Ianbian

Hi everyone -- I thought the group might be interested in the mini novela of comments I sent to TxDOT (see attachment). My focus is on maintaining and improving local, inner-city connectivity options between the East End, Downtown, and neighborhoods west of Downtown. I don't feel like we can afford to lose any more of our existing east-west roadway options, because we already have so few of them. I would hate for our local east-west roadway connectivity to start looking like Austin's north-south connectivity! Remember, comments are due by July 27, 2017. Feel free to use any of the figures/arguments I've put together if you agree with them -- no need to reinvent the wheel! IH-45 Comments - FINAL (Sharing).pdf

Nope, not a scam. This is a petition put out by the Greater East End Management District (GEEMD) to support their Livable Centers plan. Congestion won't really be an issue. Navigation traffic is about 7,500 cars per day -- which is almost nothing. By comparison, Montrose has about 35,000. (City of Houston traffic counts are here.) With 7,500 vehicles per day, you could easily do one lane in each direction without any noticeable congestion. The GEEMD wants to reduce the traffic lanes to provide a wider sidewalk, bike lanes, and parking lanes. They will be starting up a major traffic study with H-GAC in the next couple of months to quantify the traffic impacts to justify the roadway changes. However, most of these changes require political will, because they will go against City standards that more-or-less outlaw urban development. Political will can be swayed by a loud group of voters, and that's where this petition comes in. It's just a component of the larger strategy to redefine development in the East End. The GEEMD has a link to this petition on their homepage. Look underneath "New Navigation Boulevard."

Brady house at 3805 Wilmer no longer on HAR. . .also removed from the real estate agent's website. Shucks, I had just about convinced myself to pony up the dough and try my hand at restoring it. Hopefully the buyer has similar aims!

That's easy: someone who wants to live in a cool old house a block or two from a light rail station. That's a pretty rare combination! Add in a dash of having been baptized at and having attended for years Blessed Sacrament church a couple blocks away, and you've got a potentially good fit. Potentially. But that potential candidate would also want to make sure that some of the charm on the outside remains on the inside. . .

Hey Niche, from the pictures on HAR the main house itself looks (perhaps superficially) sound, and the parts that really look shoddy are the wooden extensions that have been built out on the rear and the side. Does that seem about right in your estimation? Did you feel that it might be reasonable to restore at least the main part of the house? (I know you can't really answer that, just asking for your best guess!) I know it's just a naive, overly optimistic pipe dream. . .but damn, is that one cool, unique house.

Man, I'd love to take a peak inside that house, but the owner and real estate agent, Susan Delgado, isn't showing it off. She's selling the house as investment property -- ie, for the land, and as such her target buyers don't have any need to see the house. What a shame! Such a magnificent, historic house targeted for a teardown. I wonder if she'd be willing to do an open house for a number of interested/curious people at once. . .

Tonight at the Eastwood Civic Association monthly meeting, METRO will be giving a presentation on the East End line, presumably focusing on the grade separation, and the East End Chamber of Commerce will be giving a presentation on recent developments on the underpass. The dueling presentations should make for an interesting spectacle -- and hopefully inspire some thoughtful debate. All are invited and encouraged to attend! What: Eastwood Civic Assocation meeting Where: Cape Center, 4501 Leeland (Leeland@Ernestine) When: 6:30 PM I suppose I don't need to add. . .GO UNDERPASS!

One of the main excuses for this thing is to improve traffic commutes on 290 -- even though there are far more cost effective (though not necessarily cheaper) way of doing just that. The worst thing about the Grand Parkway is that it will be taking away county resources from directly tackling the real, existing transportation problems we face. Planning for future growth is all well and fine, but you have to take care of the existing problems first. It's like stock investing -- you never start until you pay down your credit card debt. There are SO many other things that Judge Emmett and the gang should be worrying about before they try to tackle issues related to future growth.

As an example of what we SHOULD be doing instead of projects, like the Grand Parkway, take a look at the suburbs of Vancouver (wish I could provide a copy of the map itself instead of just linking to it -- anyone know how?): http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source...mp;t=h&z=14 Vancouver's suburbs look like suburbs. Nice houses, big yards, cul-de-sacs, the whole 9-yards. But the big difference is the amount of local transportation infrastucture that has been provided. Arterials are very regularly spaced every 1/2-mile. Major, expensive projects like the Grand Parkway are not needed, and traffic works better to boot.

Yes, people will continue to live far out west, and yes, they need improved transportation options, but the Grand Parkway is a terrible way of doing that. Major highways like this need an adequate support network, and those just aren't being built. Traffic on I-10 has traditionally been poor and will be poor once again (if it's not already) not because it lacks capacity, but because the local roads around it lack capacity. Building the Grand Parkway may open up more land (environmentally-sensitive land, at that) to affordable housing, but it's only going to be raising that one shoe further and further up -- and eventually the other one is gonna have to drop. A good friend of mine lives out in Katy, and Clay Road and I-10 are his main/only ways of getting around. His traffic situation is currently atrocious, but the Grand Parkway is just going to dump more vehicles on those already-congested roads. He needs more options, more local roads, so it doesn't take him 10 minutes to get to the grocery store, or 45 minutes to get to his relatively close job at the Beltway. That's only going to happen if we start focusing on building up infrastructure to serve existing residents and not on devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to projects that will only serve to further stress that infrastructure.

From the Harrisburg Merchant's Association: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Houston, February 4, 2009 The East End is about to lose its most important development. The "Paseo de las Americas". Since 2001 several Harrisburg Merchants started working on transforming historic Harrisburg Boulevard into a hot spot for Houston tourists. The inspiration came from seeing the huge appeal of San Antonio's Riverwalk and Mexican villages to tourists. The proposed master plan shows a development of retail, restaurants and museums from the railroad tracks to Macario Garcia Street that includes Gus Wortham Golf Course and Brays Bayou, an area that could be converted into a County Club and a Riverwalk. To date, over 20 million dollars were spent to develop this area which included. Marbella Plaza and Banquet Hall, Web devices, Family Dollar Stores, Turimex Bus Station, Las Palmas Shopping Center, Value Village Complex, Citgo Gas Station, Washateria and Popeye's restaurant and others.. The Paseo de las Americas and approximately 40 stores will be lost if Metro builds an overpass on the railroad tracks at Hughes St. Every civic organization in the East End supports an underpass and not an overpass for this area. Councilmember James Rodriguez recently expressed to a local newspaper that he never heard of this development which was widely broadcasted by the local, national and international press. In 2005, then Chief of Staff James Rodriguez attended two of the group's meetings. This week our organization will start posting banners in our businesses to oppose the construction of an ill-planned bridge that will destroy our proposed development and the character of the East End. Should the overpass be approved, Houston will be deprived of the development opportunities in this area and businesses and families depending on their income will suffer. Harrisburg Merchant Association For additional information Please Contact Architect Julio del Carpio Plaza Marbella 713-926-7265

On Monday, February 2nd, Congressman Gene Green and Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia will be meeting with senior staff at METRO to discuss the grade separation on Harrisburg. Gene Green, at the Eastwood Civic Association's November meeting, promised to secure federal funding for an underpass. If I've managed to convince anyone over the course of my postings on this subject that an underpass makes the most long-term sense for the community, then please call the Congressman and Commissioner and let them know that you think an underpass is best for this location and encourage them to work with METRO to make it happen! Commissioner Sylvia Garcia: 713-755-6220, sylvia.garcia@pct2.hctx.net Congressman Gene Green: 713-330-0761 Thanks!

Note that I specified "separately graded" path. The side paths on the 59 suspension bridges are at the same grade as the main lanes, ie, no grade. Musicman, do you honestly feel that an overpass would be better for the East End?

I thought your argument was that overpasses were more cyclist-friendly than underpasses, and if that's the case, why would an overpass require an alternate route of travel? You're really not arguing for or against an overpass or an underpass; what you're really arguing against is poorly-designed grade separation in general and nothing inherent to either particular type. Correct me if I'm wrong. Furthermore, your examples of poorly-designed underpasses are aeons old, back when the design standards for roads consisted of little more than "build a road." We're hopefully more enlightened nowadays, and I think more recently-designed grade separations would, in fact, suggest that we are.

As a cyclist, I heartily disagree. In fact, considerations for cyclists and pedestrians was my initial impulse for pursuing this project. METRO's bridge is designed with a sidewalk, but it is minimal. Most cyclist will not choose to use it, because pedestrian traffic will probably be significant. And in any case, pedestrians and cyclists will have to go up/down the same slope as all the other vehicles. With an underpass, the sidewalk could be designed at a much shallower grade: At the very least, we could potentially have something like this with an underpass. Having a separately graded path for cyclist/pedestrians is impossible with a bridge. Even when having to use the main lanes, I still prefer underpasses to overpasses. With an underpass, you can build up speed to help you get up the impending incline. But with a bridge, the best you can do is have a fun ride down. . .before you have to stop at the light at the bottom. Go try riding up the Navigation overpass sometime. Or the TC Jester bridge north of I-10. I HATE riding up those damned things -- UNLESS I'm training. But we're not designing this infrastructure primarily for athletes. This is more for the people trying to get to work and school, or maybe a restaurant or park. After trying riding those overpasses, go ride along Allen Parkway with its underpasses. Go ride under the Harrisburg underpass east of Dowling. And then you come back and tell me that 2000 foot long bridges are more accommodating to peds and cyclists than underpasses.