Lighting Up The Montrose Bridges Over I59

[Houston19514]

49 minutes ago, trymahjong said:

Wait……….didn’t MMR “revive “ itself? Otherwise I’m confused who has been attending Neartown zooms.

 

 

……..or maybe the new MMD wasn’t given the lights to look af?

I don't know.  You've been attending all these meetings...  You tell us.  ;-)   I can find nothing that says the Management District has been reconstituted.  Perhaps you're thinking of the Montrose TIRZ?

FWIW, here's a list of Neartown's Member Organizations (notice no Montrose Management District):

Audubon Place Association

Avondale Association

Castle Court Neighborhood Association

Cherryhurst Civic Association

East Montrose Civic Association

First Montrose Commons Neighborhood Association

Hyde Park Civic Association

Lancaster Place Civic Association

Mandell Place Civic Association

North Montrose Civic Association

Park Civic Association (no website)

Richwood Place Civic Association

Roseland Estates Civic Association (no website)

Vermont Commons Civic Association

WAMM Civic Association

Westmoreland Civic Association

Winlow Place Civic Club

Edited June 17, 2022 by Houston19514

[trymahjong]

Uhm..........Neartown is a Superneighborhood .....#24

Only  the civic clubs within "Montrose" would be on any list. However, other organizations do attend; HPD/PIP, reps from District C, reps from Churches, people running for office etc.It is an easy place (monthly zoom meeting) to get information on what is happening with developments, streets, crime etc.

I do attend most meetings, along with 20-40 other people=> each signing up (if needs be) to give a 2-3 schpel of yadada. It's a long meeting,where remembering just who has spoken gets confusing for me.

So yes, Steve Madden did speak last winter about reviving the MMD. It seemed to me to be  mostly the same staff and people. I guess I was wrong to assume that "reviving" might not have included management  of bridge lights of 59.

 

 

[Houston19514]

Here's some news on the Bridge Lighting --  A report was given at Houston First's Operations Committee meeting in April:

"The bridges were a partnership project between TxDOT, Montrose Management District ("MMD") and Houston Galveston Area Council with a $3.5 Million budget. The lights were initially turned on just before Super Bowl LI in 2017. MMD was responsible for maintaining the bridges [sic], but was dissolved in 2018, resulting in the City of Houston transferring the responsibility of the lighting system on the bridges to Houston First in early 2019. Shortly before taking over the responsibility, deterioration of the lighting system was noticed. It will cost approximately $1.5 million to make the lights operable and $90,000 a year to operate and maintain. The president/CEO emphasized that this project is not within the mission of HFC but the increase costs will need to be considered when planning the budget."

So, at least it's on someone's radar...

[j_cuevas713]

It would be foolish to not have these working before 2026. I know that's a while away but knowing this city, they would literally wait till the week of the World Cup to get them repaired. This is good news though that it's being considered for the yearly budget. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by j_cuevas713

[scarface]

Does anyone have any information on the Arches over 59 lighting. It seems that they have all but let them go and it is beginning to look very tacky tacky at night.  They are starting to have the resemblance of that old neon tavern sign that is half lit and blinking like it is ready to go out.

For a while, Post 2017 and pre-covid, Houston seemed like it had invested in itself on more monuments and appearance. Well, it seems like they have given up now. 

If anyone has any intel on this or if there are plans to improve this, it would be much appreciated.

[hindesky]

Topic has been discussed here.

 

[j_cuevas713]

19 hours ago, scarface said:

Does anyone have any information on the Arches over 59 lighting. It seems that they have all but let them go and it is beginning to look very tacky tacky at night.  They are starting to have the resemblance of that old neon tavern sign that is half lit and blinking like it is ready to go out.

For a while, Post 2017 and pre-covid, Houston seemed like it had invested in itself on more monuments and appearance. Well, it seems like they have given up now. 

If anyone has any intel on this or if there are plans to improve this, it would be much appreciated.

I was told after the freeze that the city would coordinate with the company that did the lighting and that they would have a plan to get them working again. That was last November. 

[Houston19514]

20 hours ago, scarface said:

Does anyone have any information on the Arches over 59 lighting. It seems that they have all but let them go and it is beginning to look very tacky tacky at night.  They are starting to have the resemblance of that old neon tavern sign that is half lit and blinking like it is ready to go out.

For a while, Post 2017 and pre-covid, Houston seemed like it had invested in itself on more monuments and appearance. Well, it seems like they have given up now. 

If anyone has any intel on this or if there are plans to improve this, it would be much appreciated.

Here's some news on the Bridge Lighting --  A report was given at Houston First's Operations Committee meeting in April:

"The bridges were a partnership project between TxDOT, Montrose Management District ("MMD") and Houston Galveston Area Council with a $3.5 Million budget. The lights were initially turned on just before Super Bowl LI in 2017. MMD was responsible for maintaining the bridges [sic], but was dissolved in 2018, resulting in the City of Houston transferring the responsibility of the lighting system on the bridges to Houston First in early 2019. Shortly before taking over the responsibility, deterioration of the lighting system was noticed. It will cost approximately $1.5 million to make the lights operable and $90,000 a year to operate and maintain. The president/CEO emphasized that this project is not within the mission of HFC but the increase costs will need to be considered when planning the budget."

So, at least it's on someone's radar...

[j_cuevas713]

FINALLLLLLYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/arts-culture-news/2023/02/01/442799/broken-montrose-59-69-southwest-freeway-bridge-lights/?fbclid=IwAR2AzBovym69c38gyvoufqjhqPUYoofOCknZCqL5GWgFva98p5dbmUBwgh8

[hbg.50]

55 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

FINALLLLLLYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/arts-culture-news/2023/02/01/442799/broken-montrose-59-69-southwest-freeway-bridge-lights/?fbclid=IwAR2AzBovym69c38gyvoufqjhqPUYoofOCknZCqL5GWgFva98p5dbmUBwgh8

That article ended on an ominous note…they might not do anything with the lights if the freeway is going to be reconstructed as part of the I-45 project.

[j_cuevas713]

Just now, steve1363 said:

That article ended on an ominous note…they might not do anything with the lights if the freeway is going to be reconstructed as part of the I-45 project.

Yeah I saw that. I didn't know the I-45 project involved this section of 59 as well. 

[kennyc05]

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Yeah I saw that. I didn't know the I-45 project involved this section of 59 as well. 

Yeah were 59 goes above ground they're sinking it all the way through downtown.

[hindesky]

That shouldn't affect the bridges though.

[kennyc05]

2 hours ago, hindesky said:

That shouldn't affect the bridges though.

It could depending on how the electrical is tied up.

[rechlin]

I think there might be something with the Montrose bridge affected, but the other bridges should not be affected.

[houstontexasjack]

44 minutes ago, rechlin said:

I think there might be something with the Montrose bridge affected, but the other bridges should not be affected.

As I recall, the Montrose bridge was originally going to be demolished and rebuilt, but the route was tweaked ever-so-slightly to avoid that. 

[trymahjong]

TxDot originally (way before COVID)  planned to raise the bridge higher as the plan also included lowering 527 along with lowering 59 where it crossed Main, Fannin and San Jacinto-- then putting a "cap" over the lowered parts. TxDot made no provision for improvements of the surface caps. 
The Civic associations of Montrose along with those south of 59 formed a coalition( Similar I guess to coalition Ashby)  against  to protest.  Since then TxDot had  wayleighed those plans. Is this a new TxDot plan for Montrose bridge?

[clutchcity94]

1 hour ago, trymahjong said:

TxDot originally (way before COVID)  planned to raise the bridge higher as the plan also included lowering 527 along with lowering 59 where it crossed Main, Fannin and San Jacinto-- then putting a "cap" over the lowered parts. TxDot made no provision for improvements of the surface caps. 
The Civic associations of Montrose along with those south of 59 formed a coalition( Similar I guess to coalition Ashby)  against  to protest.  Since then TxDot had  wayleighed those plans. Is this a new TxDot plan for Montrose bridge?

But wouldn’t lowering that section of 529 and the Spur be in the best interest of residents that live there? In other words, doesn’t sinking it reduce the noise and the eyesore of looking at a freeway?

[Houston19514]

More bad journalism.  The I-45 project doesn’t touch this part of the Southwest Freeway/I-69.

 

Re:  other posts above, FWIW, I don't believe there was ever a plan to lower Spur 527.  The original plan regarding the Montrose bridge was to replace it because it needed to be lengthened, not raised.  They reconfigured things a bit to avoid having to lengthen it.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Houston19514

[kennyc05]

25 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

More bad journalism.  The I-45 project doesn’t touch this part of the Southwest Freeway.

It does the trenching 59 as well.

[Houston19514]

35 minutes ago, kennyc05 said:

It does the trenching 59 as well.

Huh?  The area where they will be trenching I-69/US59 is east and north of Montrose - not in the area where these bridges are located.  The I-45 project/NHHIP (which includes trenching further parts of I-69/US59) does not impact these bridges.

In addition to getting that part completely wrong, the "journalist" missed the relevant part related to NHHIP.  There will be additional  bridges of the same design over the newly-trenched parts of I-69/US59 that presumably will have the same lighting.

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Houston19514

[kennyc05]

35 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Huh?  The area where they will be trenching I-69/US59 is east and north of Montrose - not in the area where these bridges are located.  The I-45 project/NHHIP (which includes trenching further parts of I-69/US59) does not impact these bridges.

In addition to getting that part completely wrong, the "journalist" missed the relevant part related to NHHIP.  There will be additional  bridges of the same design over the newly-trenched parts of I-69/US59 that presumably will have the same lighting.

 

The start of the trenching starts at spur 527 where 59 becomes elevated out of the original trench.

[clutchcity94]

10 minutes ago, kennyc05 said:

The start of the trenching starts at spur 527 where 59 becomes elevated out of the original trench.

So the elevated part of 59 next to the new 6-floor storage unit near the Montrose bridge will be lowered?

[Houston19514]

31 minutes ago, kennyc05 said:

The start of the trenching starts at spur 527 where 59 becomes elevated out of the original trench.

Yeah.  We know. And that is not where these bridges are located.

[Houston19514]

23 minutes ago, clutchcity94 said:

So the elevated part of 59 next to the new 6-floor storage unit near the Montrose bridge will be lowered?

The freeway is still below grade when it passes next to the new 6-story storage building.  But, yes, instead of rising from that point as it goes east, it will continue below grade.

[trymahjong]

6 hours ago, clutchcity94 said:

But wouldn’t lowering that section of 529 and the Spur be in the best interest of residents that live there? In other words, doesn’t sinking it reduce the noise and the eyesore of looking at 

 

As a resident who could can actually hear the traffic noise currently on a clear night- no I don't think TxDot has my best interest at heart- no I have my suspicions that noise will not be reduced ---no the idea of a huge blank cap over the sunken spur will no elevate the beautification of my neighborhood.

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by trymahjong

[Houston19514]

4 minutes ago, trymahjong said:

 

As a resident who could can actually hear the traffic noise currently on a clear night- no I don't think TxDot has my best interest at heart- no I have my suspicions that noise will not be reduced ---no the idea of a huge blank cap over the sunken spur will no elevate the beautification of my neighborhood.

 

Then I guess it's a good thing there are no plans to sink the spur.  😉

Edited February 2, 2023 by Houston19514

[trymahjong]

Oh my

guess my soapbox was squeaking?

 

Maybe it's the let's-all-attend-this-TxDot( or City Council  or Metro)public meeting and let them-hear-from-the-people-in-the neighborhood fatigue. After a while all those meetings over the years sorta jute-up in your memory. Yup, I did take notes but who am I kidding....my handwriting is indecipherable. Everyone wants to stay current on the topic but  aging can make recalling details fuzzy -..

 

[j_cuevas713]

Does the city have enough common sense to turn these lights off during the hosting of the Final Four? 

[Amlaham]

23 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Does the city have enough common sense to turn these lights off during the hosting of the Final Four? 

Of course not 💀 at this point, we're better off creating a gofund me and fixing it ourselves