Houston19514

Leeland will be a two-way crossing.http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs11/05_NHHIP_Seg3_I-69_RollPlot_PH_2-2.pdf

I don't think the development has "EaDo" in its name. https://www.marquettecompanies.com/new-development

Except (1) he has a staff, and (2) the best campaign material for an incumbent is a well-run city, and it also took many months for them to get the market-based parking on to the council's agenda (and that was well before campaign season). If he can't manage to run the Mayor's office (and the City) while campaigning for reelection, that seems like pretty strong evidence he may not be the person for the job.

Except you cherry-picked from the COH's list of major thoroughfares and collectors, presumably so that the minor Polk Street detour inconvenience is elevated in importance. No, I don't think they picked these streets from a hat. That's why I listed all of them, not just a cherry-picked list. Further, you continue to ignore the fact that none of them, including Polk Street, are so designated by the COH after they reach the freeway. I suspect this is because once it gets downtown, all traffic is dispersed and handled by the grid (all streets). I didn't respond to the Westheimer/527 hypothetical, because there is so little in common as to be a complete waste of time, but since you insist: (1) Westheimer/Elgin is a major thoroughfare THROUGH the hypothetical intersection with Spur 527. In comparison, Polk Street designation as major thoroughfare terminates at I-69. The detoured portion and the portion inside the CBD are not so designated. (2) That section of Westheimer/Elgin carries more than 5 times as much traffic as the subject section of Polk Street. (3) It should be obvious why "all these other roads" are acceptable in the case of Polk Street, while Avondale would not be acceptable for Westheimer: Your hypothetical detour route on Avondale is largely residential while the proposed Polk Street detour will be purpose-built roadway with zero negative impact on a neighborhood and "all these other streets" are commercial streets serving the same purpose as Polk Street (again, NONE, not even Polk Street, are designated as major thoroughfares or collector streets after they reach the freeway (coming from the East).

So, it's possible that JR Central or other Japanese entities are the owners or at least partial owners of Texas Central. I'm curious how how know that JR Central is not providing any construction funding.

Yes, and who owns Texas Central Partners, LLC, if you know? And I'm curious how you know that JR Central is not providing any funding for the project.

I don't know where you got the idea that Cottage or Link are question marks. They are on the plan and I have neither heard nor seen anything to suggest they are candidates for removal. You are right, at least as far as the latest plans on their website show, that we lose North Street, so, yes a minor loss of motor vehicle connectivity. (I say "minor" because that overpass carries very little traffic.) Because the freeway at this point will be about at ground level, a North Street bridge is apparently impossible. Seems like it might be a good place for a pedestrian bridge. (I have submitted a comment to TxDOT to that effect. I encourage you to do the same.) FWIW, the area will still have Quitman, North Main, Cottage, Patton, Cavalcade, Link and the new 610 frontage road connecting the west and east sides of the freeway. That's seven connections in less than 2 1/2 miles. (And currently, there are seven connections in that stretch.)

Who owns Texas Central?

Carefully cherry-picked and misrepresented data. So now, you've introduced a new criteria. Funny how when you are disproven you change your argument or change your criteria to try to keep your position afloat. Now that it's convenient for your purposes we are only to consider the streets that get people further into the east end. But it doesn't matter how many of the streets you try to define away, the facts still show that we are losing zero connected Major Thoroughfare/Major Collector Streets (with Polk only getting a very minor detour). And that detour is more than offset by the additional through capacity being added. In the interest of presenting complete data, a couple other items should be noted. (1) The designation of all of these streets at Major Thoroughfares/Major Collector Streets terminates at the freeway. That termination has nothing to do with this project. (2) Polk, the one street that has some deleterious effect from the plan, carries relatively little traffic on a daily basis in the section near the freeway. Again, where is the loss of connectivity? The actual data shows there is no loss of connectivity. And again, this only considers motor vehicle connectivity. I am far more concerned with community/pedestrian connectivity (and supposedly, so is Mr. Speck), which will be hugely improved on the east side.

Meanwhile, on the east side, there's talk (and far more of it) of spending hefty dollars on a deck park over the below-grade freeway. (The deck park is on Houston First Corporation's agenda. I have not seen anything on their agenda about a bridge over Buffalo Bayou.) Again, I ask, where does the project fail to keep local connectivity? I am not as familiar with Segment 1, so maybe up there. But in neither Segment 2 nor Segment 3 is there a reasonable argument to be made that the project fails to keep (and indeed improve) local connectivity.

As you say, you can't reduce connectivity on the north end much more than it has already been reduced. There is currently really no connectivity there, especially from the community/pedestrian standpoint, which is my focus (and supposedly the focus of Mr. Speck). I honestly don't think the structures being elevated higher than is currently the case is terribly important. Once you have elevated freeway structures, I doubt that elevating it another 50 feet really exacerbates the disconnection. Further, I believe the project will also hasten the connection of Fulton/San Jacinto, so it will in fact improve connectivity. (And the shifting of the freeway to the north also provides huge community/pedestrian benefits to the UH-D campus.) Where is the reduction in local connectivity?

Current I-69 crossings: NHHIP Plan I-69/I-45 crossings: St Joseph St Joseph Jefferson Jefferson Pease Pease Leeland Leeland Polk Lamar Rusk McKinney Capitol Walker Texas Rusk Preston Capitol Congress Texas Franklin Preston Commerce Congress Ruiz Franklin Runnels Commerce Runnels So, under the plan, we will have one MORE crossing than we currently have. Nobody should have any difficulty getting to the east side from downtown or vice versa (if they do, they probably should not be driving). But what I have in mind is more the community/pedestrian connectivity. That will be improved immeasurably on the east side (even if the deck park does NOT happen), by the movement of the freeways below grade. By the way, Pease, Jefferson and St Joseph are also in major throrughfares or major collector streets, so even if we accept your limiting the consideration to major thoroughfares and major collector streets, your 70%, however you came up with it, is seriously understated. Among the 8 streets that are in that category, 7 will remain as full through-streets; the eighth will take a short detour.

I have a suspicion that if the project were reversed (with I-45/I-69 being built below grade with a likely cap park on the West and South sides, and the North and East side rights-of-way partially replaced with connecting ramps) we'd be hearing complaints that THAT plan favors the west and south sides. I don't accept the talking point that this plan reduces connectivity everywhere except the west and north sides of downtown. The neighborhoods along this entire route were disconnected when the freeway was first built. There are very few places where this plan exacerbates that disconnection and a LOT of places where it will reduce the disconnection.

Libertarian math equation??? LOL You are quite right they don't get to reuse the Pierce Elevated. That is rather the point. Today we have a total, what, 16, 18 lanes? At the end of the project we'll have 22, by your count. So, we're adding 4 or 6 lanes, not 12 or 13.

But that is not "adding" twelve lanes to our current infrastructure. Those replace how many lanes that are currently routed on the west side of downtown? (I suspect this is exactly the area Speck is referring to when he says we are "adding" as many as 13 lanes in places; another disingenuous statement, to put it lightly.)