Road Authority operates two toll roads—Beltway 8 and the
`
`Hardy Toll Road—that either directly connect to I-45 or are accessed from I-45 via Loop 610.
`
`These roads may experience altered traffic volumes during and after construction.
`
`23.
`
`Harris County collaborates with the City of Houston and the Houston Parks Board
`
`to construct, maintain and fund portions of the Bayou Greenways network of hike-and-bike trails
`
`and parklands.
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`The Federal Highway Administration and TxDOT conduct initial studies and
`scoping
`
`24.
`
`In
`
`January 2002, TxDOT’s Houston District
`
`initiated a comprehensive
`
`transportation study of the area between I-45 and the Hardy Toll Road starting from Downtown
`
`Houston and continuing approximately 30 miles northbound towards The Woodlands and SH 242
`
`in Montgomery County. The transportation study is referred to as the North-Hardy Planning Study
`
`and resulted in TxDOT publishing two Alternatives Analysis Reports in 2003 (one on the highway
`
`component), and one in 2004 (on the transit component).
`
`25.
`
`TxDOT sent a project initiation letter regarding the start of the NHHIP to the
`
`Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) in October 2006. FHWA became the lead agency for
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 32
`
`the NHHIP for the purpose of environmental review and NEPA compliance, with TxDOT as the
`
`cooperating agency.
`
`26.
`
`In October 2011, FHWA and TxDOT published the Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to
`
`prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“’EIS”) for the NHHIP in the State and Federal
`
`Registers. 76 Fed. Reg. 65775 (Oct. 24, 2011); 36 Tex. Reg. 7043 (Oct. 14, 2011).
`
`27.
`
`In November 2011, FHWA/TxDOT held the first rounds of Cooperating and
`
`Participating Agency Scoping Meetings in which they accepted scoping comments from local
`
`agencies and the public. FHWA/TxDOT held three subsequent rounds of scoping meetings with
`
`local agencies and with the public between October 2012 and April 2015, accepting comments from
`
`these stakeholders.
`
`FHWA Delegates NEPA and Section 4(f) duties to TxDOT
`
`28.
`
`On December 16, 2014, TxDOT took over responsibility for NEPA and Section 4(f)
`
`compliance under a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the FHWA pursuant to 23
`
`U.S.C. § 327(a)(2)(A) and (c). As a result, the same federal environmental and administrative law
`
`standards that would otherwise apply to federal agencies—such as FHWA—in this context apply to
`
`TxDOT. See id. § 327(a)(2)(C) (“A State shall assume responsibility under this section subject to the
`
`same procedural and substantive requirements as would apply if that responsibility were carried out
`
`by the Secretary.”). Under the MOU, TxDOT became the lead agency for the NHHIP
`
`environmental review and TxDOT explicitly waived Eleventh Amendment immunity and consented
`
`to federal court jurisdiction for all the responsibilities undertaken pursuant to the MOU. On
`
`December 9, 2019, FHWA and TxDOT renewed the MOU for another five-year period.
`
`29.
`
`As detailed below, TxDOT has failed to fully comply with the procedural
`
`requirements of NEPA’s environmental review, § 4(f) review, the CEQ’s NEPA regulations, and
`
`FHWA’s environmental review regulations in ways that significantly impaired the ability of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 8 of 32
`
`public to participate and comment during the process. TxDOT has also failed to fully comply with
`
`the substantive requirements of NEPA’s environmental review, § 4(f) review, the CEQ’s NEPA
`
`regulations, and FHWA’s environmental review regulations in violations of the laws and regulations.
`
`TxDOT releases the Draft EIS.
`
`30.
`
`In April 2017, TxDOT made its DEIS available for public review. TxDOT held two
`
`open houses and public hearings in May 2017 to present the DEIS and its (TxDOT’s) proposed
`
`recommended alternative (purportedly based on the information gleaned from the DEIS), and to
`
`accept written and oral comments from the public. That same month TxDOT held a community
`
`meeting. The public comments that TxDOT received about the DEIS were overwhelmingly
`
`negative, consisting of 376 negative comments, 68 neutral comments, and only 25 positive
`
`comments.
`
`31.
`
`Harris County Engineering Department joined the public by submitting detailed
`
`comments to TxDOT regarding the DEIS on July 2017. The HCED comments identified numerous
`
`design, access, connectivity and safety concerns at specific locations. The HCED identified County-
`
`owned properties that would be adversely impacted or occupied by the expanded NHHIP right-of-
`
`way. The comments also submitted examples of indirect impacts to the Harris County Courthouse
`
`and Criminal Justice Complex in north downtown Houston, including reduced access and freeway
`
`connectivity. Additionally, HCED identified deficiencies and omissions in the DEIS schematics that
`
`impaired the County’s ability to fully understand the impacts from the proposed designs. The
`
`HCED commented that an existing hike-bike trail under Interstate Highway 69, which was
`
`constructed by Harris County and maintained by the City of Houston, would be eliminated or
`
`severely impacted. HCED requested that TxDOT replace it with an off-road hike-bike trail of
`
`equivalent access and connectivity.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 9 of 32
`
`The Draft EIS omits entire categories of environmental impacts.
`
`32.
`
`FHWA regulations require that a DEIS be signed by the lead agency and then
`
`released to the public only when it complies with all NEPA requirements. 23 C.F.R. § 771.123(g)
`
`(DEIS must comply with NEPA requirements).
`
`33.
`
`NEPA, and the FHWA and CEQ regulations clearly contemplate that a DEIS is a
`
`single document, which must include any appendices and technical documents at the time of its
`
`release to the public for comments.
`
`34.
`
`In the DEIS, TxDOT failed to include review or adequate discussion of numerous
`
`environmental impacts that a DEIS is required to include. TxDOT instead stated that these
`
`categories of impacts would be discussed in a series of draft technical reports and analyses to be
`
`released at a later date.
`
`35.
`
`Public comments on the DEIS complained that it omitted numerous important
`
`issues, including impacts to Section 4(f) park and historical resources, quantitative noise impacts,
`
`visual impacts, community and environmental justice issues, quantitative air quality analysis, and
`
`drainage and water resource impacts.
`
`36.
`
`TxDOT’s DEIS was incomplete at the time of its release, during the comment
`
`period, and during the public meetings because it did not contain all the information required by
`
`NEPA and FHWA regulations. 40 C.F.R. §1502.9(a); 23 C.F.R. § 771.123(g).
`
`37.
`
`After the close of the DEIS commenting period, TxDOT released 12 individual
`
`technical reports and analyses—listed below—on five separate dates between June 20, 2018 and
`December 19, 2019, with the last one released 32 months after the DEIS was released.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 10 of 32
`
`38.
`
`TxDOT posted these 12 documents to its project website, each with a 30-day
`
`comment period. Predictably, TxDOT received significantly fewer public comments on these 12
`
`documents. TxDOT cannot cure an incomplete DEIS through the later piecemeal release of the 12
`
`
`
`draft documents.
`
`Harris County and the City of Houston solicit their own community and stakeholder
`input on the NHHIP.
`
`39.
`
`On August 13, 2019, the Harris County Commissioners Court unanimously adopted
`
`a resolution setting nine specific benchmarks for all regionally significant transportation projects in
`
`the County and instructing all the branches of the County government to ensure these benchmarks
`
`are realized in the NHHIP.
`
`40.
`
`Beginning in the summer of 2019 and continuing through early 2020, Harris County
`
`and the City of Houston held a number of public workshops and meetings and posted an online
`
`survey. At these workshops, for 37 specific items, participants were encouraged to comment and
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 11 of 32
`
`state their preference between the preferred alternative design proposed by TxDOT in its DEIS, and
`
`a wide range of alternative designs addressing traffic, flooding, property and connectivity issues. The
`
`workshops and online survey resulted in 559 public responses.
`
`41.
`
`For one of the 37 items—managed lane operations—the TxDOT DEIS preferred
`
`alternative received 0% support, while the four alternatives suggested by the City of Houston and
`
`the County received collectively 100% support. For another of the 37 items—ramps in the
`
`Southwest corner of Downtown—the TxDOT DEIS preferred alternative received 28% support.
`
`This was the highest level of public support for any of TxDOT’s DEIS preferred alternatives. The
`
`results of the workshop and survey, as well as recommendations from the City of Houston and
`
`Harris County, were submitted to TxDOT.
`
`Voters approve the METRONext Moving Forward Plan.
`
`42.
`
`On November 5, 2019, Harris County voters in the Metro service area approved the
`
`METRONext Moving Forword Plan (“METRONext”). METRONext is a comprehensive plan to
`
`improve and/or extend METRO’s transit authority system and ease traffic congestion. It contains
`
`the following improvements or expansions:
`
`• The creation of METRORapid, a new Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”). For example, the
`
`BRT incorporates a transit route on I-45 to George Bush Intercontinental Airport and
`
`Greenspoint.
`
`• The improvement of the METRO’s Regional Express Network, which for instance
`
`includes two-way HOV lanes on I-45 North.
`
`• The construction of METRORail Phase 3 and related parking facilities that connect the
`
`Green Line and Purple Line. The combined lines will be extended to William P. Hobby
`
`Airport. Additionally, the Green and Purple Lines will be extended to the City of
`
`Houston Municipal Courthouse.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 12 of 32
`
`• The improvements of the Bus Operations Optimized System Treatments (BOOST), the
`
`Signature Service and other METRO bus services.
`
`• The overall enhancement of the system, involving route improvements, accessibility and
`
`usability improvements, and other improvements reducing barriers to the use by seniors,
`
`the disabled, and others.
`
`• The construction of new facilities, which includes approximately 10 new or improved
`
`transit centers and 11 new or improved park-and-rides and parking facilities related to
`
`the rapid transit service.
`
`43. METRO has received $3.5 billion in bonding authority, which consists of federal
`
`grants and local funds, to move forward with this voter approved plan.
`
`44.
`
`However, since METRONext has been approved TxDOT has failed to fully address
`
`how it will be incorporated into the NHHIP.
`
`TxDOT provided a “Selected Alternative” for the NHHIP in the FEIS and ROD.
`
`45. TxDOT presented the alternative that was selected for the Project in the FEIS and
`
`ROD. The NHHIP selected alternative is divided into 3 different segments. Segment 1 is I-45 from
`
`Beltway 8 North to north of Interstate Highway 610 (“I-610”) (North Loop). Segment 2 is I-45
`
`from north of I-610 (North Loop) to Interstate Highway 10 (“I-10”) [including the interchange with
`
`I-610]. Segment 3 is the Downtown Loop System [I-45, U.S. Highway 59/Interstate Highway 69
`
`(“US 59/I-69”), and I-10]. Each segment is depicted on the following map and described in more
`
`detail below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 13 of 32
`
`
`46. Segment 1 (Green): Segment 1 widens the existing I-45 primarily on the west side of
`
`the roadway, which requires about 200 to 225 feet of new right-of-way (“ROW”). A new ROW on
`
`the east side is also required in part of Segment 1 between Crosstimbers Street and I-610. Thus, the
`
`total new ROW required for Segment 1 is about 246 acres.
`
`47. Further, in Segment 1, the expansion includes 8 to 10 general purpose lanes (2 to 3 in
`
`each direction), 4 MaX lanes (2 in each direction), and 4 to 6 frontage road lanes (2 to 3 in each
`
`direction). However, between Tidwell Road and I-610 there will be 12 general purpose lanes (6 in
`
`each direction) to incorporate ramps and connections to and from I-610. The general-purpose lanes
`
`will be elevated over major cross streets.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 14 of 32
`
`48. Segment 2 (Purple): The ROW required for Segment 2 will be taken from the east and
`
`west sides of I-45. About 44 acres of new ROW will be required for this segment.
`
`49. In Segment 2 the expansion includes 10 general purpose lanes (5 in each direction), 4
`
`MaX lanes (2 in each direction), and 4 to 6 frontage road lanes (2 to 3 in each direction). From north
`
`of Cottage Street to Norma Street, the general purpose and MaX lanes would be depressed.
`
`50. Segment 3 (Orange): Segment 3 would reconstruct all the existing interchanges in the
`
`Downtown Loop System and re-route I-45 to parallel I-10 on the north of Downtown and parallel
`
`US 59/I-69 east of Downtown. Downtown access on the west side would be provided through
`
`“Downtown Connectors” consisting of entrance and exit ramps for various Downtown streets. The
`
`Downtown Connectors would be depressed between W. Dallas Street and Andrews Street. The
`
`existing elevated I-45 roadway along west and south sides of Downtown would be removed.
`
`However, an option to leave I-45 (Pierce Elevated) between Brazos Street and US 59/I-69 in place
`
`is given but TxDOT is not funding any redevelopment or alternate use for such structure.
`
`51.
`
`Portions of I-10 and US 59/I-69 would be re-aligned or straightened, removing the
`
`current curvature. Both I-45 and US 59/I-69 would be depressed in certain portions of the
`
`alignment east of Downtown. I-45 is also re-routed south of the George R. Brown Convention
`
`Center, where the highway begins to elevate tying into the existing I-45. US 59/I-69 would remain
`
`depressed towards Spur 527 and will be widened between I-45 and State Highway (“SH”) 288. This
`
`section would widen US 59/I-69 to 12 general purpose lanes. US 59/I-69 would also be
`
`reconstructed between SH 288 to Spur 527 to 10 general purpose lanes.
`
`52.
`
`The 4 purposed in Segments 1 and 2 would terminate and begin at Milam Street and
`
`Travis Street, respectively. I-10 express lanes are going to be located in the center of the general-
`
`purpose lanes within the proposed parallel alignment of I-10 and I-45 north of Downtown.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 15 of 32
`
`53. Additionally, a new ROW to the east of the existing US 59/I-69 along east
`
`Downtown would be needed to accommodate the re-alignment of I-45. A new southbound access
`
`road would be located adjacent to US 59/I-69 tying into the existing Hamilton Street on the south
`
`side of George R. Brown Convention Center. St. Emanuel Street would then serve as a northbound
`
`access road. About 160 acres would be needed for the new ROW for the I-10 and US 59/I-69
`
`straightening and the construction of I-45 lanes adjacent to US 59/I-69 east of Downtown.
`
`TxDOT releases the FEIS and ROD, which fail to comply with NEPA, Section 4(f)
`and largely ignores the County’s concerns.
`
`54.
`
`On September 25, 2020, TxDOT published a notice that the FEIS had been
`
`completed and was open for a thirty-day comment period. TxDOT extended the deadline for
`
`comments on the FEIS until December 9, 2020.
`
`55.
`
`On December 9, 2020, Harris County provided comments to TxDOT on the FEIS
`
`for the NHHIP in the form of a letter from County Judge Lina Hidalgo (the County’s Chief
`
`Executive) with attachments. The County comments submitted a proposed “new vision” for
`
`Segments 1 and 2 based on the community and stakeholder workshops and survey.
`
`56.
`
`The County also identified inaccurate claims regarding the impacts of the alternatives
`
`identified in the FEIS, including impacts related to congestion, safety, and evacuation routes. The
`
`County comments showed that TxDOT eliminated reasonable alternatives from further analysis;
`
`that the traffic modeling and assumptions were unrealistic and ignored recent declining traffic
`
`numbers; that the FEIS removed discussions of certain adverse environmental impacts claiming
`
`instead that these would be mitigated by unsubstantiated and unfunded measures and downplayed
`
`other disparate impacts; and that the FEIS omitted critical information such as construction impacts,
`
`climate change, actual traffic trends, local street traffic impacts among others.
`
`57.
`
`The County also noted that traffic volumes on I-45 have decreased since 2008. The
`
`FEIS projects that traffic volumes would rise 40% between 2015 and 2040, yet the data from the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 16 of 32
`
`first five years of the projection period show traffic volumes decreasing. The County commented
`
`that a more careful analysis of high-quality data was needed and that the FEIS did not demonstrate
`
`that the anticipated congestion on I-45 is an appropriate justification for this project. The County
`
`noted that research shows highway widening projects improve congestion only temporarily as a
`
`result of induced demand and that faster vehicle speeds do not necessarily improve overall safety,
`
`with some evidence suggesting the opposite.
`
`58.
`
`The County commented that adding more lanes to the widest part of the I-45 will
`
`not help with emergency evacuation, because it will only act as additional storage space for motorists
`
`to queue or slow travel on an access-limited highway and I-45 eventually narrows to two lanes in
`
`each direction creating a bottleneck north of Houston. Relatedly, and without support, the FEIS
`
`claims that the NHHIP will not have significant impacts on local traffic.
`
`59.
`
`The County asserted that TxDOT did not meaningfully consider any options
`
`without significant displacement impacts. During the initial round of screening alternatives, right-of-
`
`way impacts were considered for only the segment between Cavalcade Street and Quitman Street
`
`and all alternatives that did not add lanes were eliminated from further consideration.
`
`60.
`
`Throughout the initial evaluation procedure, only a narrow set of alternatives was
`
`considered. For instance, all alternatives that did not add lanes to I-45 were disregarded without any
`
`additional consideration. As a result, TxDOT did not give meaningful consideration to alternatives
`
`that did not produce significant displacement impacts stemming from the added lanes to the
`
`highway.
`
`61.
`
`The County noted that the FEIS lacks a critical discussion relating to the
`
`disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations and climate change impacts. The
`
`DEIS provided a detailed account of these impacts, but that account was not included in the FEIS.
`
`The FEIS and its alternatives favor white communities while disproportionately impacting
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 17 of 32
`
`communities of color. Regardless of intention, the impacts of the Project would disadvantage low-
`
`income communities and people of color.
`
`62.
`
`The County commented on the extensive impacts the NHHIP will have on METRO
`
`bus service, the Wheeler Transit Center circulation, and Inner Katy park-and-ride routes. The FEIS
`
`mentions general impacts and mitigation regarding METRO transit services, but fails to recognize
`
`the impacts on these specific services and routes.
`
`63.
`
`Further, the County observed that while the FEIS includes several mitigation
`
`measures in response to previous comments, its provides no adequate TxDOT funding source to
`
`implement those measures. The County noted that all mitigation claims in the FEIS must be funded
`
`as part of the NHHIP, and improvements that are not funded should not be claimed as mitigation.
`
`The FEIS fails to address this funding issue.
`
`64. Moreover, the County complained that FEIS does not acknowledge that the Bayou
`
`Greenways hike-bike trails are parkland or recreational facilities under § 4(f) of the Department of
`
`Transportation Act. As a result, no other alternatives, avoidance, or mitigation have been offered
`
`encompassing these parklands or recreational facilities.
`
`65.
`
`The NHHIP is an enormous endeavor and construction is predicted to last decades.
`
`However, the County noted that the FEIS provides no documentation of the impacts that will
`
`inevitably arise out of the decade-long construction. Consequently, TxDOT does not provide for
`
`mitigation of those construction impacts..
`
`66.
`
`Additionally, the County pointed out that the FEIS provided no documentation to
`
`support its claim that the NHHIP will have a positive impact on the region’s economy.
`
`67.
`
`The County also provided comments regarding the Project schematics, the FEIS
`
`language, and certain stated commitments. Specifically, the County raised concerns with the
`
`discrepancies in the FEIS between project schematics, FEIS language, and stated commitments.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00805 Document 1 Filed on 03/11/21 in TXSD Page 18 of 32
`
`68.
`
`TxDOT, FHWA and the U.S. Department of Transportation published a notice of
`
`final action on the NHHIP environmental review in the Federal Register on February 8, 2021. 86
`
`Fed. Reg. 8828 (Feb. 8, 2021). This notice starts the 150-day statute of limitations for judicial review
`
`of the final agency action pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
`
`69.
`
`On March 8, 2021, the Texas Division of the FHWA wrote to TxDOT requesting
`
`that TxDOT pause further contract solicitation efforts for the NHHIP to allow the federal agency
`
`to allow the federal agency “time to evaluate the serious Title VI concerns” raised by complaints it
`
`received from the public and an elected official. FHWA retains Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
`
`1964 (which bars recipients o