Jump to content

Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.


HeyHatch

Walmart at Yale & I-10: For or Against  

160 members have voted

  1. 1. Q1: Regarding the proposed WalMart at Yale and I-10:

    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      41
    • I live within a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      54
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am FOR this Walmart
      30
    • I live outside a 3 mile radius (as the crow flies) and am AGAINST this Walmart
      26
    • Undecided
      9
  2. 2. Q2: If/when this proposed WalMart is built at Yale & I-10

    • I am FOR this WalMart and will shop at this WalMart
      45
    • I am FOR this WalMart but will not shop at this WalMart
      23
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart but will shop at this WalMart
      7
    • I am AGAINST this WalMart and will not shop at this WalMart
      72
    • Undecided
      13
  3. 3. Q3: WalMart in general

    • I am Pro-Walmart
      16
    • I am Anti-Walmart
      63
    • I don't care either way
      72
    • Undecided
      9

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Should we expect most of the big truck traffic come off of I-10 to Bass/Koehler/Bonner to the back for unloading, as opposed to off of I-10 to Yale through some other street/driveway? I haven't driven around there lately to know if that is going to royally suck for anyone, but honestly I think it isn't that bad of a situation overall. It would be pretty direct access on/off of I-10, and keep the truck traffic off of Yale and other neighborhood streets.

Edited by 20thStDad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you cite any examples of WalMart complying with local interests in such a way? Or will the Heights be the first instance?

If so, lucky us!

link

Several years ago, McDonough was asked to help build a WalMart store in Lawrence, Kan. He declined. His other projects--a high-end men's store in New York City, the Environmental Defense Fund's corporate headquarters, an office building in Warsaw--were for companies who marketed themselves as ecologically aware. He didn't think he could work with a retail giant with a reputation for gobbling up mom-and-pop stores in small towns and driving out competitors. Then he realized that if environmentalists don t win over corporate America, the chasm between them will grow wider, benefiting no one.

So McDonough took on the Wal-Mart project but insisted on doing it his way. His Wal-Mart store was built with wood instead of steel, thus saving thousands of gallons of oil just in the fabrication of the building. His firm used only wood from forests that had been managed sustainably and was constructed with specially engineered beams, which experts estimate saved the equivalent of 87 trees, 120 feet tall and 18 inches in diameter. They also arranged for no CFCs to be used in the store's construction and for the building to be converted into housing when it is no longer used as a retail center.

Walmart has done some pretty interesting things in the past and since this is they're first inner city store it would benefit the community to be aware of what they've experimented with in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His firm used only wood from forests that had been managed sustainably...

This describes all wood sourced from the US and Canada. I applaud McDonough's efforts to promote American enterprise.Funny though... Walmart has their pick of the litter when it comes to contractors. If one contractor balked at their practices, Walmart could have just gone to the next one in line, especially now. It's rice and beans or famine out there in the construction biz right now. Most contractors would bend over backwards to land a Walmart deal. Instead, Walmart continued to use the one who practiced socially and ecologically responsible construction. Why?

I'm not suggesting Walmart is acting as a responsible corporate citizen, but I do find it interesting they chose, as least in this case, to go with a (likely) costlier method of construction over the cheap. Could it be they've grown so large, they can devote some of their revenue to improving the planet? I've found, in my line of work, businesses that have achieved more than just moderate success tend to turn their focus on improving the planet vs growth for the sake of growth. Perhaps Walmart's dominance isn't such a bad thing as they're able to focus less on revenue growth and more on things their competition cannot - like the environment and poverty. Again, I'm not suggesting anything improbable like the Waltons are the next Andrew Carnegie or even the next Bill Gates, but it is something interesting to consider as a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For something that, as far as I know, isn't a done deal, there's been a lot of activity on the lot recently. Looks like they are doing some clearing and leveling of the land. Not what i would consider "breaking ground", though (as compared to what the new Whole Foods site looks like).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal-Mart is also putting a location in at Silber and I-10: http://www.license.state.tx.us/ABDataSearch/SearchResultDetail.asp?1=EABPRJA9815960

If Wal-Mart is also going ahead with the Crosstimbers and I-45 location, then there will be 3 Wal-Marts within a 8 mile radius. Thus, the Yale location is not needed and is of no real benefit to anyone, except Wal-Mart's business strategy to compete with Target. Our neighborhoods are not playgrounds for megacorporations to play games to make their 10-Qs look good to investors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal-Mart is also putting a location in at Silber and I-10: http://www.license.s...=EABPRJA9815960

If Wal-Mart is also going ahead with the Crosstimbers and I-45 location, then there will be 3 Wal-Marts within a 8 mile radius. Thus, the Yale location is not needed and is of no real benefit to anyone, except Wal-Mart's business strategy to compete with Target. Our neighborhoods are not playgrounds for megacorporations to play games to make their 10-Qs look good to investors.

If Walmart determines that it's a good business move to have 3 stores in that area, then it is. You can't say it isn't needed just because you don't want it there. Especially in this great city that brought us 2 Starbucks across the street from each other.

No one can argue that there are tons of people who don't want a Walmart there, but no one on this board has the knowledge or data to back up the statement that it wouldn't do well there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Walmart determines that it's a good business move to have 3 stores in that area, then it is. You can't say it isn't needed just because you don't want it there. Especially in this great city that brought us 2 Starbucks across the street from each other.

No one can argue that there are tons of people who don't want a Walmart there, but no one on this board has the knowledge or data to back up the statement that it wouldn't do well there.

It will do well for Wal-Mart. The store will dillute Target's market share at its Sawyer Heights. Investors will see that Wal-Mart's market share is increasing and Targets is not and will move their money over to Wal-Mart, driving the price of Wal-Mart's stock up and the opposite for Target's. Wal-Mart doesn't need to do well at the Yale location. They just need to take away Target's business.

The only benefit to the residents who have to put up with the traffic, drainage problems, increased cost for additional fire and police, damage to local small business and destruction of the revitalization of the Washington corridor (no one will want to invest in opening new businesses on Washington when the intersection of Heights/Yale and Washington becomes gridlocked with Wal-Mart traffic) will be saving a few minutes in the car.

There is a big difference between what is good business for Wal-Mart and what is good business for the citizens of Houston. Just because Wal-Mart wants something doesn't mean everyone in the City has to roll over and give them every variance and permit they want. If the community doesn't need three Wal-Marts within 8 miles, then the community shouldn't bend over backwards to cut new roads, add traffic lights, clogging important intersections for residents, and so on for a store the community doesn't need.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between what is good business for Wal-Mart and what is good business for the citizens of Houston. Just because Wal-Mart wants something doesn't mean everyone in the City has to roll over and give them every variance and permit they want. If the community doesn't need three Wal-Marts within 8 miles, then the community shouldn't bend over backwards to cut new roads, add traffic lights, clogging important intersections for residents, and so on for a store the community doesn't need.

I couldn't agree with you more. This development will create a huge traffic burden to anyone who lives around here, all so the people can buy toilet paper 10 cents cheaper, and this could never have been possible unless we first paid the tab for the grand walmart avenue exits off of I-10.

I know there is no sympathy for the weirdos who bicycle to work, but this redevelopment will certainly kill the already anemic stretch of the bike lane (pt parking lot) on Heights between I-10 and Washington. I would welcome walmart or anyone else if the end result was a safe bike lane that could get you from the heights to the otherside of buffalo bayou. Instead this will probably kill this stretch of bikeable Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, as a bike rider AND a Heights resident, I can sympathize. In fact, I intend to ride my bike to this Walmart, just as I occasionally do to Target. My question is, however, why would a Walmart on Yale kill a bike lane on Heights? I won't go into the overblown remarks about huge traffic burdens and the rest of s3mh's hyperbole, but it would seem that the Heights bike lane would be untouched by this store. Additionally, I would expect, like Sawyer Heights Target, that the new Walmart would cause the Yale section to be repaved, perhaps drawing some traffic AWAY from Heights Blvd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, as a bike rider AND a Heights resident, I can sympathize. In fact, I intend to ride my bike to this Walmart, just as I occasionally do to Target. My question is, however, why would a Walmart on Yale kill a bike lane on Heights? I won't go into the overblown remarks about huge traffic burdens and the rest of s3mh's hyperbole, but it would seem that the Heights bike lane would be untouched by this store. Additionally, I would expect, like Sawyer Heights Target, that the new Walmart would cause the Yale section to be repaved, perhaps drawing some traffic AWAY from Heights Blvd.

If there are so many Wal-Marts in such a small area, would the result be LESS traffic at each individual location? It's not like people are going to fly down from Wal-Martless places like Chicago to shop in the Heights. Aren't you just taking the existing number of Wal-Mart customers, and spreading them out across more stores?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly hope that the Heights bike lane will be unaffected by the development. This actually presents an interesting issue for me. I hate Wal-Mart. But if the Wal-Mart puts in bike racks, might I actually stop there on my ride home instead of heading over to the Target for the same thing? Yes, I might.

However, if they are dumb enough not to put in any kind of bike parking, Wal-Mart will be officially dead to me.

Seriously, as far as danger on my bike commute, that new Whole Foods on Dallas and Waugh is going to be a bigger issue than traffic exiting from the rear of the Wal-Mart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, as far as danger on my bike commute, that new Whole Foods on Dallas and Waugh is going to be a bigger issue than traffic exiting from the rear of the Wal-Mart.

Completely agree, I am not brave enough to take Heights\Waugh down to Dallas. I quit at Washington and take the pedestrian bridge at Jackson Hill. Even though it is a big inconvenience I've almost died on the Waugh bridge too many times to take it anymore..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is, however, why would a Walmart on Yale kill a bike lane on Heights?

I believe it was the plot on chonicle that showed a road connecting 2nd and Koehler crossing yale and heights with a new set of red lights that made me believe this would bring walmart traffic through Heights Boulevard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are so many Wal-Marts in such a small area, would the result be LESS traffic at each individual location? It's not like people are going to fly down from Wal-Martless places like Chicago to shop in the Heights. Aren't you just taking the existing number of Wal-Mart customers, and spreading them out across more stores?

Basically, yes, along with the additional customers from the surrounding neighborhoods that previously would not drive to other Walmarts, but will shop at the one that is now in their neighborhood. Considering how far Heights and West End residents have to drive to get to a Walmart currently, most of them are probably not current Walmart customers. However, once the distance drops from 10-12 miles to 1-2 miles, many of them (those without philosophical opposition to shopping at Walmart) will become Walmart customers. So, much of the feared traffic will actually be locals. I certainly hope my Heights neighbors are not complaining that I will be driving up and down my own neighborhood streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The store will dillute Target's market share at its Sawyer Heights. Investors will see that Wal-Mart's market share is increasing and Targets is not and will move their money over to Wal-Mart, driving the price of Wal-Mart's stock up and the opposite for Target's.

Good point...we all know how large institutional investors like to jump ship from one company to another based on the relative quartly earnings of a single store. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point...we all know how large institutional investors like to jump ship from one company to another based on the relative quartly earnings of a single store. :)

Do you really think that Wal-Mart is only trying to do this in Houston?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think that Wal-Mart is only trying to do this in Houston?

Isn't that just plain old vanilla capitalism? We see Home Depot opposite and adjacent to Lowe's locations all the time. I don't understand your argument against Wal-Mart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that just plain old vanilla capitalism? We see Home Depot opposite and adjacent to Lowe's locations all the time. I don't understand your argument against Wal-Mart.

It is not against Wal-Mart. It is against the Wal-Mart proposed for Yale st. The addition of a Wal-Mart supercenter will be a tremendous burden on the neighborhood (traffic, fire/police, light pollution, potential loss of businesses and impairment of property values). The proposed site is not on the feeder. Traffic will have to come on to Yale and Heights to get to and from I-10. These roads and intersections are already very stressed. Wal-Mart will push them beyond their limits. And then there are plenty of people in the Heights who oppose Wal-Mart because of Wal-Mart's practices and policies. So, placing a Wal-Mart on Yale will be a substantial burden.

Many on this board have argued that people in the immediate area are elitists and hypocrats who are going to deprive people in the area the opportunity to save money at Wal-Mart (it is for another thread whether Wal-Mart is the value to consumers that it claims to be). But, then it has come to light that two additional Wal-Marts have been proposed within a few miles of the Heights. Thus, no one in the Heights will be deprived of a convenient Wal-Mart. The question then becomes whether the burden on the community is worth the marginal benefit of having a Wal-Mart that is 2-3 miles closer than the other two.

The cluster of Wal-Marts begs the question of Wal-Mart's motivation in having three stores in very close proximity that will cannibalize customers from each other. And why Wal-Mart would want to put a super center in an area that is not surrounded by their typical demographic (people earning $35,000 a year)? The answer to that question is down the street: Target. Wal-Mart had no interest in the area until Target showed up. Target remains as pretty much Wal-Mart's sole competitor. Thus, it seems pretty clear that Wal-Mart wants the Yale location not to serve the residents of River Oaks and the Heights, or outlying areas that will be served by the other proposed locations, but to take market share from a successful Target location. If Wal-Mart wants to do that by taking over an empty lot along an interstate feeder that is already piled high with big box stores, fine. Have at it. But to do that at the foot of the Heights and right in the middle of the resurging Washington corridor is bad for the community. The Washington corridor has come back to life because there are no big box stores. People live in the Heights because it is far away from suburban sprawl and homogeneous big box stores. Our neighborhoods should not be spoiled in order for Wal-Mart to play its corporate power games with Target. Wal-Mart is well suited for I-10 and Silber and 45 and Crosstimbers. Plenty of big box development on those feeders. It is not suited for Yale. People actually like to run/walk/bike from the Heights to the Bayou. We want to be able to go under I-10 without risking our lives. We do not want I-10 and Yale/Heights to turn into I-10/Silber or 45/Crosstimbers. The Yale location is too close to residential neighborhoods and too much of a burden on the Yale/Heights/Washington traffic. And all that just so Wal-Mart can take a shot at Target.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not against Wal-Mart. It is against the Wal-Mart proposed for Yale st. The addition of a Wal-Mart supercenter will be a tremendous burden on the neighborhood (traffic, fire/police, light pollution, potential loss of businesses and impairment of property values). The proposed site is not on the feeder. Traffic will have to come on to Yale and Heights to get to and from I-10. These roads and intersections are already very stressed. Wal-Mart will push them beyond their limits. And then there are plenty of people in the Heights who oppose Wal-Mart because of Wal-Mart's practices and policies. So, placing a Wal-Mart on Yale will be a substantial burden.

Many on this board have argued that people in the immediate area are elitists and hypocrats who are going to deprive people in the area the opportunity to save money at Wal-Mart (it is for another thread whether Wal-Mart is the value to consumers that it claims to be). But, then it has come to light that two additional Wal-Marts have been proposed within a few miles of the Heights. Thus, no one in the Heights will be deprived of a convenient Wal-Mart. The question then becomes whether the burden on the community is worth the marginal benefit of having a Wal-Mart that is 2-3 miles closer than the other two.

The cluster of Wal-Marts begs the question of Wal-Mart's motivation in having three stores in very close proximity that will cannibalize customers from each other. And why Wal-Mart would want to put a super center in an area that is not surrounded by their typical demographic (people earning $35,000 a year)? The answer to that question is down the street: Target. Wal-Mart had no interest in the area until Target showed up. Target remains as pretty much Wal-Mart's sole competitor. Thus, it seems pretty clear that Wal-Mart wants the Yale location not to serve the residents of River Oaks and the Heights, or outlying areas that will be served by the other proposed locations, but to take market share from a successful Target location. If Wal-Mart wants to do that by taking over an empty lot along an interstate feeder that is already piled high with big box stores, fine. Have at it. But to do that at the foot of the Heights and right in the middle of the resurging Washington corridor is bad for the community. The Washington corridor has come back to life because there are no big box stores. People live in the Heights because it is far away from suburban sprawl and homogeneous big box stores. Our neighborhoods should not be spoiled in order for Wal-Mart to play its corporate power games with Target. Wal-Mart is well suited for I-10 and Silber and 45 and Crosstimbers. Plenty of big box development on those feeders. It is not suited for Yale. People actually like to run/walk/bike from the Heights to the Bayou. We want to be able to go under I-10 without risking our lives. We do not want I-10 and Yale/Heights to turn into I-10/Silber or 45/Crosstimbers. The Yale location is too close to residential neighborhoods and too much of a burden on the Yale/Heights/Washington traffic. And all that just so Wal-Mart can take a shot at Target.

How about some proof for these claims? There are links throughout this thread refuting your hysterics, yet you ignore them and repeat the same things again, as if readers will forget that your claims are unsupported and contradicted by facts. Seriously, let's see some proof. All of the statements I've highlighted are unsupported by any facts, studies, numbers, or anything else. I want some proof. I own a house in the Heights. Maybe I'd oppose Walmart too if I had any proof of its 'tremendous burden' on the neighborhood. Your histrionics have not persuaded me. So, show us the beef.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Wal-Mart approached by the owner of the property on Yale between I-10 and Washington to buy the land? What does this mean to the likes of our Heights Mom and Pops? What will that do to the traffic patterns on Yale and Washington?

This link provides feedback straight from the developer.

http://theyarebuildingawalmartonmystreet.blogspot.com/2010/07/big-time-meeting-with-city-councilman.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link provides feedback straight from the developer.

http://theyarebuildi...councilman.html

Well they're saying all the right things so far, but that's pretty easy at this point. I'm curious to see renderings. They at least realize they can't drop the suburban model in here.

I'm not familiar with how this kind of dance typically goes, with the developer answering some questions and pointing at the tenant as responsible for other things. I'm guessing both will be at the public sessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link provides feedback straight from the developer.

http://theyarebuildi...councilman.html

As a homeowner in the Heights, I feel ill after reading that.

I don't necessarily want wider streets. From my reading, it seems that Ainbinder/Walmart doesn't care about drainage issues (no detention ponds?). I don't think traffic on Heights will be impacted too much (too many stoplights to make it a through-street, plus it doesn't connect to 610), but I believe Yale will just be awful, and Washington will be worse too. I think their concern for asthetics is just talk, and the final design will be a standard bigbox Wallyworld.

*sigh* :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't. It is over-hyped, is over-priced, has a more limited selection, and does not operate 24 hours.

Let's be clear on this. If I want to buy a package of white t-shirts, three dozen cans of cat food, and blank CDs in one trip, I have a choice between Wal-Mart and Target; Wal-Mart is less expensive and more straightforward. If I'm shopping fairly late at night, as I'm prone to do, then Wal-Mart is my only choice. And if I need to buy a water meter key at 3:30 AM because a pipe burst, a nearby Wal-Mart is an absolute godsend.

And as for home fashion or work clothes, I'm not going to shop at a big box discounter, no matter how many thin, sexy 17-year-olds they have sporting their wares to energetic pop music. All that gimmickry is just lipstick on a pig. Some people respond to it; that's their problem, not mine.

where is this mythical place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about some proof for these claims? There are links throughout this thread refuting your hysterics, yet you ignore them and repeat the same things again, as if readers will forget that your claims are unsupported and contradicted by facts. Seriously, let's see some proof. All of the statements I've highlighted are unsupported by any facts, studies, numbers, or anything else. I want some proof. I own a house in the Heights. Maybe I'd oppose Walmart too if I had any proof of its 'tremendous burden' on the neighborhood. Your histrionics have not persuaded me. So, show us the beef.

As noted in the link above, the developer hasn't even done a traffic study, and you think I have to have one in order to make plainly obvious points to anyone who lives in the neighborhood and drives the streets? No one has posted links to a traffic study showing the additional lights, turn lanes and traffic will have no adverse impact on the Washington/Heights/Yale area. As it currently is, the intersections at Yale/Heights and Washington can barely move rush hour traffic through.

And it doesn't take a traffic engineer to see how bad the current traffic plan is. There will be two lights at I-10 and Yale for feeder traffic. Then, just .13 miles south of that, there will be new lights for an extended Koehler St. The additional Koehler St. lights will be just a 1/4 mi from the lights for Center St. That means from Yale, just north of I-10, to Washington there will 5 sets of traffic lights within 1/2 mi. Also, the proposed extension of Koehler will have three lights within under .1 mi. High traffic from Wal-Mart could grid-lock across Yale and Heights, which would then build back to feeder road traffic. And that doesn't even take into consideration how people will make left turns from Koehler. When the time is right, those of us who oppose the development will commission our own traffic studies. But, for now, it doesn't take a traffic engineer to be able to look at what is proposed and see that it is completely unreasonble.

As for the location, just look at a map. The proposed Yale location is roughly 4 miles from I-10 and Silber and 4 miles from I-45 and Crosstimbers. Take a compass and draw circles around each location, and you will see the overlap is generally around 2-3 miles out. That means that most people living near the proposed Yale location will still have a Wal-Mart within a few miles.

Unfortunately, if you are going to require definitive proof before you decide whether to support or oppose the Wal-Mart, you will end up finding out first hand what the burden will be when the Wal-Mart is completed. By then, it will be too late. There are numerous success stories of people opposing a new Wal-Mart, but not so much luck trying to get a finished Wal-Mart to get out of town.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, because it was a done deal when I moved here, but did the Heights show this much opposition to the Target development? I suppose it was more a Woodland Heights/Norhill issue, since our neighborhoods are closest.

Seems to me they are very similar in location and aesthetics. And my neighbors were thrilled when that Target opened.

As far as Sawyer Heights, the traffic is pretty contained. Everybody gets off 10, goes shopping, gets back on 10. Not too terrible. It can get backed up during weekends, holidays, but it seems that the parking lot is where most of the traffic gets stuck. I even biked on Watson/Taylor to shop at Target before the completion of the bike path, and traffic wasn't that awful.

I have trouble buying the argument that a big box development will kill the Washington corridor revival. Big Boxes don't tend to stray more than 1/2 mile from the freeway frontage. If anything, I'd argue that Washington Ave businesses might do better, if Joe and Jane Wal-Mart shopper decide to go explore the neighborhood a bit and decide to check out some of the eating establishments, for instance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted in the link above, the developer hasn't even done a traffic study, and you think I have to have one in order to make plainly obvious points to anyone who lives in the neighborhood and drives the streets? No one has posted links to a traffic study showing the additional lights, turn lanes and traffic will have no adverse impact on the Washington/Heights/Yale area. As it currently is, the intersections at Yale/Heights and Washington can barely move rush hour traffic through.

And it doesn't take a traffic engineer to see how bad the current traffic plan is.

I don't think a Wal-Mart is going to bring in huge amounts of car traffic. It isn't like a sports event that ends and floods the local streets. Regarding the current congestion, I don't know about rush hour in the afternoon, but in the morning I go down Yale St. every weekday about 7:30- 8:00 am and there is no problem with any backups. There is a small backup now on Heights Blvd at I-10 because of construction and reduced lanes, but it isn't a big deal.

I agree that new stop lights should be studied by a traffic engineer. It all depends on how they are timed, etc. I'm not worried that a solution will be found that doesn't block our movement in and out of the Heights.

I look forward to the development. I think it will be much better than the existing ugly lots. Would I prefer something else? Yes, maybe a park with a dog section. However, you can't always get what you want... Wal-Mart is certainly an improvement over what's there now, and I am looking forward to riding my bike there to shop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted in the link above, the developer hasn't even done a traffic study, and you think I have to have one in order to make plainly obvious points to anyone who lives in the neighborhood and drives the streets? No one has posted links to a traffic study showing the additional lights, turn lanes and traffic will have no adverse impact on the Washington/Heights/Yale area. As it currently is, the intersections at Yale/Heights and Washington can barely move rush hour traffic through.

And it doesn't take a traffic engineer to see how bad the current traffic plan is. There will be two lights at I-10 and Yale for feeder traffic. Then, just .13 miles south of that, there will be new lights for an extended Koehler St. The additional Koehler St. lights will be just a 1/4 mi from the lights for Center St. That means from Yale, just north of I-10, to Washington there will 5 sets of traffic lights within 1/2 mi. Also, the proposed extension of Koehler will have three lights within under .1 mi. High traffic from Wal-Mart could grid-lock across Yale and Heights, which would then build back to feeder road traffic. And that doesn't even take into consideration how people will make left turns from Koehler. When the time is right, those of us who oppose the development will commission our own traffic studies. But, for now, it doesn't take a traffic engineer to be able to look at what is proposed and see that it is completely unreasonble.

As for the location, just look at a map. The proposed Yale location is roughly 4 miles from I-10 and Silber and 4 miles from I-45 and Crosstimbers. Take a compass and draw circles around each location, and you will see the overlap is generally around 2-3 miles out. That means that most people living near the proposed Yale location will still have a Wal-Mart within a few miles.

Unfortunately, if you are going to require definitive proof before you decide whether to support or oppose the Wal-Mart, you will end up finding out first hand what the burden will be when the Wal-Mart is completed. By then, it will be too late. There are numerous success stories of people opposing a new Wal-Mart, but not so much luck trying to get a finished Wal-Mart to get out of town.

So it's clear, they should build dedicated flyover exits that go straight from I-10 to the loading docks for trucks, and to the parking lots for those of us who will shop there. This way everyone else in the neighborhood doesn't slow us down while they shake their fists and mumble something about their lawn.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...