Jump to content

Wal-Mart To Invade The Heights


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

Again, Niche, before you question how I spend my time, you should spend the exact same amount of time on every other anti walmart fight out there. Your logic, not mine.

I'm not aware of any anti-Wal-Mart threads that are ongoing. There's another Wal-Mart about to get built inside the loop at Wayside and I-45, but the neighborhood seems to want it there. I would too, if I was still living over in that direction. So yeah, there's just not a debate being had...except for right here.

Besides. I am neither pro-Wal-Mart or anti-Wal-Mart. They're only a business entity. The perspective that I am offering in this thread is threefold:

1) What gets built in our city should be shaped and constrained by market forces and codes and ordinances that are uniformly administered. What gets built in your neighborhood should be compatible with the needs and wants of our city as expressed by the aforementioned forces and constraints.

2) RUDH's officers live a lifestyle that is incompatible with the organization's mission statement and seem to be as much a part of their perceived problem as any sort of solution that they might be offering; and they're dicks for threatening legal action against me for having investigated them and having said so.

3) Some 380 Agreements have been better or worse than others, and in capable hands they have the potential to effect positive change. Ironically, some of the worst among them seem to be the most popular with constituents (i.e. Gulfgate HEB). Whereas I generally distrust the public to understand the implications of 380 Agreements and also that I also generally distrust that local politicians act in the interests of their constituents, and also whereas 380 Agreements are unnecessary in the course of providing essential public services, I therefore believe that the language that enables them should be repealed under state law. This is consistent with my general philosophy of government.

I don't know why the developer and Walmart wanted cosmetic repairs on an 80+ year old bridge. Their logic also escapes me. I don't spend my time making up motives for others that I couldn't possibly know.

I know why the developer would have wanted cosmetic repairs. It's to make the area look nicer. Isn't it obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a welfare project for traffic engineers entail lots of critical feedback so as to require revision after revision? If so, then that would cause the traffic engineering firms to bid out new projects at a higher fee and to have to hire more traffic engineers.

And besides, it isn't as though the development is located on an island with only one shoddy bridge across to it. There are lots of alternative routes. When I shop there, I'm going to drive across the bridge of despair in my deceptively-heavy passenger car. And I shall not care. When the bridge is tore up, I'll drive on down to Heights and turn right at the new intersection at Kohler. If a one-block detour ruins your day, then perhaps yours is such a charmed life that I should envy you; I shall not allow such a trifling nuisance to ruin my day however.

The TIA process is a joke. The City does not require the recommended mitigations. They give developers a free pass now that they are all scared by the Ashby lawsuit.

Koehler is a lousy detour. The main problem is the 18 wheeler traffic for Walmart. An 18 wheeler cannot make a turn from the right hand lane of Heights to Koehler westbound without swinging out wide into both the left hand lane of Height and the eastbound lane of Koehler. It was never intended for 18 wheeler traffic. I saw an 18 wheeler try to make the turn the other day. It was a joke. They had to sit there and wait for traffic on Heights to clear and would have had to let all the traffic on Koehler go by as the truck drove down the middle of the eastbound lane of Koehler for about 100 feet before it was able to get into the correct lane. If this maneouver were attempted during rush hour with the Yale St. bridge closed, it would cause major gridlock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the point about Kmart was about how some posters much earlier in the thread were complaining how Walmart was going to destroy the local stores and their way of life, as if such a thing had never happened before. Kmart came and went, and although I had no knowledge of HAIF in 2002-2003, I imagine that there were no joyous sounds from the rooftop (or rather, board) that the monster had been felled and people could return to the way of life they had before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waiting for an 18 wheeler is not some ghastly occurrence that shuts down a neighborhood. I seem to have to stop and wait for one to back up into the Pappas Restaurants warehouse docking bays at 7th and Yale regularly on my way to or from work. Its a process that shuts down Yale in both directions.

Edited by JJxvi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TIA process is a joke. The City does not require the recommended mitigations. They give developers a free pass now that they are all scared by the Ashby lawsuit.

Koehler is a lousy detour. The main problem is the 18 wheeler traffic for Walmart. An 18 wheeler cannot make a turn from the right hand lane of Heights to Koehler westbound without swinging out wide into both the left hand lane of Height and the eastbound lane of Koehler. It was never intended for 18 wheeler traffic. I saw an 18 wheeler try to make the turn the other day. It was a joke. They had to sit there and wait for traffic on Heights to clear and would have had to let all the traffic on Koehler go by as the truck drove down the middle of the eastbound lane of Koehler for about 100 feet before it was able to get into the correct lane. If this maneouver were attempted during rush hour with the Yale St. bridge closed, it would cause major gridlock.

This is known as hyperbole. There is not enough traffic on Yale or Heights to result in "major gridlock". But, it is fun to read these posts anyway. I imagine veins popping on s3mh's neck as he furiously types these posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For amusement one can follow the google street view along Yale from south to north from 6th street through to 8th street and see that even the google cars cannot avoid the merry dance of 18 wheelers at 7th and Yale. No doubt we will see a dedicated effort to shut Pappas down any day now.

Edited by JJxvi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TIA process is a joke. The City does not require the recommended mitigations. They give developers a free pass now that they are all scared by the Ashby lawsuit.

If that is true, then all it takes is a new ordinance, then for that ordinance to be enforced uniformly from that point onward. It's really, really simple.

I would add that the Ashby lawsuit was settled out of court. No precedents were set. Nothing regarding TIAs has changed from the way it was. If behavior has changed, then that may reflect changing political sentiment against NIMBYs. But actually...I strongly suspect that you're just making things up.

Koehler is a lousy detour.

How is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is true, then all it takes is a new ordinance, then for that ordinance to be enforced uniformly from that point onward. It's really, really simple.

I would add that the Ashby lawsuit was settled out of court. No precedents were set. Nothing regarding TIAs has changed from the way it was. If behavior has changed, then that may reflect changing political sentiment against NIMBYs. But actually...I strongly suspect that you're just making things up.

How is that?

The claim in Ashby was that the City never actually enforced the TIA requirements to the point of limiting sq ft in a development. The lawsuit pointed to a number of other multifamily developments that caused a degredation in traffic conditions but were not required to limit the sq footage of the development. The Ashby developers claimed an equal protection violation. The City is now stuck with its past history. If they try to actually enforce the TIA requirements, they will ge sued under equal protection. You do not need an appellate opinion to paint yourself into a legal corner. When you settle a lawsuit, you send a big signal to developers. The only solution is to completely re-write the regulation. But that is impossible with a developer controlled city government.

The Koehler detour is terrible for 18 wheelers. When Yale St. closes, it will also be terrible for people trying to get to the development because there is not enough storage capacity between Yale and Heights on Koehler. Cars will back up onto Heights and create gridlock on the feeder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is known as hyperbole. There is not enough traffic on Yale or Heights to result in "major gridlock". But, it is fun to read these posts anyway. I imagine veins popping on s3mh's neck as he furiously types these posts.

And I thought it was wayward bicyclists causing gridlock in the Heights. Now it's 18-wheelers.

Man - y'all have a lot of traffic problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

s3mh is right to say WHEN Yale Street closes not IF, because it WILL BE CLOSED.

Reconstruction of the bridge will "necessitate the closure of the road for approximately one year" ... If new foundations are constructed, "this might lengthen the construction time by 3-4 months" (Entech report). That's 12 - 16 months.

In late 2016 (according to COH) the bridge WILL BE CLOSED. It might even be closed before then, if they can't get the ratings up or if the ratings decline just a little bit.

The point of the 380 (according to Parker) was that it was supposed to get out in front of infrastructure issues. 380 FAIL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Koehler detour is terrible for 18 wheelers. When Yale St. closes, it will also be terrible for people trying to get to the development because there is not enough storage capacity between Yale and Heights on Koehler. Cars will back up onto Heights and create gridlock on the feeder.

Do you have a date on the 3-week closure of Yale to replace the span five years from now? I'm going plan a vacation during this paralyzing grid lock, or at least stock up on non-perishables. Or are you with me in trying to get the bridge closed immediately to make our idyllic enclave more walkable and fishable? I could use someone talented on the magic 8-ball for my quest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim in Ashby was that the City never actually enforced the TIA requirements to the point of limiting sq ft in a development. The lawsuit pointed to a number of other multifamily developments that caused a degredation in traffic conditions but were not required to limit the sq footage of the development. The Ashby developers claimed an equal protection violation. The City is now stuck with its past history. If they try to actually enforce the TIA requirements, they will ge sued under equal protection. You do not need an appellate opinion to paint yourself into a legal corner. When you settle a lawsuit, you send a big signal to developers. The only solution is to completely re-write the regulation. But that is impossible with a developer controlled city government.

IIRC, the obscure code being cited by the city had to do with the placement of driveways and had not been enforced in a very very long time, since before TIA was TIA. If the City desires to enforce it, all that they would have to do is to tweak it in some manner as is substantive (this would be a low threshold) and then announce that they shall enforce it from here on out.

But if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the City that has no qualms with arbitrarily suing developers is unwilling to inconvenience them. The thing is, developers don't really care what the codes are. If the City makes building stuff more onerous, then it just means that a developer cannot afford to pay as much for land as they would otherwise. The bid prices on land make up for the difference, and a long-term constraint on supply causes rents to rise so as to make development feasible again. If a certain price band of tenants is displaced into the suburbs, developers will simply follow them. If it displaces them all the way to Dallas, developers will follow them there, too. Everybody's got to live, work, and shop somewhere, after all. What developers care about (and I know because I was one during the height of the Ashby controversy) is that the City doesn't randomly target them and delay their project into oblivion on specious grounds.

The Koehler detour is terrible for 18 wheelers. When Yale St. closes, it will also be terrible for people trying to get to the development because there is not enough storage capacity between Yale and Heights on Koehler. Cars will back up onto Heights and create gridlock on the feeder.

Koehler goes east and west between both Heights and Shepherd/Durham. There's also Bass Street. There are multiple detours available as options. I still don't see what the big deal is. Truck traffic occurs all over our metropolitan area 24 hours per day, and there are many intersections not designed to accommodate it. Somehow we make it work.

Besides, it's not as though Wal-Mart is going to schedule its entire logistics operation to coincide with Houston's rush hours. Congestion isn't a problem except for the few hours when it is. Let's not exaggerate the problem.

I was at the Wal-Mart on Silber last night. Did you know that in order for westbound traffic on I-10 to reach it, they have to exit Antoine and detour the opposite direction down I-10 back to Silber? I hope that you never have to take that trek. It would surely be the end of you. Myself though, I survived unscathed. And now I have new underwear. Yay!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fwiki - it will be 12-16 months, 4 years from now. Or sooner and longer.

I friend of mine has the lift contract for the feeder road brides over Whilte Oak Bayou. He removed the old spans, replaced with new spans on each feeder road bridge. Did you notice that the feeders were each closed for a weekend to complete the work? If you blinked you missed it. From where does this "12-16 months" notion come? I will ask him specifically to give me a bid-quality quote on the Yale Street shutdown time for replacement.

Edited by fwki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of the 380 (according to Parker) was that it was supposed to get out in front of infrastructure issues. 380 FAIL.

Would you rather that the amount of the 380 Agreement had been many times larger, requiring the City to reimburse for what the state would've funded them to do in the first place? No. That's just stupid. You'd be complaining about that to no end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said over and over I think the 380 shouldn't exist. I don't think it should have been increased to include the bridge, something else I've said over and over. I'm just pointing out that the 380 did not do what it was intended to do. They did not get out in front of infrastructure issues. There sidewalks are worse, the trees are worse. I'm not saying that they should spend more 380 money. I'm saying they should never have spent any of it, it does not do what the City said it would do.

For the last time, I don't think there should have been a single cent of 380 money spent on anything, regardless what Niche or Red may interpret from what I've said.

Niche, are you sure the state is funding this, or is it federal funds?

fwiki, for the time limit on the rebuild, I'm quoting the engineers the City commissioned to look at the bridge, which I clearly stated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said over and over I think the 380 shouldn't exist. I don't think it should have been increased to include the bridge, something else I've said over and over. I'm just pointing out that the 380 did not do what it was intended to do. They did not get out in front of infrastructure issues. There sidewalks are worse, the trees are worse. I'm not saying that they should spend more 380 money. I'm saying they should never have spent any of it, it does not do what the City said it would do.

For the last time, I don't think there should have been a single cent of 380 money spent on anything, regardless what Niche or Red may interpret from what I've said.

I never meant to imply that you would want more money on a 380 Agreement. The question was a trap. Your dodgy responses implicate a motive other than (or perhaps in addition to) a straightforward distrust of government. (It's kind of strange, after all, that you and I both agree that there should be no further 380 Agreements, but that we're bickering anyway.)

Niche, are you sure the state is funding this, or is it federal funds?

No. Like yourself, I am relegated to hearsay for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know why the bridge did not qualify for some of that "shovel ready" project money that was floating around a while back?

Because it was on Plan C of the "Wal-Mart is icky campaign" and not really an issue.

It's the whole "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" thing.

Edited by TGM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know why the bridge did not qualify for some of that "shovel ready" project money that was floating around a while back?

Go look up how the interstate exits were built. As soon as the construction comenced this development was announced.

Edit:

"Some Heights-area residents were surprised to learn of it when TxDOT revived the project to take advantage of some ‘use-it-or-lose-it' federal stimulus money" from the below link

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/heights-news/article/Stimulus-project-starting-up-in-area-1719073.php

Edited by J008
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche, whatever. I try to quote sources when I can, like the Entech report or the 380 agreement. I try to relay facts that I think others might be interested in, and keep my outlandish theories to myself.

Wait, you have theories even more outlandish than the ones you've already posted on here? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the controversy with the bridge anyway? I mean, Yale Street Bridge, from what I understand, is an old bridge that probably can't stand the weight of trucks. So instead of re-routing it, why not just demolish and rebuild the bridge? If the fact is "it would disrupt traffic", the trucks would've been going an alternate route anyway under the anti-Walmart crowd anyway, and cars could take the same route as them. If the fact is "it's an architectural relic that would get demolished in the name of Houston Progress", then care should be taken to shore it up while keeping its distinct looks intact. Alternately, create another bridge right next to it designed for trucks and stuff, so that it doesn't even disrupt normal traffic. Has anyone considered that?

Edited by IronTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work in Pearland where construction on HWY 35 has been NON-STOP for the last 3.5 years. There are 2 bridges that had to be demolished and replaced....both bridges were similar to the one over the bayou at Yale....This may come as an enormous surprise to an anti-walmart person - but TXDOT was able to demolish only 1/2 of the bridge at a time. 35, which, just like Yale was 4 lanes wide...now has new bridges complete in 2 locations, and the never closed 35!

How did they do it? They reduced the lanes to 1 each direction for about 2 weeks while they demolished 1/2 of the bridge, braced the remaining half and poured new piers for the new bridge....then they rebuilt that half...Then (and this will blow you walmart haters minds) they transferred traffic to the NEW half, and demolished it.

Total amount of time the bridge was under construction? About 8 weeks....Total amount of time the bridge was closed. Zero. While 35 is still being rebuilt traffic now flows effortlessly across the new bridge.

As an aside - I survived yet ANOTHER illegal crossing of the bridge this morning...this time with both kids in the car!!! Im such an irresponsible and wreckless parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure what you guys have observed going on other places is much more reliable than an engineers report done by engineers who have actually looked at this particular bridge. AND they might not even do new foundations for the Yale Street Bridge, so much less time.

I'm sure the construction of this bridge it like totally the same as the other one and they could easily demolish half of it, no worries, while you and your kids drive across it.

Although, since the bridge is perfectly fine as evidenced by you driving across it illegally without collapsing into the bayou, I question the need to do anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite your best and persistent efforts, you simply cannot stir any outrage in those of us who have no vendettas against Walmart. We realize that infrastructure is built, used, degrades, demolished and rebuilt routinely. It is no one's fault that a 100 year old bridge may need to be demolished and rebuilt, and we refuse to blame anyone just because you are still throwing a hissy fit over Walmart and Ainbinder. We even recognize that there is a perfectly usable bridge 100 feet away if this one needs to be shut down.

It is virtually impossible to manufacture any more faux outrage than you and s3mh have attempted on this bridge. Despite the fact that no one cares, and you are mocked for the over the top scare tactics, you continue. I admire your tenacity, if not your ability to accept reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite your best and persistent efforts, you simply cannot stir any outrage in those of us who have no vendettas against Walmart. We realize that infrastructure is built, used, degrades, demolished and rebuilt routinely. It is no one's fault that a 100 year old bridge may need to be demolished and rebuilt, and we refuse to blame anyone just because you are still throwing a hissy fit over Walmart and Ainbinder. We even recognize that there is a perfectly usable bridge 100 feet away if this one needs to be shut down.

It is virtually impossible to manufacture any more faux outrage than you and s3mh have attempted on this bridge. Despite the fact that no one cares, and you are mocked for the over the top scare tactics, you continue. I admire your tenacity, if not your ability to accept reality.

The bridge issue has been covered by the Chronicle, and most of the major local TV news networks. These media outlets have no reason to inflate the story about the bridge to serve the ends of an anti-walmart protest. In fact, if anything, they would be reticent to unecessarily step on the toes of a major advertiser. The reason these news outlets have covered this story is because it is objectively significant. The city of Houston is permitting development that will add thousands of cars and trucks to the roads just down the street from a bridge that has had its load rating reduced to as low a load rating as a bridge can have without being closed. The issue of truck traffic was brought to the City's attention before the 380 agreement was final. The issue of the bridge load capactiy was also before the city before any construction began. The city had the option under the 380 agreement to make changes to the agreement with the consent of the developer. The 380 agreement could have been used to get the bridge rebuilt prior to the opening of the development, while shifting back the cost of the usual exactions to the developer. The whole point of the 380 agreement was to address infrastructure concerns before the development opened. The city and the developer just ignored the problem with the bridge and kicked the can down the road. It was a conscious decision over almost two years to ignore the bridge issue unitl it was impossible to ignore anymore, not some late-breaking unexpected revalation. This development was supposed to be different. It was not supposed to be the usual situation where the developer builds and lets the community pick up the pieces when the infrastruction is insufficient to support the development. It turns out it was the same song and dance. Developer gets to build whatever they want and let the community deal with having to upgrade the surrounding infrastructure.

If this was all happening in a tiny Texas town, no one would even imagine putting in a Walmart and strip mall development down the street from a bridge that had a 3k per axel load limitation. It would easily be seen for the sheer stupidity that it is. Only under the guise of extreme libretarianism and right wing property rights is it possible to look at the situation and claim that everything is just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this was all happening in a tiny Texas town, no one would even imagine putting in a Walmart and strip mall development down the street from a bridge that had a 3k per axel load limitation. It would easily be seen for the sheer stupidity that it is. Only under the guise of extreme libretarianism and right wing property rights is it possible to look at the situation and claim that everything is just fine.

Your argument MIGHT make sense if this were a walmart on an island with no other feasible route of ingress/egress...but as it stands there is a plethora of available routes for anyone to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is in the Chron because the bridge had massive weight capacity reductions, nobody gives two craps about the walmart, just that a bridge will have to be rebuilt at some point. It is sensationalized by the media because the bridge is in such crappy shape.

There are perfectly suitable alternative routes... again this bridge has NOTHING to do Walmart.

Editor, you should remove all posts only regarding the bridge (including this one) because the bridge has nothing to do with the topic.

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

I'd like to add an addendum to my original post about the bridge, which I know this much: it's an old bridge, and probably could not withstand the additional traffic on it. Like I said, I listed the potential reasons why there's an outrage to begin with and no one has said anything. Yale Street Bridge was built in 1936. If it's such a safety hazard as the local media claim it is, then close it off and rebuild it. It's already limited to lighter cars only right now. If it's an architectural masterpiece that needs to be preserved, then care should be taken to shore it up and reopen. If it's costing the city money to do it either way, make the developers pay for part of the cost.

I'm fairly neutral on the subject, but please: what's the real controversy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fairly neutral on the subject, but please: what's the real controversy?

Almost nothing, as evidenced by all the fun posts on the topic poking at those who take it seriously. My favorite is the school bus plunging into a raging bayou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IronTiger, good question - what is the controversy? The bridge is scheduled to be rebuilt in late 2016. It will take from 3 weeks to 16 months to rebuild according to various HAIF posters.

If the bridge's rating decrease much further, the bridge will have to be closed before 2016.

The City is exploring repairs to make to the current bridge to bring up the ratings between now and 2016. What they can do is limited by the low load limits - scraping layers of asphalt off would improve the numbers, but the bridge can't support the equipment to do that.

Yes, the load limit is as low as it can go, but it's constantly violated and it is impossible to keep over limit vehicles off of the bridge. Posters here talk of intentionally violating the load limit, not sure as to what their reasoning is behind that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Posters here talk of intentionally violating the load limit, not sure as to what their reasoning is behind that.

It would take an additional 3 minutes of my day to bypass the bridge and I do it twice per day. Thats 6 minutes I wont get back. So if I can expedite the repairs by further degrading the bridge with my overweight vehicle then I will do so....

If a public bridge can't support the weight of a standard 3/4 ton truck then it should be closed - there should be no effort to limit the bridge to little cars. Thats just kicking the can further down the road. Fix it right or close it to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have a load enforcement truck at the bridge of death this morning....writing tickets to unsuspecting SUV drivers.... Luckily I had to take my kids to daycare today so I didn't cross this morning!

This is actually very amusing. In their quest to jack with Walmart and Ainbinder, all RUDE has managed to do is get traffic citations handed out to neighborhood residents. This will certainly gain much needed support for RUDE's efforts from the neighborhood they claim to be protecting! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the bridge's load limit and enforcement RUDH's fault? Are you saying that if not for RUDH, the load limits on the bridge would be higher? Are you saying that RUDH controls HPD?

You know exactly what I am saying, which is exactly why you rushed to post a wimpering rebuttal to my post. Face it, you and RUDE are now costing area residents money in addition to inconveniencing them. This stands in stark contrast to the big box down the street that promises to save residents money and offer the convenience of staying open 24 hours.

RUDE failed at their primary mission...stopping the Heights Walmart...and then failed at their secondary mission of preventing the 380 from being approved. Now, their lowly unrelated third mission of wailing about a bridge is having the unintended consequence of annoying RUDE's neighbors. RUDE is fast becoming persona non grata in the Heights neighborhood. Of course, this is exactly what happens when groups hide their true motivation. Once they are exposed, they are abhored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the bridge's load limit and enforcement RUDH's fault? Are you saying that if not for RUDH, the load limits on the bridge would be higher? Are you saying that RUDH controls HPD?

RUDH began screaming about the bridge loads when they realized no one gave a crap about their Walmart position. IMO, the engineers are totally in CYA mode due to all the attention, been there myself. Then they snapped a photo of an errant Walmart truck and you could hear their squeals of delight from the fifth ward. City downrgaes bridge again (CYA?) and directs HPD to screw us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe I just logged on at the right time.

So, you are saying if not for RUDH the bridge would not be fast tracked to replacement in 2016 and the load limits would be higher and unenforced? That the City would not be looking at options for temporary repairs in the meantime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument MIGHT make sense if this were a walmart on an island with no other feasible route of ingress/egress...but as it stands there is a plethora of available routes for anyone to use.

Just wait until you see what traffic is like when the bridge is closed. In fact, my hypothetical of the small town is a bad example. People in small towns are used to having to deal with load restricted bridges on back roads and take care to be aware of load limitations and avoid driving overload vehicles on restricted bridges. People in the fourth largest city in the US with an excellent economy expect that all bridges in the city limits on major thorough fares are capable of handling all street legal weight loads and are not keeping an eye out for load limitations. In any sane municipality, people would find it crazy to put in a big box supercenter and strip malls served by a major thoroughfare with a country load weight limited bridge. The only sane thing to do is fix the bridge and then let development proceed down stream. Otherwise, we are all just hoping that the engineers catch the degredation of the bridge before there is a catastrophic failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fwki, are you accusing the engineers of faking the ratings to appease RUDH?

I am saying engineers use judgement and safety factors, and when undue attention is focused on them the pucker factor kicks-in. I have been there myself, we are only human, better safe than sorry. Call it what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Wal-Mart To Invade The Heights
  • The topic was unlocked

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...