Walmart Supercenter At 111 Yale St.

[JJxvi]

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 October 10, 2012 by JJxvi

[RedScare]

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.

[JJxvi]

In fact, google's street view of the Pappas warehouse is pretty damn amusing.

Edited October 10, 2012 by JJxvi

[JJxvi]

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 October 10, 2012 by JJxvi

[TheNiche]

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?

[Subdude]

Mr. Leonard, still on 93Q?

As a courtesy to the board please keep your posts on-topic.

[Jesse]

As a courtesy to the board please keep your posts on-topic.

>2500 posts in this thread. What was the topic again?

[s3mh]

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.

[Pleak]

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.

[Leonard]

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.

[fwki]

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.

[Leonard]

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

[TheNiche]

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!

[fwki]

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 October 10, 2012 by fwki

[TheNiche]

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.

[Leonard]

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.

[TheNiche]

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.

[HTX]

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

[TGM]

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 October 10, 2012 by TGM

[Leonard]

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.

[J008]

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 October 10, 2012 by J008

[RedScare]

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?

[IronTiger]

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 October 11, 2012 by IronTiger

[Marksmu]

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.

[Leonard]

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.

[RedScare]

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.

[s3mh]

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.

[RedScare]

Nope, that didn't sway anyone, either.

Edited October 11, 2012 by RedScare

[Pleak]

Have you ever been to a tiny Texas town that would have absolutely no tax base to speak of?

[Marksmu]

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.