samagon

so work seems to have stopped, or is going slower than the Mobile on McKinney/York. 

and there was even more hate towards the i35 experiment than our experiment.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/john-whitmire-mayor-houston/

On 4/6/2024 at 12:59 PM, editor said:

Need the parking lot for the customers.  The parking garage?  It's been my observation that downtown area parking garages are mostly used by suburban teens to drink beer, smoke pot, and make more Texans.

don't forget they're also good for some high speed downhill on whatever wheeled contrivance you prefer.

not that I ever participated in any dangerous events in my youth.

and more Texans are good, so long as they grow up to be contributing members to the social security pyramid scheme.

On 4/6/2024 at 7:36 PM, steve1363 said:

Honestly, the mayor is not wrong.   Even though @004n063 might ride his bike to work.  I'll guess he's the only one at his school. Most of you cyclists likely use the bike lanes for recreation.  There might be a few exceptions on this website.   Let's face it, the bike lanes are empty 90% of the time.  If there were more bike traffic the mayor would not be able to uphold his stance so easily. That's "real-talk" and I know unpopular on this forum.

anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much when people are doing traffic studies. 

however, your anecdotal evidence (and the similar anecdotal mental notes that other people take) is what drives your opinion, no matter how misguided it might be.

all the while, if someone is choosing to commute via their bicycle and there isn't a protected space for them? you have to move over a lane to pass them, or are 'stuck' behind them for 15 seconds, you are probably the first to wish they were somewhere else than inconveniencing you.

and you can't have it both ways, you can't wish cyclists to not commute on the same roads you travel, if you aren't willing to see some of 'your' roads be more appropriately sized for the amount of vehicular traffic they carry, and then safely separated for use of people who choose to commute in a different manner.

at the end of the day, you have an opinion, and that's great, I respect that, even if I don't agree with it. the problem is that when you want a street like 11th to be returned to 2 lanes in each direction, the vehicle traffic it carries does not warrant that amount of space for cars, and that's empirical evidence. it was a smart and careful decision to right size the vehicular lanes, and to use the opportunity to add more space for safe commuting by other forms of vehicles.

empirical evidence may not be public opinion, where anecdotal is, but it is measured and scientific.

I am a skeptical, but I emailed.

this is going to have such an amazing view from the rooftop patio of the back of the GRB. 😍

On 3/30/2024 at 12:31 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

Of course. You have a rail line right in front and plenty of street parking but let's destroy housing for cars. 

on the other side of the spoon, imagine if this wasn't built in a TOD, how much parking they'd need. 

On 4/2/2024 at 12:10 PM, steve1363 said:

That’s a swell idea, but I’m not aware of any museums that do this.  I suppose it is cost prohibitive from a security standpoint.  No doubt museums want their masterpieces where they can be safeguarded.  The Dallas Museum of Art was vandalized recently.  The intruder just busted the glass door and destroyed some works of art!
 

Your idea could work for “starving artist” exhibits?

maybe if it's an extension of the modern art museum? 

is anyone going to vandalize a rope that's been rolled up, painted bright yellow, and called "coiled".

no recipe attached, but an ugly brisket photo is included.

https://www.chron.com/food/article/john-cornyn-beef-brisket-19378918.php

11 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

The point is the Feds told them they can't start construction yet and they're acting as though this drainage project isn't part of the bigger 45 reroute when it is. At the end of the day TxDOT doesn't care. Even the rep they had at the Baker Institute Transit Forum didn't hold back in letting everyone know that TxDOT's only priority is moving people fast. 

my understanding is that the reason is because the expansion project is only permitted to proceed after a mandated air monitoring for an entire year, since TXDoT isn't classifying this as part of the i45 expansion, they didn't do the air monitoring, the people who are protesting state that it is.

TXDoT's priority isn't moving people fast, their priority is making freeways so people can move themselves. if TXDoT were interested in moving people fast, we'd have bullet trains everywhere, and plenty of commuter rail, as well as more localized rail projects that focused on moving the highest volume of people as quickly as possible.

10 hours ago, staresatmaps said:

If you can't handle people parking on the public street in front of your house, you need to move to the suburbs.

there absolutely are people who get all angry about it, weirdly. I mean, it's a public street, they treat it as an extension of their home and they get all passive aggressive, growing shrubs close to the curb so passengers can't open doors, or putting big boulders on the side of their property. 

on a different subject, but the same subject, as @steve1363 describes, there are plenty of people who don't respect the laws when they park. parking the wrong way, parking within 20' of a crosswalk/intersection, blocking a private driveway, not parking close enough to the curb.

and yeah, I get peeved when people don't park correctly on neighborhood streets. especially blocking driveways, or too close to intersections, both of these are huge safety issues. I'll even go as far as narcing on them to park Houston. whether this gets them a ticket or not, I'm unsure, but I like to think it does, and maybe they learn from it?

41 minutes ago, __nevii said:

Meanwhile, the relative "slowness" of the Green and Purple lines ties back to the problems of the minimum mandates that I mentioned prior. Until the reformed TOD guidelines came in 2020, the stations on those areas weren't doing the best of job since the old TOD was opt-in, and not necessarily evenly applied: and all those areas that haven't gotten under Walkable Place and/or TOD exemptions suffer under the onerous parking and setback codes.

I don't know enough about the purple and north red lines, but since I have lived near the location of the green line for nearly 15 years now, I have watched development happen before and after along the corridor.

the development that happened on Lockwood and Harrisburg didn't get funding, or start building until after the LRT was announced and was already under construction even. I don't think that would have happened without the green line, farther in near Milby and Sampson the activity there is I think in part related (if not directly) to the LRT.

and now with the TOD stuff, as you mention? I think this will do even more to strengthen that corridor.

midtown, I had friends that lived there, and at the time, I basically lived there too, so I have seen the density that has happened directly as a result of the red line, the success of the developments around any of those lines isn't due to events or formatting, it's the same as with freeways, induced demand isn't just a concept that works for freeways.

anyway, we're in year 9 of the green line operation, in another 11 years, perhaps the density around it (and the purple line) will be on the same track as the red line. I hope so, and I hope TOD helps push that.

for the purple line, I do know that all of the apartments that have been built with the intention of being for students are all within a single crosswalk of a LRT stop. not that there's a lot of other options near UH for off campus housing.

On 3/28/2024 at 9:58 PM, MaxConcrete said:

The pollution issue is greatly over-exaggerated. Going forward there will be more electric cars (no pollution) and hybrids (much less pollution) in the vehicle fleet. This tollway will have minimal or negligible trucks, which pollute much more than cars.

even if every new car sale in the next 10 years is fully BEV, or even just PHEV, there's still our existing fleet, which will take a while to cycle out of use. so even on a super aggressive timescale, we're looking at at least 20 years. considering the uptake of BEV has slowed recently, 10 years is super duper stupid aggressive assumption, we're probably looking at 20 years, or more before you can't go into a dealer and buy an ICE vehicle, which means 30 years before vehicle emissions is negligible. 

it's a worthless discussion to talk about what may be. what is, now that's a different thing. where emissions related pollution on the hardy is already miles better than either 45, or 59 is congestion. at all times of the day, every day, 45 is slow, and 59 isn't much better. from downtown to BW8 you can go between 30 and 45mph and call it a good day. on hardy, there are other vehicles, but you can set your cruise at 70, and just steer all the way from start to finish. that's where the negligible pollution comes from.

but at the end of the day, adding a tollway will add vehicle miles, once they make the downtown connection, it may end up being as heavily used as the westpark tollway, and that will increase pollution significantly. even if there isn't a huge influx of traffic, the pollution will increase. and that's the point, and the problem.

On 3/28/2024 at 9:58 PM, MaxConcrete said:

I recently lived alongside the Sam Houston Tollway for several years near an overpass and my opinion is that pollution from a freeway is a non-issue. Noise was also a non-issue except during usual wind conditions, although the tollway has a low-noise asphalt overlay in that area (Jersey Village).

yeah, your place in JV probably had double paned windows, and plenty of insulation. I am about 1000ft from the gulf freeway in a home that was built at about the same time as the homes along the hardy corridor, but with updates to insulation, and stuff that they probably don't have. I hear the freeway well enough.

On 3/28/2024 at 8:09 PM, Ross said:

We live inside the loop.. We have a 1/4 acre lot and live within a few blocks of Kroger. We still use the car to shop for groceries.  Anything to do with the yard is going to require a car. I've known a few people who tried to live without a car in Houston. One managed pretty well, but he was a coworker who was literally a rocket scientist, but was absent minded. He never learned to drive. All the other gave up after a month or so. The other issue is getting to and from work. Unless your office is downtown, public transport is tough. When we lived in Midtown, I had to take the bus to Bellaire for work for 6 weeks after TS Allison flooded my car. 6 block walk to the bus and it dropped off across the street from my office. It turned a 10 to 15 minute commute into 45 minutes or longer. Why would I not use a car for that?

that is exceedingly rare though. the overwhelming majority of single family, detached homes in Houston (even within BW8) are on 5000sf lots for the specific reason that at one point in time, that was the minimum lot size. if the city had allowed for 2500sf lots, then that would be the primary size.

when I lived in one of these common sized homes (1250sf home built in the 1930s, on a 5000sf lot) I could cut my yard with one of those EGO mowers and the smallest battery. but then, it was also just me living there, I could ride my bike to Fiesta, grab what I needed for a few days, it would all fit in a single pannier on the back of the bike.

now with 2 kids, a wife, and 8500sf lot (and bigger house that comes with that bigger lot), it's impossible to go grocery shopping on the bike. but then, the trade off is that my office is remote, so I am steps away from my office desk, vs driving/biking from the near east end into downtown depending on weather.

Houston is car centric, there's not really any way to get around it.

On 3/28/2024 at 5:16 PM, __nevii said:

As mentioned before, there are negative externalities in car-dependent policies like parking minimums, large setbacks and lot sizes, etc that don't exist in the other (more denser) way: whether it is environmental sustainability/flooding, or rising prices/city finances, or traffic, all of it is worse with car-centric policies compared to denser urbanity. In that respect, there is no "both sides" to it:

There are no principled justifications for parking minimums in anywhere, even when factoring in transit options/lackthereof.

In fact, most stuff in US zoning codes (setbacks, residential density limits, etc) have no principled justification.

Most of the complaining is irrelevant: just a bunch of shooting the messenger, poisoning the well, affirming the consequent, and other fallacious, misdirected ire that misses the core causal connections (i.e. and, hence, important keys to true problem solving).

without other transit options than personal cars, I don't think there is an option to not require parking. but then, I've also not ever seen anywhere that doesn't have public transit not have parking minimums, so I can't imagine how it would be without.

I will say that Houston is properly screwing itself, we need to be more aggressive with building BRT, LRT, whatever. we need fixed guideway transit. the facts are Houston gets most of the money from property taxes, private cars as the transit solution only allow for a specific density. fixed guideway transit (LRT, BRT, and beyond) is a long term investment, and commitment by a city to move a lot of humans along that specific corridor.

developers see that signal and build properties that provide density to match the fixed transit. all one has to do is look at the red line corridor in the 20 years since it was put in.  the corridor of the green line started densifying before the line was completed, and the density is getting higher with every year that passes. density on the purple line is increasing, as well as along the north extension of the red line. the uptown BRT already had density, but it is getting even more dense. and all this density happened without the city doing their walkable places and reducing parking minimums near these fixed guideway transit options.

each time higher density goes in, that means higher property taxes, and more money for the city. the state cannot raise property tax rates, so property values/density is the only possible way for Houston, or any city in Texas to increase their income. 

and yeah, wasting money to satisfy outer suburbs that aren't in Houston city limits is a huge burden on the city, and anyone who lives here and wants roads without potholes, or more officers on the street, less crime, we should be yelling from every rooftop for more transit options that will increase density.

anyway, weren't we talking bike lanes?

18 minutes ago, __nevii said:

 

There are loads of negative externality effects regarding parking minimums. It isn't just about the pleasantness of the urban environment, it goes all the way to the issues of affordability, gentrification/"pricing out", that lots of people keep complaining about.

When parking minimums are too excessive (hint: they always are) for what would otherwise be a neighborhood-level business:

1. That is suddenly a lot of overhead that an aspiring business owner must account for (land area + pavement for parking spaces).
    
2. Which means that the business must draw a larger market area in order to recoup the costs of all the infrastructure...
    
3. And what happens with drawing from a larger area? More busy, hectic traffic into the neighborhood that people are turned off with (especially if vehicular).

In other words, there are no principled justifications for parking minimums whatsoever: those minimums create all the problems that people complain about.

no doubt, there's all sorts of sides to the subject, and no one way to do it is the right way. the thing of it is, it needs to be understood that there are trade-offs both ways. in some scenarios the business owner suffers, in others, the local homeowners suffer. 

if you have less requirements for parking minimums because it's a neighborhood level business, when the store/restaurant/coffee shop that is opened with every intention of being used by locals becomes popular and people who aren't local want to come, so now, if they don't have appropriate parking in a city like Houston where driving is the only option provided by government, we are stuck with people parking on neighborhood streets. the locals that once sang the praises of that amazing local business are now cursing everyone that goes to it.

as an example, you want to go to Permission? if you don't grab one of the 10 slots shared by it and Pho Binh, you are either paying for parking in the lot formerly known as Fitzgeralds, or you are parking on a neighborhood street. and that's the case for any place on White Oak.

if only we had a real public transit option, then the minimum parking discussions kind of just disappear. 

there's nothing politically motivated in any of the things you suggest that would be reasons for putting a bike lane on one street vs another. you've been watching either CNN, or Fox News way too much. just unplug for a minute and stop presuming that everything is politically motivated.

parking minimums are a lot more complex than just living somewhere within walking distance of a restaurant, bar, retail, or coffee shop. many people who frequent those places (most specifically the restaurants, bars, and retail) are coming in from a place that makes the destination not walkable. now, when they arrive, maybe walking from a restaurant to a bar (or vice versa), or walking from shop to shop, in which case a nice parking garage should be considered, rather than forcing the tourists to park on neighborhood streets, or offer better public transit.

even still, the probability of anyone in the Heights choosing to walk to any specific destination (depending on time of year and time of day) is probably restricted to .5 miles. maybe more on a nice March morning like today, but probably a lot less on an August afternoon.

anyway, you're assuming that the bicycle rider is only interested in destinations on 11th street. and even if the destination is something on 11th, most people who use a bicycle as their preferred transportation are very used to, if there is even infrastructure for bicycles, we are used to having to do the last portion of whatever journey without even having a bicycle lane.

a completely different subject, but regarding the parking, whatever TIRZ collects taxes from businesses in the area should consider building a parking garage near 19th street, 11th street, and then also on White Oak, or maybe some big parking garage somewhere with a circulator bus that hits stops at major retail/restaurant hubs. not sure they can do a circulator though, I know a TIRZ can build parking structures though.

17 minutes ago, steve1363 said:

  Is this really for Spring and the Woodlands commuters?

it absolutely feels like this is a commuter tool to bypass i45 traffic. 

17 minutes ago, steve1363 said:

 I think all of north Houston benefits and especially downtown.

unless you're talking about reducing congestion on other highways, if the access to the tollway is inconvenient, or non-existent then it doesn't benefit.

while it does benefit business offices downtown by offering a quick way in, it also hinders the growth of anything other than business offices in downtown by offering a quick way out, which doesn't really help downtown.

considering the volume of office jobs that are remote and going remote, doing things to make commuting easier isn't really a long term win. 

18 hours ago, Triton said:

I don't agree with that at all. I know some opposed to it who are ideologically liberal (example provided below). I think there were some just practically concerned people when it came to congestion. I know the majority in the biking community support the 11th St bike lanes but some would have rather seen it go to a less congested road running in parallel to 11th such as 14th St. Although it would have angered some residents to loose their on street parking (see how the bike lanes end at Pecore on 11th... because of on-street parking backlash)... however, it would have been far less controversial on 14th and still would have provided an east-west connection through the Heights, along with the MKT trail.

Prime example... the N Main bike lanes around White Oak Music Hall. Most of the people in the area are not conservative (not a telltale sign but most people here had Beto/Biden signs the past few elections), yet they voiced numerous opposition to the city and Bike Houston during their community outreach because they were genuinely concerned that shrinking N Main down to 2 lanes would exacerbate the already insane traffic when WOMH is hosting live events, plus now the events at Htown Brewing and Woodland Social. Hence now, the N Main bike lanes are up for review again under Whitmire.

Last point.... and, as a bicyclist, this is the part that really makes me upset with the city. On Sunday, I biked the route pictured below. The east side bike lanes (think Polk St) were a complete mess.... either full of water from Friday's rains.... or covered in dirt... or rocks... or trash. There was even a part of Waugh Dr in Montrose that I was biking back on and it looked like a lake in the bike lane! I had to hop into the vehicle lanes until the water cleared. If the city is going to invest in bike lanes, then it also needs to take on the responsibility of cleaning them up. 

I fully agree with your assessment to the motivation of opposition, I'd suggest that there are probably some that fit the mold of having politics as the motivating factor, but they are the marginal fringe and can be ignored. which is hard because they are usually loud. the bottom line, they can be ignored.

the streets chosen for bike lanes seems silly in a lot of instances. 11th vs 14th for instance. going from Hermann to downtown, they should have used Caroline to minimize the sharrows they had to implement on Austin, and all the turning.

as far as all of the stuff the mayor seems to be able to do, how do I keep reading articles about budget shortfalls for meeting his other campaign promises in Houston, and then he is affording to do this stuff? 

I have to keep telling myself that the alternative was far worse, but this isn't turning out to be much better. let's hope we get a contender in the next cycle that is going to be a better candidate. 

17 hours ago, mollusk said:

Even in a car, getting in and out of most businesses on 11th is now easier and safer, since traffic no longer busts the 30 mph speed limit by 10 - 20 mph.  Beyond that, it's not at all unusual to drive down the length of one of the side streets without encountering another car.  Taking the logic of some to its conclusion, we therefore don't need those streets.

that's a bit silly, because of the way the city is designed, people need to access their homes with cars. 

I'd submit that thoughtfully using one way streets (for cars) in areas that are predominantly residential, along with adding features that make drivers feel like 20mph is a safe speed would go a long way towards slowing people down on streets that are primarily residential, and thereby increasing safety, it would also discourage through traffic.

21 hours ago, steve1363 said:

The fundamental pain point is the opposition’s voice was ignored and hence why we’re still discussing this 6 months later.

the opposition didn't have a valid argument. all of the doom and gloom that was presented as reasoning for why 11th shouldn't be redone in this manner has not come to pass. businesses have not shut down, kids are not being mowed down on primarily residential streets, emergency vehicles have not been forced to take other routes because they can't fit on the street.

were there other reasons that the opposition presented for why this shouldn't have been done?

and more to the point, now that it has been done, should it be undone because the opposition feels as if they weren't heard, or that their suggestions weren't taken into account?

should there be a lesson learned by people who do these to better prepare and work with everyone in the community to ensure everyone has a chance to provide fact driven feedback, or that good ideas for compromise should be considered?

at the end of the day, traffic studies showed that the number of lanes far exceeded the needs of vehicular traffic, the road was redesigned to meet demand. so many people cheer when a road is widened to accommodate growing vehicular needs (while ignoring the safety of others), why are so many upset when the same thing happens in reverse?

25 minutes ago, s3mh said:

I am calling these people out because they are not coming at this in good faith ....  

you're calling them names while calling them out, you want to talk good faith? there's nothing good faith about that, and you can start there.

and besides, you can say they aren't coming to the conversation in good faith, and that your concern for everyone's safety gives you the moral high ground, because that's kind of worthless, they say you aren't coming to the conversation in good faith, and that the freedom of everyone to move freely is the moral high ground.

so yeah, explaining why you're calling them names, and not accepting their behavior and opinion, even if you don't agree with it, that's not really getting you there. but you do you, I don't need an explanation for your actions. and don't expect me to cheer you on.

@s3mh a lot of people have a lot of wild opinions on where life is headed, and what we are doing.

as a liberal myself (and don't mistake me, I'm not a democrat calling myself part of the liberal party), like, a true liberal (you can look up the word if you need to), I am very willing to accept and respect the opinion and behavior of people with whom I personally disagree with. I don't like the idea of calling people names (conspiracy theorists, right wing nut jobs, whatever), but hey, I still respect your opinion and beliefs about those people, and I accept you calling them names, even if I don't think it's the best way to be.

can we get back to focusing on what's important, which is that the point of these things is improved safety.

18 hours ago, steve1363 said:

I guess you guys tell yourself that to make yourselves feel self-righteous about your position.  Guess what…the opposition also argues that the safety of their children is their number one concern.  Why can’t you acknowledge that creating congestion on a neighborhood’s main thoroughfare will increase traffic on interior neighborhood streets?   Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are selfish and take pleasure in pedestrian deaths.  That’s simplistic thinking.  Try looking at both sides.

no one is creating congestion.

traffic studies were done. the results of those studies determined that the amount of lanes for vehicles was more than necessary for the volume of vehicles. so they used the surplus ROW to safely accommodate other forms of transportation.

if drivers feel entitled to then get off that road and take to side streets then you don't throw away the safety improvements on the initial street, you make other streets safer too.

the problem isn't making streets safer, the problem is people who feel they are entitled to drive unsafely, not just on streets like 11th, but then going out of their way to do the same on streets that are completely residential.

maybe this mayor should follow through on his campaign promise to put more officers on the streets, or supplement the traffic cops with state troopers, and then the bulk of those officers could go stop the people from speeding on the residential streets.

15 hours ago, Ross said:

No, no, no, no. You have one leg for the gas pedal and one for the brake pedal in a car, where God intended people to travel. 🤣🤣🤣

as I used to say in my briefing at the gokart track:

gas on the right, brake on the left, no bumping.