TxDOT Meeting To Discuss I-10 Feeder Roads/Expansion

[Hartmann]

There is a public meeting tomorrow night (Wednesday, January 6) at 6:30pm at Stevenson Elementary (5410 Cornish) to discuss the changes planned for I-10.

This seems like a good opportunity for people to get out and voice support/opportunity for the proposed changes. One topic I am really interested in is the proposed retaining wall that would be used to keep White Oak Bayou from spilling on to I-10 and how that will affect houses in the immediate area.

[Hartmann]

Didn't realize that we can't edit posts... My second sentence makes no sense, "voice support/opportunity"? Should be "opposition".

[Porchman]

Link to: KHOU's recently aired story on the project

Last month, the Texas Transportation Commission added $88 million to TxDOT's stimulus construction plan, to rebuild several bridges and add new ones to complete a feeder road system on I-10 inside the Loop.

The idea is to fix those feeder roads that don't really feed.

There were public hearings on this project -- in 2003. The plan was part of the massive Katy Freeway project.

[curley1733]

Does anyone know if a summary of this meeting was posted anywhere? Or was anyone on this board at the meeting? Thoughts?

[Jesse]

Does anyone know if a summary of this meeting was posted anywhere? Or was anyone on this board at the meeting? Thoughts?

Note sent out post-meeting by Jessica Farrar, State Rep:

Dear Neighbor,

Thank you for attending the TxDOT meeting. Your questions and input were extremely valuable to ensure design of a quality transportation project.

In attendance were many elected representatives on all levels of government including Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Council Member Ed Gonzalez, and representatives from the offices of Commissioner Sylvia Garcia, Council Member C.O. Bradford, Council Member Melissa Noriega, Council Member Stephen Costello, and Council Member Sue Lovell. All were present to hear community concerns, as well as ask and answer questions. They are eager to join our ongoing effort to press for design improvements.

Because of last night's input, the next step is to verify the hydrology scenario of the feeder road bridges west of Yale. Then, concerns and alternatives expressed regarding the west-bound exit ramp at Taylor will be explored. Throughout the process, please know that I will continue to advocate for the community based on stated concerns and with the help of experts.

I will provide updates but if you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Your calls, letters and emails are greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

State Representative Jessica Farrar - District 148

[Justin Bryan]

I-10 is build like a channel, it would be a perfect water retainer of last resort. It is not like the only way through town would be cut off. Hazardous cargo already have to take I-610 around the city to get from one side to the other, it would be a logical detour in the even of another Alison.

[Subdude]

If the idea here is to connect the I-10 feeders through the Heights area, wouldn't that just have the effect of encouraging lots of cheap sprawl development along the feeders like you see everywhere else with feeder roads? Just one more step to ruining the Heights.

Also I agree with that it makes sense to utilize the freeway as a flood spillway. It is certainly more cost effective than building giant retaining walls along the bayou.

[JLWM8609]

If the idea here is to connect the I-10 feeders through the Heights area, wouldn't that just have the effect of encouraging lots of cheap sprawl development along the feeders like you see everywhere else with feeder roads? Just one more step to ruining the Heights.

I don't think it will "ruin" your neighborhood with cheap development. I looked at an aerial view of the section where feeder roads are to be added and there are already residential and commercial developments along those parcels of land on the southern side, and the northern side looks like it's already occupied by White Oak Bayou, so development won't occur there anyhow.

[20thStDad]

If the idea here is to connect the I-10 feeders through the Heights area, wouldn't that just have the effect of encouraging lots of cheap sprawl development along the feeders like you see everywhere else with feeder roads? Just one more step to ruining the Heights.

Yeah, it might totally trash up our current feeder with the 2 24-hr adult video stores!

I don't want the traffic, but it might encourage some action where a few projects have busted between Washington and I-10.

[heights_yankee]

i don't think it will encourage those projects to move forward. those projects weren't aimed at people who would be takign the highway to get to them. the stuff on yale was aimed at inner loopers- people from midtown, montrose and the heights who would take studewood or waugh/heights to get there.

i think it unnecessary

[UpperWestEnder]

I attended the meeting last week. The project as designed was designed for the purpose of changing I-10 from being a spillway and to extend the feeder so there are other options for drivers to get off the freeway. According to the TxDOT engineer even after the reconstruction I-10 will still flood, but it won't be DESIGNED as a spillway and won't fill completely to the rim.

The obvious issues for the residents and community activists is that today they know their neighborhoods can't flood because of the convenient spillway behind their homes. One woman in the crowd even emphasized she couldn't care less if I-10 floods as long as her home doesn't.

There is considerable concern that the detention ponds will be sufficient to hold the water that would otherwise have filled I-10. The fact that the work on the ponds is separate from the freeway funding and will not occur concurrently is also a concern. What happens if Mother Nature doesn't follow TxDOT's schedule and we get another 100 year storm before the ponds are excavated but after the feeder roads and walls prevent the White Oak Bayou from spilling into I-10? Where will the water go?

The other issue appeared to be that there is no demand from residents for extending the feeder roads.

The only benefits (to me) from this project are renovation of the bridges, which should extend their lifespan, landscaping, and noise reduction walls. I'm highly concerned what would happen if we get another Tropical Storm Allison and concerned about the additional traffic closer to my home when there's a feeder road where there is none today.

[outback]

The new feeder for Heights and Yale will encourage through traffic when I-10/45 is backed up - basically extra traffic that has no real reason to be in the Heights, won't bring any benefits to the Heights and will increase noise and most likely accident rates. We may even see an increase in crime with easier on/off access to the freeway. Yes, it's a hassle doing the Studemont U-turn, but it's really not a big issue from what I've seen.

[TheNiche]

The new feeder for Heights and Yale will encourage through traffic when I-10/45 is backed up - basically extra traffic that has no real reason to be in the Heights

Sure it does, to bypass congestion and remove cars from the freeways that'd otherwise be contributing to congestion.

won't bring any benefits to the Heights

An increased traffic count benefits neighborhood retailers.

and will increase noise

Probably just the frequency of noises that should already be familiar to you, but not at all in terms of decibels.

and most likely accident rates.

Probably not. The cars would've been driving somewhere if not here. Are these streets especially accident-prone? If so, perhaps you should ask TXDoT that they be redesigned to mitigate impacts from the project.

We may even see an increase in crime with easier on/off access to the freeway. Yes, it's a hassle doing the Studemont U-turn, but it's really not a big issue from what I've seen.

You said it yourself, "it's really not a big issue." Probably not to burglars, either.

[Hartmann]

Sure it does, to bypass congestion and remove cars from the freeways that'd otherwise be contributing to congestion.

Probably not. The cars would've been driving somewhere if not here. Are these streets especially accident-prone? If so, perhaps you should ask TXDoT that they be redesigned to mitigate impacts from the project.

This kind of ties in with the discussion about Yale Street and its future. The city has decided that it needs another Shepherd/Durham cut-through between 610 and I-10 and Yale fits the bill. They will be doing construction to slightly widen it and fix the potholes.

Because of this, there will definitely be more traffic through that portion of the Heights. Sure, it's good for businesses but I think it is detrimental to the surrounding homes for the simple reason of safety. People cross Yale to get to the Heights Blvd. walking trail and the new bike trail crosses it as well. By adding more cars the possibility for a pedestrian/automobile accident increases. I already have trouble crossing Yale due to speeders/red-light runners, the last thing we need is more.

The idea that this will "bypass congestion" is congruent with the fact that it will add congestion to places that don't currently have it. The whole idea of a freeway is to allow faster transit with more lanes and no stoplights, to say that using the side streets is going to ease congestion is slightly ironic and a little oxy-moronic.

It is nice that they are putting some thought into I-10 and the safety of drivers during a torrential downpour, it would be nice if the cause of most of the flooding was addressed; The lack of planning, retention, and drainage upstream. It's no secret that land off of the bayous further upstream has been developed when it should have been left as natural flood protection.

[heights_yankee]

This kind of ties in with the discussion about Yale Street and its future. The city has decided that it needs another Shepherd/Durham cut-through between 610 and I-10 and Yale fits the bill. They will be doing construction to slightly widen it and fix the potholes.

Because of this, there will definitely be more traffic through that portion of the Heights. Sure, it's good for businesses but I think it is detrimental to the surrounding homes for the simple reason of safety. People cross Yale to get to the Heights Blvd. walking trail and the new bike trail crosses it as well. By adding more cars the possibility for a pedestrian/automobile accident increases. I already have trouble crossing Yale due to speeders/red-light runners, the last thing we need is more.

The idea that this will "bypass congestion" is congruent with the fact that it will add congestion to places that don't currently have it. The whole idea of a freeway is to allow faster transit with more lanes and no stoplights, to say that using the side streets is going to ease congestion is slightly ironic and a little oxy-moronic.

It is nice that they are putting some thought into I-10 and the safety of drivers during a torrential downpour, it would be nice if the cause of most of the flooding was addressed; The lack of planning, retention, and drainage upstream. It's no secret that land off of the bayous further upstream has been developed when it should have been left as natural flood protection.

this is a huge concern. there are already issues with people having a tough time crossing Yale on the bike trail. granted, it goes over where the feeder would be but i agree this issue is about pushing more traffic in to what is really a very pedestrian friendly neighborhood. too many more cars (and people that don't care about our bike trail b/c they are just trying to shave 5 minutes off their hour commute to the 'burbs) can only have a detrimental effect.

[SaintCyr]

I've seen at least 5 accidents at 12th and Yale where speeders/ people running red lights have almost hit pedestrians trying to cross and swerved just in time (in the process rolling) or smoked car pulling out of 12th, when the driver on 12th did not expect another vehicle moving at 65MPH.

If the city does indeed want to make Yale a cut through they need to take the residential idea and the impact into consideration. I'm really not all that worried about it considering that driving will be increasingly more expensive in the next 10 years or so taking many many cars and trucks off the road. I actually noticed a difference in traffic when prices were $4 a gallon in 2008. Another thing is as density increases and commercial property takes off up and down Yale you will see an increase in on street parking just like on Washington creating an environment that lends to finding alternative routes such as shepherd/durham for cut throughs.

Edit: I am in a hurry, please excuse the grammer and cut short sentances.

[TheNiche]

This kind of ties in with the discussion about Yale Street and its future. The city has decided that it needs another Shepherd/Durham cut-through between 610 and I-10 and Yale fits the bill.

Can you cite a situation where a representative of the City of Houston has said this, or is that just your opinion?

Because of this, there will definitely be more traffic through that portion of the Heights. Sure, it's good for businesses but I think it is detrimental to the surrounding homes for the simple reason of safety. People cross Yale to get to the Heights Blvd. walking trail and the new bike trail crosses it as well. By adding more cars the possibility for a pedestrian/automobile accident increases. I already have trouble crossing Yale due to speeders/red-light runners, the last thing we need is more.

The idea that this will "bypass congestion" is congruent with the fact that it will add congestion to places that don't currently have it. The whole idea of a freeway is to allow faster transit with more lanes and no stoplights, to say that using the side streets is going to ease congestion is slightly ironic and a little oxy-moronic.

It is nice that they are putting some thought into I-10 and the safety of drivers during a torrential downpour, it would be nice if the cause of most of the flooding was addressed; The lack of planning, retention, and drainage upstream. It's no secret that land off of the bayous further upstream has been developed when it should have been left as natural flood protection.

From your comments and those of others, it sounds like the big safety concern is that vehicular traffic is too fast. If you're genuinely concerned about congestion occurring on Yale, then the slower average speeds associated with congested traffic may actually enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. That would be similar to the concept of traffic calming.

The Montrose area has vastly greater levels of traffic (congested and otherwise), enjoys a greater selection of neighborhood retail establishments, is considered among the most walkable neighborhoods in the country, and has home prices even higher than the Heights area.

Clearly there needs to be adequate safety infrastructure. If the crosswalk doesn't provide enough time to make it across, then the signal timing needs to be adjusted. If red light runners are a chronic problem, then there need to be red light cameras. If a bike path crosses a major thoroughfare, there really ought to be blinking yellow lights. Embrace safety, but also recognize that you have decided to live in the core of an increasingly urban city...not on a cul-de-sac in The Woodlands. Embrace your urban future.

[J008]

Can you cite a situation where a representative of the City of Houston has said this, or is that just your opinion?

The Montrose area has vastly greater levels of traffic (congested and otherwise), enjoys a greater selection of neighborhood retail establishments, is considered among the most walkable neighborhoods in the country, and has home prices even higher than the Heights area.

There are also virtually no interstate onramps or feeder roads in Montrose (Shepherd to ~Taft, Allen Pkwy to 59). There are six bridges over 59 in this area though that have no interaction at all between the neighborhood streets and the interstate. I believe the lack of interstate in this neighborhood has actually helped it retain the walkability, higher home prices, and greater selection of retail that you mentioned.

[TheNiche]

There are also virtually no interstate onramps or feeder roads in Montrose (Shepherd to ~Taft, Allen Pkwy to 59). There are six bridges over 59 in this area though that have no interaction at all between the neighborhood streets and the interstate. I believe the lack of interstate in this neighborhood has actually helped it retain the walkability, higher home prices, and greater selection of retail that you mentioned.

Straw man.

Hartmann was complaining about congestion caused by cut-through traffic potentially creating an adverse environment for pedestrians. You don't mean to tell me that Montrose doesn't have any congestion caused by cut-through traffic, do you?

[Hartmann]

Can you cite a situation where a representative of the City of Houston has said this, or is that just your opinion?

From your comments and those of others, it sounds like the big safety concern is that vehicular traffic is too fast. If you're genuinely concerned about congestion occurring on Yale, then the slower average speeds associated with congested traffic may actually enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. That would be similar to the concept of traffic calming.

The Montrose area has vastly greater levels of traffic (congested and otherwise), enjoys a greater selection of neighborhood retail establishments, is considered among the most walkable neighborhoods in the country, and has home prices even higher than the Heights area.

Clearly there needs to be adequate safety infrastructure. If the crosswalk doesn't provide enough time to make it across, then the signal timing needs to be adjusted. If red light runners are a chronic problem, then there need to be red light cameras. If a bike path crosses a major thoroughfare, there really ought to be blinking yellow lights. Embrace safety, but also recognize that you have decided to live in the core of an increasingly urban city...not on a cul-de-sac in The Woodlands. Embrace your urban future.

This thread has a lot of information regarding the Yale St. construction: The city has not come out and said specifically that the point of the project is another connection point between I-10/610, but they have implied it with their references to Shepherd/Durham.

I do see your point about the Montrose area being walkable, but stating that I want a "Woodlands cul-de-sac" is way off. In my opinion, urban areas lead to less congestion just by their layout and there is a lot of writing on urban planning that backs that idea up. Having grown up in Sugar Land and seeing what it has become, I would say that even with Yale being changed, we'd still be more walkable. I want the urban environment and it can be done right.

My question is, why even given people the option of cutting through? Especially when there is T.C. Jester and Shepherd/Durham.

As far as congestion slowing traffic enough to make it more pedestrian friendly, that's hilarious. Yes, let me walk between some cars that are stopped at a red light while a guy reads his Blackberry and all of the sudden hits the gas. That's my dream walk across the street in a nutshell.

[TheNiche]

I do see your point about the Montrose area being walkable, but stating that I want a "Woodlands cul-de-sac" is way off. In my opinion, urban areas lead to less congestion just by their layout and there is a lot of writing on urban planning that backs that idea up. Having grown up in Sugar Land and seeing what it has become, I would say that even with Yale being changed, we'd still be more walkable. I want the urban environment and it can be done right.

Yes, that was a rhetorical device. I'm not arguing over whether grids are more effective at distributing traffic, I'm merely pointing out a NIMBY mentality that seems all to common in neighborhoods such as the Heights. Your neighborhood is popular, densifying, becoming more built-up, and for better or worse is in the way of a city and a region that is doing the very same. Some of you guys want a walkable urban environment but would deny the chaotic hustle and bustle that creates and defines it; others want to merely preserve the neighborhood in its current state, defying change. Both camps try to reserve the neighborhood for themselves to the exclusion of others--and THAT is what strikes me as a very Woodlands mentality.

My question is, why even given people the option of cutting through? Especially when there is T.C. Jester and Shepherd/Durham.

Because it's faster and/or more convenient for those that choose to. Commuters are people too, even if they don't live in the Heights. We should respect them as such.

As far as congestion slowing traffic enough to make it more pedestrian friendly, that's hilarious. Yes, let me walk between some cars that are stopped at a red light while a guy reads his Blackberry and all of the sudden hits the gas. That's my dream walk across the street in a nutshell.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in Montrose, which as I pointed out earlier and you accepted is among the most walkable neighborhoods in the United States.

[J008]

Straw man.

Hartmann was complaining about congestion caused by cut-through traffic potentially creating an adverse environment for pedestrians. You don't mean to tell me that Montrose doesn't have any congestion caused by cut-through traffic, do you?

There is cut through traffic in Montrose, but there are very few “cut-throughs” in Montrose like the one being proposed through the center of the heights. I believe only Shepherd is similar connecting two interstates (10 and 59) with four lanes.

I feel that having bridges rather than feeder roads along 59 helps the neighborhood especially in regards to cyclists, pedestrians, and home values.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see some similar creativity in the Heights/I-10 area?

[RedScare]

There is cut through traffic in Montrose, but there are very few “cut-throughs” in Montrose like the one being proposed through the center of the heights. I believe only Shepherd is similar connecting two interstates (10 and 59) with four lanes.

I feel that having bridges rather than feeder roads along 59 helps the neighborhood especially in regards to cyclists, pedestrians, and home values.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see some similar creativity in the Heights/I-10 area?

What is this "cut-through" of which you speak? And where will motorists cut from? Cut to? Is it shorter? Does it takes less time? How do you know?

There is cut through traffic on Shepherd to I-45 North, but Yale is not really an adequate substitute, even if it were repaved. The reason is not Yale itself, but I-45. 45 bottlenecks badly at the Shepherd curve. Taking Shepherd puts you on 45 at the north end of the curve, so you miss most of the bottleneck. Yale puts you on 45 south of the bottleneck, defeating the purpose of the detour, which is to save time. I know this from experimenting with both daily for the last 2 years. Even though I am closest to Yale, I drive past it to get to Shepherd. Could you explain how this will change with a repaved Yale or a feeder on I-10? There are already exit ramps to both Yale and Shepherd.

[heights_yankee]

Straw man.

Hartmann was complaining about congestion caused by cut-through traffic potentially creating an adverse environment for pedestrians. You don't mean to tell me that Montrose doesn't have any congestion caused by cut-through traffic, do you?

it's different. i can't even pin point why, but having lived in montrose for 6 years and then in the heights for 5 i can tell you the traffic patters are just different. maybe it is something like what a PP mentioned- b/c the traffic in montrose is not highway cut through traffic like it is through the heights. there is no real direct highway connected to montrose as a neighborhood where the heights is totally surrounded by major highways. yes, ppl cut through montrose but it's usually to get somewhere else in the city vs people cutting through to get to a highway. they seem to drive differently depending on their final destination. no scientific proof, but lots of experience walking both areas.

also, the only real major traffic streets border montrose more than cut through it (i'm thinking kirby, montrose, westheimer and richmond). again, this isn't a strong factual argument as much as a feeling from living both places. one of the big things that i think helps montrose with the walkability is the amount of 4 way stops and red lights, which the heights is sorely lacking. look at a street like Michaux. i would say it's close to something like Mandell in Montrose but you can't fly at 40 mph down Mandell for 4-5 blocks, dodging strollers and dog walkers along the way, like you can on Michaux.

[TheNiche]

it's different. i can'y even pin point why, but having lived in montrtose for 6 years and then in the heights for 5 i can tell you the traffic pattersn are just different. maybe it is something like what a PP mentioned- b/c the traffic in montrose is not highway traffic like it is through the heights. also, the only real major streets that cut through montrose are montrose itself, k

Montrose is the ultimate in-between neighborhood. There are major employment centers all around it and people trying to cut through it from every direction to avoid the inner-loop highways. Also, it is denser and has a higher concentration of retail establishments that are destinations rather than convenience-oriented neighborhood retail.

If the Heights really is a desirable cut-through neighborhood then--at least in the near term--there should be a predictable ebb and flow in one general direction per rush hour. I'd think that for pedestrians and bicyclists, that'd be easier to work around than the chaos that is Montrose congestion. And I still don't see why safety infrastructure would be ineffective.

[Hartmann]

What is this "cut-through" of which you speak? And where will motorists cut from? Cut to? Is it shorter? Does it takes less time? How do you know?

There is cut through traffic on Shepherd to I-45 North, but Yale is not really an adequate substitute, even if it were repaved. The reason is not Yale itself, but I-45. 45 bottlenecks badly at the Shepherd curve. Taking Shepherd puts you on 45 at the north end of the curve, so you miss most of the bottleneck. Yale puts you on 45 south of the bottleneck, defeating the purpose of the detour, which is to save time. I know this from experimenting with both daily for the last 2 years. Even though I am closest to Yale, I drive past it to get to Shepherd. Could you explain how this will change with a repaved Yale or a feeder on I-10? There are already exit ramps to both Yale and Shepherd.

The 290 traffic onto the loop is still pretty bad, and Yale could be a reliever of this, allowing traffic into downtown without requiring them to get on 10.

If the plans for the Hempstead Highway go through then even more potential is there.

[Hartmann]

Yes, that was a rhetorical device. I'm not arguing over whether grids are more effective at distributing traffic, I'm merely pointing out a NIMBY mentality that seems all to common in neighborhoods such as the Heights. Your neighborhood is popular, densifying, becoming more built-up, and for better or worse is in the way of a city and a region that is doing the very same. Some of you guys want a walkable urban environment but would deny the chaotic hustle and bustle that creates and defines it; others want to merely preserve the neighborhood in its current state, defying change. Both camps try to reserve the neighborhood for themselves to the exclusion of others--and THAT is what strikes me as a very Woodlands mentality.

Because it's faster and/or more convenient for those that choose to. Commuters are people too, even if they don't live in the Heights. We should respect them as such.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in Montrose, which as I pointed out earlier and you accepted is among the most walkable neighborhoods in the United States.

Points taken. I want the urban environment but I really appreciate the history of the Heights and would like to preserve some semblance of that history at least. I may not support the building of huge homes on tiny lots or subdividing a lot to get an extra house on it, but I'd love to see some building like one would see in Chicago (true row houses and walk up apartments). We can have density and keep the history.

[TheNiche]

The 290 traffic onto the loop is still pretty bad, and Yale could be a reliever of this, allowing traffic into downtown without requiring them to get on 10.

If the plans for the Hempstead Highway go through then even more potential is there.

Is that so much an issue with the Heights or is it more of a 'West End' thing? Back when I reverse commuted from out west, I'd often take I-10 to where it backed up near Studewood or Taylor and then cut across to I-45 via Washington and Houston Ave. The Hempstead Toll Road would have direct connectors to I-10, so I'm thinking that most cut-through traffic would follow that sort of pattern.

And come to think of it, before that, I worked off of the North Loop and took TC Jester or Shepherd to I-10 before using that same Washington/Houston trick. I couldn't make other routes through the Heights even come close to making sense.

[poyea]

I think the largest problem is the speed going down Yale, which is somewhat caused by very few stop lights and no stop signs (from I-10 to 610). There is a light at 6th (which I think must be triggered only if someone is on 6th), one at 11th, one at 14th, one at 19th and 20th, and I think one more near 23rd. (well, when I put it that way, maybe there are enough stop lights). But, I think only the ones at 19th and 20th have cross walk buttons for pedestrians. I would say that 9 times out of 10, I can drive straight through from I-10 to 610 without catching a light. Yes, I know, Bill White based his whole Mayoral campaign on getting the lights downtown synchronized, and yes, that was great. But, maybe we need just a little less coordination and a few 4-way stop signs on Yale to fix the problem.

And I have attended the HHA/City Planning meetings, and yes, they are designing Yale as an alternate route in addition to Shepard, Main, 45, TC Jester, etc. I agree with Yankee, that people going 70 mph on 610 are just trying to get to I-10 so they can continue going 70 mph, and this 2 mile stretch seems to become part of their high-speed commute. Whereas in Montrose, people are going from 30 mph side streets through the neighborhood. Nothing scientific...just what it feels like.

The question is, what can we do? I've emailed our councilman, just after our HHA/Planning meeting and surprise, no reply. Go figure.

[TheNiche]

The question is, what can we do? I've emailed our councilman, just after our HHA/Planning meeting and surprise, no reply. Go figure.

Signal synchronization only works if you're driving the speed limit...or apparently twice it. If speeding is such a chronic and severe problem, talk to HPD about it and get speed traps set up like they regularly have at Shepherd and TC Jester. You might also lobby the City to install a sign like they have on Ernestine near Eastwood that tells drivers how fast they're driving.