Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

Lower Westheimer Reconstruction


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, JLWM8609 said:

Probably was the old GH&SA line that had the bridge over Buffalo Bayou where the pedestrian bridge is now.

That looks right. https://www.tsl.texas.gov/arc/maps/images/map0435.jpg

 

I knew that there was a spur that went to the Sears warehouse on Montrose, and finally disconnected in the early 2000s (late enough that Memorial Heights Drive and Washington was built with a crossing in mind), but not that it went through to Westheimer and beyond. Grant Street was built over the right of way where it curved southeast but it looks like by the mid-1940s the right of way had been built over completely.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 6:28 PM, BeerNut said:

Hopefully with the METRO bond vote coming up Richmond will get redone when they put in BRT.

 

I hate to be spiteful, but I really hope it doesn't get redone unless this is the case. especially through afton oaks. if RIchmond becomes a pile of rubble and mud it's too good for those people. and yeah, in certain cases, I might just cut off my nose.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 6:28 PM, BeerNut said:

Hopefully with the METRO bond vote coming up Richmond will get redone when they put in BRT.

I have heard METRO’s presentation 4 times now at various meetings- 

Some presenters are better than others, but of course there are knee jerk answers to probing Questions that puzzle me and make me wonder if all bright and shiny proposals will be implemented as presented.

Richmond is destined for the dedicated Bus lane.——Metrorail on that street only a memory.

a direct metro rail route from Downtown to Hobby probably a sure bet— to IAH.....maybe not so much

The auto/unmanned Buses TSU engineers helped design, probably are no more than “iffy” at best—- real IFFY

but the idea of fewer bus stops  plus dedicated  curb cut out Bus stops along lower Westheimer, to help with traffic flow really excites me. If you’ve ever been next to a Bus ( inside lane)on lower Westheimer when the bus begins to crowd you into oncoming traffic—-you too would be excited.

sadly when the in-laws come from NYC there is a fair amount of redundant sarcasm at the state of our mass transit—— It would be nice to be able to show them them tangible improvements 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah BRT on Richmond is disappointing but I understand them being cautious because of the extremely high price tag of LRT.  I did make the argument with The Ion being built and putting I69 below grade that there might be a missed opportunity for an signature Wheeler station with LRT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BeerNut said:

Yeah BRT on Richmond is disappointing but I understand them being cautious because of the extremely high price tag of LRT.  I did make the argument with The Ion being built and putting I69 below grade that there might be a missed opportunity for an signature Wheeler station with LRT.

I think we're seriously underestimating the quality of transit BRT brings to the table. Most of that is due to the fact there is very little BRT in the US. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I think we're seriously underestimating the quality of transit BRT brings to the table. Most of that is due to the fact there is very little BRT in the US. 

You're probably right as SA is the only place I've seen it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, trymahjong said:

Perhaps the City applied for Federal funds for project from Shepherd to Montrose but As far as COH spokespeople were concerned  the project from Montrose to Bagby was fully funded and ready for a start date.

 

Here's the PDF: http://www.h-gac.com/2018-call-for-projects/documents/2018-call-for-project-tpc-rankings.pdf

 

"Project limits: 'S. Main to Shepherd'"

 

Description: "RECONSTRUCT AS 3 LANES WITH EXPANDED SIDEWALK WIDTH, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WITH DEDICATED TURN LANES, NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS . ACCESS MANAGEMENT INCLUDING NEW BUS STOP AND ON-STREET PARKING"

 

Requested funding was $45.7 million dollars, and it was requested for the 2026 fiscal.

 

I'll bet that they have the partial funding, but if they were gonna get it from the feds, then use your own money elsewhere.

 

The project was ranked 74/188 and only the top 34 were funded with separate special funding.

 

It's pretty opaque, but they were ranked by a cost/benefit ratio (I'm sure a road diet fit into that formula REALLY well) and a "planning score" which I could not find any info at all on.

 

It's actually surprising that even 34 were funded as I believe they only had funding for between 10 and 12 of these smaller projects.  There was an "extra" $175 mil available because the county had requested hempstead highway to be reconstructed from 610 to Little York, but the city of Houston told them they weren't on board, so they nixxed those plans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And because I was curious to see what other projects the city itself applied for, they only received funding for 1 of the 11 (2 additional were withdrawn, including major Waugh reconstruction).

 

The 1 that was funded is Antoine expansion from 4 to 6 lane from 290 to W. Mount Houston with bicycle path, turn lanes, blah blah blah for $80 mil in 2025. Rank: 31

 

Rejected:

 

Rank 39: Widen Aldine Westfield from BW8 to Little York from 2 to 4 lanes.

Rank 68: Uptown/Memorial Park connector path and bridge. Construct 10,000 feet of pathway.

Rank 74: Lower Westheimer Corridor

Rank 83: Fiber Optic Cable integration bnetween Transtar and Houston Emergency Center

Rank 96: Reconstruct broadway from 45 to SH 3 with widened sidewalks, buffered bike lane, left turn lanes, etc

Rank 100: West Fuqua city limit to Chimney Rock. Turn lines, intersection, relocated bus stops, etc.

Rank 108: Construct 10' path from Richmond to San Felipe (extension of previously funded path?)

Rank 113: Construct bike route from Northwest Transit Center to Memorial Park/Heights

Rank 123: Reconstruct Gelhorn Dr from 610 to 10. Sidewalks, bike lane, crosswalks, etc.

Rank 144: Reconstruct Memorial @ Gessner

Withdrawn: Diary Ashford from I-10 to Westheimer reconstruction

Withdrawn: Reconstruction of Waugh/heights/Yale 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes all true

the COH walk@ble committe recommended that Bagby to Montrose  get started a bit early while the equipment and manpower were finishing up Main Street to Bagby plus it was already fully funded—- nope

all the equipment and manpower taken away, lower Westheimer first postponed, the attached to non funded Shepherd toMontrose. Blvd.

at Cohens last CIP program COH stated it was STILL a priority.............that doesn’t really ring true now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/10/2019 at 3:45 PM, bobruss said:

I would put Richmond from 59 to Shepherd right up there with Westheimer.

they've recently done patch work on the road and curb cut outs on Richmond between Montrose and Spur.   Seem like a waste if they plan to put in BRT.  There is sign in front of Post Oak apartments detailing the project but I was driving a missed the details

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 5/6/2019 at 12:38 PM, BeerNut said:

they've recently done patch work on the road and curb cut outs on Richmond between Montrose and Spur.   Seem like a waste if they plan to put in BRT.  There is sign in front of Post Oak apartments detailing the project but I was driving a missed the details

They've continued to tear more of Richmond up, Westbound between Yoakum and Dunlavy and eastbound between Shepard and Kirby

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 7:33 PM, IronTiger said:

That looks right. https://www.tsl.texas.gov/arc/maps/images/map0435.jpg

 

I knew that there was a spur that went to the Sears warehouse on Montrose, and finally disconnected in the early 2000s (late enough that Memorial Heights Drive and Washington was built with a crossing in mind), but not that it went through to Westheimer and beyond. Grant Street was built over the right of way where it curved southeast but it looks like by the mid-1940s the right of way had been built over completely.

Of course this railroad line had long been removed through the neighborhood by then, it's just that the city didn't care to remove the tracks in the pavement at this location where it crossed Westheimer. Sure they paved over it, and built curbs, sidewalks and such, but they left the rails embedded in the street for decades, causing it to be a bone rattler like so many other poorly maintained crossings back then.

This was also true for the line that went down Greenbriar to Rice University (which curiously does not show up on the attached map). That long abandoned line had rails in the cross street intersections way up in into the 1980's.

Edited by plumber2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, plumber2 said:

Of course this railroad line had long been removed through the neighborhood by then, it's just that the city didn't care to remove the tracks in the pavement at this location where it crossed Westheimer. Sure they paved over it, and built curbs, sidewalks and such, but they left the rails embedded in the street for decades, causing it to be a bone rattler like so many other poorly maintained crossings back then.

This was also true for the line that went down Greenbriar to Rice University (which curiously does not show up on the attached map). That long abandoned line had rails in the cross street intersections way up in into the 1980's.

There's probably still lots of remnants though, even over houses. A long-abandoned (from the 1960s) right of way near my parents house has had a road built over it for the last 15 years (and it was properly engineered to the point where it never needed to be resurfaced completely), but when expanding it, they dug up old ties and even a few spikes. Who knows how much has resurfaced when the original houses near the right of way were torn out for new buildings? They might have even had rails!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 9:16 AM, C List said:

They've continued to tear more of Richmond up, Westbound between Yoakum and Dunlavy and eastbound between Shepard and Kirby

Could this be Upper Kirby District rebuilding their sections of the road? I remember hearing a lot of reconstruction was about to happen throughout the district.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/3/2019 at 1:24 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

Could this be Upper Kirby District rebuilding their sections of the road? I remember hearing a lot of reconstruction was about to happen throughout the district.

 

Not from what I've seen. They've been ripping up Richmond all the way from the spur to Kirby. My guess is this had some fed money involved. It is a major transit corridor. One of those things where if you don't use it you lose it. Can't exactly tell that money to be held or divert it to a future BRT/LRT line. Its silly, but its one of those weird glitches in the system that happens every so often.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

Not from what I've seen. They've been ripping up Richmond all the way from the spur to Kirby. My guess is this had some fed money involved. It is a major transit corridor. One of those things where if you don't use it you lose it. Can't exactly tell that money to be held or divert it to a future BRT/LRT line. Its silly, but its one of those weird glitches in the system that happens every so often.

Wish we had a lot more transparency on where road projects were going to occur, who was funding it, and what the project itself entailed. Feel like Rebuild Houston is a great source but their interactive map has been down forever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Triton said:

Wish we had a lot more transparency on where road projects were going to occur, who was funding it, and what the project itself entailed. Feel like Rebuild Houston is a great source but their interactive map has been down forever.

 

It's basically in this map now...https://cohegis.houstontx.gov/cohgisweb/houstonmapviewer/

The Public Works layer has several road layers in the "active eng. and const. proj" folder: contracted overlay, inter-local, roadway, sidewalk, etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Found a wealth of infrastructure information that H-GAC provides. Will be looking over it later. This was from their 2018-call-for-applications that they published. While it is from 2018, we have to remember that it normally a project doesn't take to long (between 1-2 years) after applications for work have been submitted to get a project going. 

 

Overall list:

 

http://www.h-gac.com/2018-call-for-projects/submitted-applications.aspx


Lower Westheimer:

http://www.h-gac.com/2018-call-for-projects/submitted-application.aspx?id=141

 

highlights from the information provided:

 

From "Project Information"

 

Quote

1. Project Title

Lower Westheimer

2. Project County

Harris County

3. Facility/Street Name

Westheimer

4. Project limits (from, to) or location (Address)

S. Main to Shepherd

5. Describe the primary problems to be addressed by the project (Project Need).

Lower Westheimer roadway has failing pavement with incomplete sidewalks, damaged curbs, and does not meet current design standards. Intersections are operating at a poor level of service, with high crash rates, and lack of necessary turn lanes. Pedestrian realm is missing segments of sidewalks and existing sidewalks are narrow and damaged, limited or no ADA compliant cross-ramps. The corridor is Metro's highest traveled route with frequent stops. Lanes are currently too narrow and buses block adjacent lanes. These issues were identified in the HGAC Midtown Livable Centers Study. Problem – Pavement Condition: The existing pavement is composed of asphalt pavement with concrete curb and gutter. The asphalt pavement is generally in fair to poor condition with numerous areas with cracking. The pavement condition index scores range between 63.34 and 80.69. Problem – Mobility Challenges: Narrow lane widths, inadequate traffic signals, poor pavement condition, and insufficient numbers of lanes significantly impact mobility along Westheimer Road. Problem – Safety: The segment of Westheimer Road between Dunlavy and Bagby has a high crash rate. This can be attributed directly to the narrow lanes and the lack of exclusive left-turn lanes. Majority of the crash experience within the study area are at the major intersections. The intersections of Westheimer at Dunlavy and Montrose with 43 and 61 crashes respectively, have relatively high intersection related crashes. The lack of defined turn lanes at the major intersections create several lane change maneuvers and most of the segment has very narrow lanes that create situation for higher side-swipe and lane change crashes. The four-lane undivided cross section with buses stopping in the right-most lane create several lane change maneuvers that increase potential conflict points in the roadway segment. Problem – Poor Pedestrian Realm Conditions: Sidewalks are generally in a poor condition with significant damages in some areas. In multiple locations, the pedestrian ramps are in poor condition and do not meet ADA requirements for safe utilization nor comply with City of Houston standards. The primary feedback from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) and the public at the three public meetings was that the top priority for the Lower Westheimer corridor was improving pedestrian experience by increasing the pedestrian realm.

6. Describe the proposed improvement/activity (Description).

Improvements are consistent with those recommended in the HGAC Midtown Livable Centers Study. Improvements include the reconstruction of Westheimer Road to support use of multiple modes of transportation and improve safety along the corridor for all users. Since expanding ROW is not feasible or desirable, 3 lanes are proposed in order to expand the sidewalk width. Intersection improvements include dedicated turn lanes, far side bus stops, and new traffic signals. Improvements also include limiting on-street parking, and access management solutions. The project includes construction of 8-foot minimum pedestrian realm along both sides of the roadway. As the primary feedback from the public was improvement of the pedestrian experience, the recommended concept balances pedestrian realm improvements while maintaining acceptable vehicular and transit operations throughout the corridor.

7. Describe the primary outcomes to be achieved by the project (Project Purpose)

Outcome - Improved Transit and passenger vehicle travel times Transit signal priority at minor intersections is shown to benefit bus and passenger vehicle travel times on Westheimer as it typically adds green time to the highest volume traffic movements. The implementation would improve bus travel times by about 4% for each direction on Westheimer. Outcome - Improved Pavement Condition The project includes the reconstruction of the existing pavement to bring it to current City of Houston standards and to meet traffic needs, provision of adequate lane widths and configurations. Outcome - Improved Level of Service Year 2011 average daily traffic volume on Westheimer Road from South Shepherd Drive to Dunlavy Street is 20,900 and from Dunlavy Street to Montrose Boulevard is 13,057. The nature of Lower Westheimer and Elgin (densely developed area with close proximity between signalized intersections) dictates that the capacity of the corridor is controlled by the signalized intersections more than the segments in between major intersections. Intersection levels of service (LOS) analyses The results of the LOS analysis for Year 2035 traffic conditions in a “no build” determine signalized intersections operating at LOS F/D. By implementing the recommended intersection improvements, LOS projections for Year 2035 improve to C/D. Outcome - Improved pedestrian realm and safety A complete sidewalk network that includes continuous, well maintained, ADA-compliant sidewalks, curb ramps and safe crosswalks is a focal point of the project and was emphasized in public comments. All pedestrian realm facilities will be brought up to ADA accessibility standards including intersections.

 

From "Project Development/Readiness
 

Quote

1. Please select the level of engineering completed.

Schematic

2. What is the completed or anticipated level of environmental documentation required for the proposed project?

Categorical Exclusion (CE)

A. What was/is the anticipated completion date of the environmental clearance?

12/20/2019

 

From "Benefit/Cost Analysis"
 

Quote

6. Please provide a brief narrative describing the methodology, input data and results. (Optional)

Lower Westheimer is being submitted as a Complete Street project. The proposed project examined the corridor with public/stakeholder input and aligns with the Future Vision as outlined in the Inner West Loop Study as a 'high frequency transit' corridor and a 'urban avenue'. The project benefit factors included medians, safety lighting at intersections, pedestrian crosswalks, continuous and upgraded sidewalks, turn lanes, and defined driveways.

 

From "Planning Factors - Improves Mulimodal LOS"

 

Quote

1. Does the proposed project improve highway/freight LOS?

No

2. Does the proposed project improve transit LOS?

Yes

3. Does the proposed project improve bike/pedestrian LOS?

Yes

4. Please provide a brief narrative explaining how proposed project improves multimodal LOS (Auto, Bike/Ped, and Transit).

The proposed project layout has been coordinated with Metro to include bus stop consolidation, far side stops at intersections, and was modeled by Metro to show a 4% increase in bus travel time (see Metro memo in pre-eng report pg 235 of pdf). Pedestrian and bike mobility will be improved with wider sidewalks, safer pedestrian crossing at intersections and designated bicycle crossings at Woodhead, Commonwealth, and Yoakum.

 

Attached Map (which I think we have already seen before):

 

http://www.h-gac.com/transportation-improvement-program/call-for-projects-uploads/1031201894142AM.pdf

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

I personally think some of the sidewalks in this area could be improved. I drove through here to get to HWY 6 during Thanksgiving and while the sidewalks are good, some areas aesthetically need some work. Especially for an area that houses some of the biggest names in shopping in the city. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Basically they just started, and have a deadline for the engineering team of 2023.  So it probably won't start until 2024, and then take over a year to do, so it won't be done until 2026

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Spring 2023"

 

From what I understand, that's as far back as they could push it and still keep it on as being planned. 

 

It's really going to be up to Abbie Kamin to push for this project and I don't know how strongly she feels about this. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Shame they couldn't fast-track this while all the restaurants/bars were closed and restricted. Houston remains friendly to small business, the rest of us be damned

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will continue to say this, Montrose's voice in city government sucks right now. It sucks because we don't have people that actually get what Montrose needs. While I like the independent nature of a lot of Montrose's neighborhoods, it also leaves the rest of the district vulnerable because if a neigbhorhood is able to secure funding and agreements with the city to upgrade there streets one by one then there isn't really a need to give funding to Montrose as a district. Montrose TIRZ for example is only the major thoroughfares and commercial areas that line them, and very few people actually live on those corridors currently. Most people live in these independent neighborhoods which flank the corridor and that is where the majority of voices are, and its where most of the tax payers are. Think about it, with all the above setup as it currently is, it stands to reason that anything Montrose TIRZ wants will be secondary to what each independent neighborhood wants. Midtown gets what they need because they can effectively talk to city government as a block. The Heights can get what they want because they can talk to the city as a block. Same with Upper Kirby. Even East End and 3rd Ward get more resources because they are able to form as a block to get what they want. Montrose doesn't approach the city in this way. This effectively leaves Montrose TIRZ to fight for itself which will put it at the back of the line. If people want this project to work then Montrose needs to start acting more like a district and not as a collection or confederation of independent neighborhoods because while neighborhoods might be able to get new streets they don't include major roads as part of there realm which will leave them out of funding.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

When is the next bid? City Council member Abbie Kamin seemed optimistic that it would be included next go around because of the criteria change.

 

I feel that the reason this was scrapped for the moment is because the city is trying to prioritize areas that are in desperate need for improvements. Not saying Lower Westheimer doesn't need work, but at the moment, if property owners would simply keep the city ROW clean and maintain their sidewalks, this area can continue to thrive until those repairs are made. The city needs to put pressure on property owners to better maintain their part of the infrastructure. I don't know how long it's going to take a restaurant like Aladdin to request the city come and clean up their muddy street corner. 

 

Honestly if it were me, I'd like to see Washington Ave, Montrose Blvd, and Waugh get rebuilt. 

 

It looks like West Alabama and Durham/Shepherd are part of the improvements for this year.

Edited by j_cuevas713
Link to post
Share on other sites

@j_cuevas713

 

As an optimist myself its certainly possible, but I'm also a realist, so its important that we don't look at this in a naive or even a hopeful way.

By the way I want to make sure I'm clear I'm not here to attack you as a person or to discredit you, but what I am going to say should be something to think about.

 

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

When is the next bid? City Council member Abbie Kamin seemed optimistic that it would be included next go around because of the criteria change.

 

I don't know about you, but a politician seeming "optimistic" about anything doesn't exactly get anything done. They said this last time, and the time before that, and the time before that. I can't see what actions they have taken as leaders for ME to be "optimistic" about THEIR "optimism". This persons words ring hollow at this point. I'm not going to simply take this at face value, and it would be wise you don't take it at face value either.

 

Fine the criteria has change. How does that help? What makes this project a better candidate before than it did in the past? Again its merely words framed in a way to make sure one doesn't ask questions if they don't want to ask them. However if you are someone that asks a lot of questions, like I do, it opens a pandoras box of questions.

 

Its not only that, then I have to ask, well you knew the criteria before it was change and you were still unsuccessful. Do you submit even though you knew it would fail, and this was just one making themselves look like they are getting something done, and now that the criteria has changed now its covering up for your previous failures? Or is it actually something different?

 

I don't trust this person, I don't know this person. It would be one thing if I didn't know them, but they actually acted out what they were saying and got things done, but I'm even more skeptical and mistrustful when you add the fact I don't ever get to see this council person ever.

 

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I feel that the reason this was scrapped for the moment is because the city is trying to prioritize areas that are in desperate need for improvements.

 

This. This is why it isn't getting done because people throw statements like this and sacrifice what they need for what others need, and at the same time it makes what they want neglected, and it makes them worse off. How long do we prioritize others until we feel they are sufficiently "well off" arbitrarily, so the city can focus on our community again? If ever. This moment when you step back and cede your wants and needs is the moment when others who don't care about your wants and needs, and won't think about others will just take it for themselves, and push you aside. You want better infrastructure and better roads. Fine that is something one selfishly wants, but it also benefits others greatly as well, so its really not that selfish. If its not that selfish then its something to not cede and to fight for. If you don't cede and you fight for it then you at least have a chance to win. We aren't even putting up a fight. We are let others take funding because we want to feel like we are self-righteous good people, but we are just weak, and can't stand up for ourselves.

 

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Not saying Lower Westheimer doesn't need work, but at the moment, if property owners would simply keep the city ROW clean and maintain their sidewalks, this area can continue to thrive until those repairs are made. The city needs to put pressure on property owners to better maintain their part of the infrastructure. I don't know how long it's going to take a restaurant like Aladdin to request the city come and clean up their muddy street corner.

 

And then after you cede the argument to them, you then say, oh its not the cities fault its the property owners fault and they should do more. So now were going to let the city and authority figures get off scot-free, but the people that will benefit from these improvements...no we should just blame them. Do you see the contradictions here? As if us not getting funding is a direct result of property owners not being sufficiently clean operators, or pure people who are without sin in some sense is the problem for our rejection, when we know full well areas that are actually look worse get funding, so its cleanliness isn't a prerequisite for funding. The prerequisite is not backing down when you want something and pushing for it until you get it. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, as they say. We don't even let our wheels squeak because we think it will be rude until we have no more wheels because they fall off.

 

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Honestly if it were me, I'd like to see Washington Ave, Montrose Blvd, and Waugh get rebuilt. 

 

 

It looks like West Alabama and Durham/Shepherd are part of the improvements for this year.

 

And here its not like you are hiding that you want this to change. Just for some reason you think its rude to ask?

 

The only reason why Durham/Shepherd is getting fixed is because its an important utility corridor. Thats it. Its not some virtue of helping the people. Its utility plain and simple, and that is ok, but it would be wrong...more like naive to frame it otherwise. West Alabama is taking forever. They are dragging there heels on that, and I haven't seen movement on this at all. The only movement I've seen on this is for Upper Kirby...because they actually fight for what they want, and aren't afraid of making a little bit of a ruckus to get it.

Edited by Luminare
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Luminare said:

@j_cuevas713

 

As an optimist myself its certainly possible, but I'm also a realist, so its important that we don't look at this in a naive or even a hopeful way.

By the way I want to make sure I'm clear I'm not here to attack you as a person or to discredit you, but what I am going to say should be something to think about.

 

 

I don't know about you, but a politician seeming "optimistic" about anything doesn't exactly get any done. They said this last time, and the time before that, and the time before that. I can't see what actions they have taken as leaders for ME to be "optimistic" about THEIR "optimism". This persons words ring hollow at this point. I'm not going to simply take this at face value, and it would be wise you don't take it at face value either.

 

Fine the criteria has change. How does that help? What makes this project a better candidate before than it did in the past? Again its merely words framed in a way to make sure one doesn't ask questions if they don't want to ask them. However if you are someone that asks a lot of questions, like I do, it opens a pandoras box of questions.

 

Its not only that, then I have to ask, well you knew the criteria before it was change and you were still unsuccessful. Do you submit even though you knew it would fail, and this was just one making themselves look like they are getting something done, and now that the criteria has changed now its covering up for your previous failures? Or is it actually something different?

 

I don't trust this person, I don't know this person. It would be one thing if I didn't know them, but they actually acted out what they were saying and got things done, but I'm even more skeptical and mistrustful when you add the fact I don't ever get to see this council person ever.

 

 

This. This is why it isn't getting done because people throw statements like this and sacrifice what they need for what others need, and at the same time it makes what they want neglected, and it makes them worse off. How long do we prioritize others until we feel they are sufficiently "well off" arbitrarily, so the city can focus on our community again? If ever. This moment when you step back and cede your wants and needs is the moment when others who don't care about your wants and needs, and won't think about others will just take it for themselves, and push you aside. You want better infrastructure and better roads. Fine that is something one selfishly wants, but it also benefits others greatly as well, so its really not that selfish. If its not that selfish then its something to not cede and to fight for. If you don't cede and you fight for it then you at least have a chance to win. We aren't even putting up a fight. We are let others take funding because we want to feel like we are self-righteous good people, but we are just weak, and can't stand up for ourselves.

 

 

And then after you cede the argument to them, you then say, oh its not the cities fault its the property owners fault and they should do more. So now were going to let the city and authority figures get off scot-free, but the people that will benefit from these improvements...no we should just blame them. Do you see the contradictions here? As if us not getting funding is a direct result of property owners not being sufficiently clean operators, or pure people who are without sin in some sense is the problem for our rejection, when we know full well areas that are actually look worse get funding, so its cleanliness isn't a prerequisite for funding. The prerequisite is not backing down when you want something and pushing for it until you get it. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, as they say. We don't even let our wheels squeak because we think it will be rude until we have no more wheels because they fall off.

 

 

And here its not like you are hiding that you want this to change. Just for some reason you think its rude to ask?

 

The only reason why Durham/Shepherd is getting fixed is because its an important utility corridor. Thats it. Its not some virtue of helping the people. Its utility plain and simple, and that is ok, but it would be wrong...more like naive to frame it otherwise. West Alabama is taking forever. They are dragging there heels on that, and I haven't seen movement on this at all. The only movement I've seen on this is for Upper Kirby...because they actually fight for what they want, and aren't afraid of making a little bit of a ruckus to get it.

Ok Luminaire lol

 

You act as if I haven't heard the same thing over and over by local authorities regarding reconstruction on multiple major thoroughfares. Regardless the current situation, we can't act as though this city didn't decide to use a pay as you go system to prevent added debt. Nobody is putting blame on property owners. The problem is they aren't held accountable enough by the city to maintain the city ROW. So both parties are to blame. We all want these projects to get done, and they would have been done a long time ago at the cost of added debt. I'm not being "optimistic", I'm making the point that based off of all the construction and infrastructure improvements over the last decade, one can only assume that this isn't just some bullshit attempt to shut everyone up. Clearly the city is understanding the need for upgrading it's infrastructure. I'll bet anything the city knows how important Lower Westheimer is to the overall grand scheme of things. You're making the assumption that because Durham and Shepherd are utility based that that is the only reason for repairs. The city is using that as an opportunity to upgrade other existing infrastructure. That's what I meant by current NEED. Lower Westheimer isn't in so much disarray that basic maintenance by property owners wouldn't help. There is simply no accountability for property owners to do their part. Nobody is pointing the finger and tying to be an asshole. 

Edited by j_cuevas713
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are vast swathes of Houston that need repairs before Montrose does. Take a drive into the Fifth Ward North of I-10, or Kashmere, or any other lower SES area. They all need help before Montrose does, as they have been ignored forever. Yes, Lower Westheimer needs work, but it's not as other streets around town, and doesn't have the flooding issues nearly as bad.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ross said:

There are vast swathes of Houston that need repairs before Montrose does. Take a drive into the Fifth Ward North of I-10, or Kashmere, or any other lower SES area. They all need help before Montrose does, as they have been ignored forever. Yes, Lower Westheimer needs work, but it's not as other streets around town, and doesn't have the flooding issues nearly as bad.

Def agree with that. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
13 hours ago, Triton said:

Can they at least repave the damn thing?

Repave it and clean up sidewalk areas that are covered in mud or brush. I think for the most part it's very walkable where it's at. My fear is that this never truly get's funded. River Oaks seems to be ahead of everyone in terms of reconstruction of all of it's streets. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2020 at 12:12 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

A little birdy told me finding funding for Lower Westheimer is not looking good. 

Perhaps a more accurate appraisal of the situation: Prior to Hurricane Harvey the renovations to lower Westheimer were completely funded. After Harvey lower Westheimer was attached to proposed renovations of Upper Westheimer, which had no funding. The “ready to go money” was most probably used in connection with Harvey repairs leaving the lower and Upper Westheimer renovations as “ partially” funded on paper but “ actually” no money to proceed.

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/28/2020 at 4:38 PM, trymahjong said:

Perhaps a more accurate appraisal of the situation: Prior to Hurricane Harvey the renovations to lower Westheimer were completely funded. After Harvey lower Westheimer was attached to proposed renovations of Upper Westheimer, which had no funding. The “ready to go money” was most probably used in connection with Harvey repairs leaving the lower and Upper Westheimer renovations as “ partially” funded on paper but “ actually” no money to proceed.

 

You're leaving the HGAC component out of this. They applied for HGAC funds, which require matching funds from the applicant. I honestly got the feeling that they only scheduled CIP funds for the lower Westheimer portion of the project to try to get the HGAC grant, and when that failed they decided to pull all funding and reallocate. They (I think Kamin?) said that they would be applying for HGAC funds again in the next round. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a point.

However, the fully funded CIP  (redo Westheimer from Main to Montrose) to partially funded (Montrose to Shepherd) all happened before Kamin was elected. The fully funded part was in place just before Hurricane  Harvey..... that those funds were Probably redirected towards Harvey rebuild, is my personal speculation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trymahjong said:

You have a point.

However, the fully funded CIP  (redo Westheimer from Main to Montrose) to partially funded (Montrose to Shepherd) all happened before Kamin was elected. The fully funded part was in place just before Hurricane  Harvey..... that those funds were Probably redirected towards Harvey rebuild, is my personal speculation. 

 

I'm just saying that Kamin said recently that they would be applying again for the HGAC funds during the next call for projects whenever that happened. 

 

HGAC call for project when they were rejected started in 2018, so they had to have funds allocated from before that.

 

And yes, Harvey rebuild may have been part of it: that's what happened to the W. Alabama funds.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...