New bikeway to be created on Patterson in Rice Military

[wilcal]

Went to the planning meeting last night and it's an interesting little project.

 

https://i.imgur.com/39YHqbm.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/K11CPOd.jpg

 

The idea is to connect Buffalo Bayou Park with the White Oak Bayou Trail. 

 

They are going to be using the CoH CIP funds for this project, not the Ellis $10 million. Timeline is try to have it complete by next summer. 

 

By challenge is the varying street widths. On the 18-20' section, it would only be sharrows. 

 

Plan is to have a 5' dedicated bike lane on both sides of the road where the street is wider. 

 

I didn't grab a picture, but the Patterson @ Washington intersection would have a slight redesign. Oasis medians in the middle of Washington would be installed (where the current turn lane is. One option is to still allow turns, but only from the main lane from Washington onto Patterson. The other option is to build out the median more so only bikes could pass through and prevent left turns across the street onto Patterson. 

 

Lots of concerns about a reduction in street parking by residents (I believe it would be eliminated in the 36' segments and eliminated on at least 1 side if not both for the 40' segment. 

 

There was a lady there that represents a HOA board of 100ish townhomes just north of Washington on Patterson and she was not excited about any of the changes, but was starting to come around a little bit by the end of the meeting. She said that they were in the process of getting signatures to restrict street parking to permits only. Someone asked her why they needed on-street parking when every townhome had at least 2 garage parking spots she said "we drive trucks. really big trucks that don't fit". By the end, she said it would be an easier sell if B-Cycle had stations nearby. CoH said that most are sponsored by local businesses but that they are built where bike infrastructure goes up. 

 

 

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, wilcal said:

Went to the planning meeting last night and it's an interesting little project.

 

https://i.imgur.com/39YHqbm.jpg

 

https://i.imgur.com/K11CPOd.jpg

 

The idea is to connect Buffalo Bayou Park with the White Oak Bayou Trail. 

 

They are going to be using the CoH CIP funds for this project, not the Ellis $10 million. Timeline is try to have it complete by next summer. 

 

By challenge is the varying street widths. On the 18-20' section, it would only be sharrows. 

 

Plan is to have a 5' dedicated bike lane on both sides of the road where the street is wider. 

 

I didn't grab a picture, but the Patterson @ Washington intersection would have a slight redesign. Oasis medians in the middle of Washington would be installed (where the current turn lane is. One option is to still allow turns, but only from the main lane from Washington onto Patterson. The other option is to build out the median more so only bikes could pass through and prevent left turns across the street onto Patterson. 

 

Lots of concerns about a reduction in street parking by residents (I believe it would be eliminated in the 36' segments and eliminated on at least 1 side if not both for the 40' segment. 

 

There was a lady there that represents a HOA board of 100ish townhomes just north of Washington on Patterson and she was not excited about any of the changes, but was starting to come around a little bit by the end of the meeting. She said that they were in the process of getting signatures to restrict street parking to permits only. Someone asked her why they needed on-street parking when every townhome had at least 2 garage parking spots she said "we drive trucks. really big trucks that don't fit". By the end, she said it would be an easier sell if B-Cycle had stations nearby. CoH said that most are sponsored by local businesses but that they are built where bike infrastructure goes up. 

 

 

Great project!

[bobruss]

Pretty sad when your truck doesn't fit your house. Sounds like she needs a bike.

[BeerNut]

They also probably have so much junk in their garage the cars don't fit.

[dbigtex56]

6 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

She said that they were in the process of getting signatures to restrict street parking to permits only.

Ah. Although the parking situation was clear when she and her neighbors bought their properties, they now feel that it's their right to appropriate public property for their outsize trucks and guest parking. 
They want special privileges? Fine. They can pay for them. A reasonable charge (say, $20 a day) should apply. Add in administrative and enforcement fees, and round it up to $1,000 a year permit fee per space for their exclusive parking rights. It's a bargain at that price.

[wilcal]

I now have a digital copy of the full presentation for your perusal 

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B96i69N6UGXFTHg0NFVVZGhVLWVxNGpab2VjRDk0U055Q0JN

 

2 hours ago, dbigtex56 said:

Ah. Although the parking situation was clear when she and her neighbors bought their properties, they now feel that it's their right to appropriate public property for their outsize trucks and guest parking. 
They want special privileges? Fine. They can pay for them. A reasonable charge (say, $20 a day) should apply. Add in administrative and enforcement fees, and round it up to $1,000 a year permit fee per space for their exclusive parking rights. It's a bargain at that price.

 

I really wanted to say something along these lines but she was starting to understand already that she may be in the wrong. 

[Visitor]

Thanks for sharing this preso and information. Patterson and Washington do need a safe pedestrian/bike crossing area.  Just recently made the cross there to go lunch at Miyako (walking).

 

Eliminating the auto turning capability here seems like a bit much, especially considering only Shepherd/Durham and then Yale can cross the tracks. I also have zero faith COH will not make the addition of that median look like a third world mess.  Fully expect them to follow the city motto of "Good 'nuff"

 

Removing the parking on the section between I-10 & Washington is just going to push those cars into the even smaller side streets. (Eli, Schuler, Koehler, etc)

 

I know Houston loves its ditches, but those areas could provide ample street parking if culverted.  Hard to believe a 3-4' culvert would carry that much less water. 

 

The street parking on Patterson does however make crossing that stretch a harrowing experience. Accidents are pretty regular. 

 

Will be following to see what actually comes of this. Doesn't sound like there is a real timeline or approval?

[Visitor]

Sat in on the West End meeting where this proposal was presented. Typical Houston half-assed project on a shoe string budget and zero considerations/accommodations for the downstream effects. 

 

No planning for redistributed parking and the cross walk at Washington would have no signal with no plan in place to install one. They want to put in a concrete median for essentially nothing. I can cross half of Washington at a time and stand in the middle of the road today. 

 

FWIW they indicated they could not do a single side-two lane bike path like downtown, preserving one side for street parking, due to the RR crossing width. How do they propose to put two lanes on each side then?

[AREJAY]

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 3:38 PM, bobruss said:

Pretty sad when your truck doesn't fit your house. Sounds like she needs a bike.

 

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 6:28 PM, dbigtex56 said:

Ah. Although the parking situation was clear when she and her neighbors bought their properties, they now feel that it's their right to appropriate public property for their outsize trucks and guest parking. 
They want special privileges? Fine. They can pay for them. A reasonable charge (say, $20 a day) should apply. Add in administrative and enforcement fees, and round it up to $1,000 a year permit fee per space for their exclusive parking rights. It's a bargain at that price.

 

To be fair, before my wife and I got married - she had a townhouse in that development and my stock F-150 extended cab (not even the 4 full door crew cab) wouldn't fit with the front bumper touching the drywall in the front of the garage. Those garage were tiny!  

[wilcal]

11 hours ago, Visitor said:

Sat in on the West End meeting where this proposal was presented. Typical Houston half-assed project on a shoe string budget and zero considerations/accommodations for the downstream effects. 

 

No planning for redistributed parking and the cross walk at Washington would have no signal with no plan in place to install one. They want to put in a concrete median for essentially nothing. I can cross half of Washington at a time and stand in the middle of the road today. 

 

FWIW they indicated they could not do a single side-two lane bike path like downtown, preserving one side for street parking, due to the RR crossing width. How do they propose to put two lanes on each side then?

3

 

To be clear, you were at the meeting last night? I couldn't go so have been trying to find info. 

 

They just don't have the budget to do a real signal at Washington. This project is being done with CIP funds. That's wonderful that they are doing a concrete median as while you are comfortable standing in a turn lane, I don't think that many people are. Where they presenting the option that prevents people from turning across/continuing North/South from Patterson?

 

In regards to the RR crossing width, it's only 36' right there (and remains 36' wide all of the way to I-10). Where the street is 40', just south of there, they are planning an 8' parking lane, 5' bike lane, 11' drive lane, 11' drive lane, and 5' bike lane. When reducing to 36' width, they won't reduce the size of the parking line or drive lanes, so the 4' reduction would have to come from the bike lanes and 3' is not good enough (those are the width of the old "gutter" width bike lanes Lanier put up).

 

Also, the two-way bike lanes are generally considered not as safe because you have bikers traveling against traffic and cars that are turning from side streets and can facilitate crashes.

 

[wilcal]

45 minutes ago, AREJAY said:

 

 

To be fair, before my wife and I got married - she had a townhouse in that development and my stock F-150 extended cab (not even the 4 full door crew cab) wouldn't fit with the front bumper touching the drywall in the front of the garage. Those garage were tiny!  

 

Was kind of intrigued and looked it up. Based on the current gen F-150, the SuperCab 6.5' bed and SuperCrew 5.5' bed are the same length at 19'4" and the SuperCrew 6.5' bed is 20'4".

 

For comparison, my Jetta station wagon is 14.9' long. The new Ranger crew cab is 17.6' 

[dbigtex56]

2 hours ago, AREJAY said:

To be fair, before my wife and I got married - she had a townhouse in that development and my stock F-150 extended cab (not even the 4 full door crew cab) wouldn't fit with the front bumper touching the drywall in the front of the garage. Those garage were tiny!

 

What a quandary!
That's begging to be a country and western song: "I Just Couldn't Get My Truck In Her Garage".

[august948]

17 minutes ago, dbigtex56 said:

 

What a quandary!
That's begging to be a country and western song: "I Just Couldn't Get My Truck In Her Garage".

 

I got my truck in her garage, but it was a tight fit.

[samagon]

2 hours ago, AREJAY said:

 

 

To be fair, before my wife and I got married - she had a townhouse in that development and my stock F-150 extended cab (not even the 4 full door crew cab) wouldn't fit with the front bumper touching the drywall in the front of the garage. Those garage were tiny!  

I would assume you dealt with this temporary problem.

 

Obviously you two are still together, so you didn't deal with it by not staying together, I'm happy for you two.

 

So that means, she either sold the townhome, you bought a vehicle that fit the garage, or you park on the street?

 

I don't live anywhere near that area, but I've driven the streets once or twice, they're tight, even without parking. It's shocking to me that the city even allows parking on those streets at all.

19 minutes ago, dbigtex56 said:

 

What a quandary!
That's begging to be a country and western song: "I Just Couldn't Get My Truck In Her Garage".

 

I'm waiting for the first self driving trucks, and I am predicting that within the year someone will write a country song about how their truck left them.

[AREJAY]

33 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

Was kind of intrigued and looked it up. Based on the current gen F-150, the SuperCab 6.5' bed and SuperCrew 5.5' bed are the same length at 19'4" and the SuperCrew 6.5' bed is 20'4".

 

For comparison, my Jetta station wagon is 14.9' long. The new Ranger crew cab is 17.6' 

I had a 2006 F150 with the 5.5' flaireside bed (150" WB) should have put it around 18.6" . Never thought to measure the garage, but that would mean the garage was about 18' long.
 

 

2 minutes ago, samagon said:

I would assume you dealt with this temporary problem.

 

Obviously you two are still together, so you didn't deal with it by not staying together, I'm happy for you two.

 

So that means, she either sold the townhome, you bought a vehicle that fit the garage, or you park on the street?

 

I don't live anywhere near that area, but I've driven the streets once or twice, they're tight, even without parking. It's shocking to me that the city even allows parking on those streets at all.

 

I'm waiting for the first self driving trucks, and I am predicting that within the year someone will write a country song about how their truck left them.

This was several years ago (2010-2012ish) before the area had been developed like it is now. At first when I would stay over I'd just cram in the garage and close the garage door until it would stop just above the rear bumper. That was until somebody jumped the fence and walked under the garage door and stole stuff from her garage. After that I parked on the side streets where there was ample parking. But that parking was always ample because there was about a 50/50 chance you'd wake up to find your window broken. After two broken windows (but nothing stolen) I would just leave the doors unlocked and would still park on the side street. 

[Visitor]

4 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

To be clear, you were at the meeting last night? I couldn't go so have been trying to find info. 

 

They just don't have the budget to do a real signal at Washington. This project is being done with CIP funds. That's wonderful that they are doing a concrete median as while you are comfortable standing in a turn lane, I don't think that many people are. Where they presenting the option that prevents people from turning across/continuing North/South from Patterson?

 

In regards to the RR crossing width, it's only 36' right there (and remains 36' wide all of the way to I-10). Where the street is 40', just south of there, they are planning an 8' parking lane, 5' bike lane, 11' drive lane, 11' drive lane, and 5' bike lane. When reducing to 36' width, they won't reduce the size of the parking line or drive lanes, so the 4' reduction would have to come from the bike lanes and 3' is not good enough (those are the width of the old "gutter" width bike lanes Lanier put up).

 

Also, the two-way bike lanes are generally considered not as safe because you have bikers traveling against traffic and cars that are turning from side streets and can facilitate crashes.

 

Yes I was at the meeting and based on your linked preso the options for the 40' (& 36') stretch (Washington to i-10) have changed. Its either complete removal of the parking on both sides of Patterson and convert to dedicated bike lanes or keep both sides of parking and do a shared car and bike lane each direction. 

 

Regarding the median in Washington, they presented the same image in your linked preso that has an option to block a left turn from Washington east bound to Patterson northbound, Patterson southbound to Washington eastbound and Patterson northbound to Washington westbound. Personally as someone who lives here, I would not be happy with a median blocking this. 

 

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on doing a painting project vs real infrastructure planning.

 

 

 

 

 

[wilcal]

47 minutes ago, Visitor said:

Yes I was at the meeting and based on your linked preso the options for the 40' (& 36') stretch (Washington to i-10) have changed. Its either complete removal of the parking on both sides of Patterson and convert to dedicated bike lanes or keep both sides of parking and do a shared car and bike lane each direction. 

 

1

 

The 36' section was always removal of parking from both sides and painted bike lanes. 

 

They were certainly leaning towards keeping parking on one side of the 40' section, so that is surprising that they are eliminating that option. Although it is only a few blocks.  

 

Quote

Regarding the median in Washington, they presented the same image in your linked preso that has an option to block a left turn from Washington east bound to Patterson northbound, Patterson southbound to Washington eastbound and Patterson northbound to Washington westbound. Personally as someone who lives here, I would not be happy with a median blocking this. 

3

 

The other point of view is that several of the people that lived in the neighborhood actually didn't like that so many people were using Patterson as a cut through on the way to Walmart or otherwise and that this could cause a calming effect on non-local street traffic. Traffic drives way too fast on Washington, so any form of traffic calming would be welcome imho. 

 

Quote

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on doing a painting project vs real infrastructure planning.

 

I know you originally mentioned that you weren't at the first meeting. Some extremely local residents had asked about a signal being added at Patterson/Washington but CoH Planning said that the traffic counts weren't even close to justify it. The railroad crossings were brought up, but are effectively unchangeable due to involvement of federal government and that there was an agreement signed to minimize the crossings so that the train wouldn't have to blow it's horn (85% that's what was said).

 

The city only allocates a little over $1 million in their CIP plan for biking, so paint will have to suffice when you have a paint budget. 

 

[Triton]

I've tried biking this intersection and I hated it. It seems so difficult to see oncoming traffic. If they do plan a real bike crossing here, there should absolutely be lights for pedestrians and bikes, just like at the Yale crossing. But I guess it will take several accidents for the city to realize this.

 

Oh funny people here are mentioning their trucks. I had a 2001 Ford F-150 SuperCrew Lariat way back then and now I am thinking of getting the 2019 Ford Ranger... love that sporty design. But wow, I didn't realize it was that long.

[Visitor]

1 hour ago, wilcal said:

 

I know you originally mentioned that you weren't at the first meeting. Some extremely local residents had asked about a signal being added at Patterson/Washington but CoH Planning said that the traffic counts weren't even close to justify it. The railroad crossings were brought up, but are effectively unchangeable due to involvement of federal government and that there was an agreement signed to minimize the crossings so that the train wouldn't have to blow it's horn (85% that's what was said).

 

The city only allocates a little over $1 million in their CIP plan for biking, so paint will have to suffice when you have a paint budget. 

 

I think you're missing what I'm saying on our differing opinions. I would rather do nothing than do it 1/4 of the way. The infrastructure I referenced was moreso related to the redistribution of the parking they remove. General infrastructure is a much larger problem in Houston than bike lanes to me. And I do ride often, not spandex ride, but I will often bike to places to eat and run small errands. 

 

 

[Visitor]

2 hours ago, wilcal said:

The 36' section was always removal of parking from both sides and painted bike lanes

I dont have access to the new docs yet but if I recall correctly they are looking at the 36' and 40' sections the same now and it's that option of keep parking and bikes/cars share lane (basically paint a picture of a bike in the road) or remove the parking and add two bike lanes.  Once I get the proposal I'll post the new images. 

[wilcal]

16 hours ago, Visitor said:

 

I think you're missing what I'm saying on our differing opinions. I would rather do nothing than do it 1/4 of the way. The infrastructure I referenced was moreso related to the redistribution of the parking they remove. General infrastructure is a much larger problem in Houston than bike lanes to me. And I do ride often, not spandex ride, but I will often bike to places to eat and run small errands. 

1

 

Interesting. What would you do for this project if it was 4/4 of the way?

 

Also, I could be misremembering, but isn't it only in the range of 20-30 spots that are being lost?

[Visitor]

29 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

Interesting. What would you do for this project if it was 4/4 of the way?

 

Also, I could be misremembering, but isn't it only in the range of 20-30 spots that are being lost?

 

Can't say I'm sure on the number of spaces to be honest.  But adding even 20-30 cars into the already terribly planned side streets would be a mess. 

 

If I were going 4/4? They would do the bike lanes separated by a curb and remove the parking.  There would be a signaled crosswalk at Patterson and Washington (I dont think a median is neccesary).  The bridge over I-10 would be replaced to accommodate a full bike lane continuing north. Within the neighborhood streets between 10 and the RR tracks bordered by Bonner and shepherd on the east and west, all ditches would be filled with 3-5' culverts, covered and paved over with curbs to allow for street parking on at least one side and possibly both sides where width permits. I would also look at potentially creating 1 way streets in this part of the neighborhood depending on traffic flow.  At Patterson and Koehler I'd add stop signs for north/south traffic.  South of Washington I would widen the street by covering ditches in the manner listed above and continue dedicated bike lanes.  I'm sure there are elements I'm missing but that would be the foundation. 

 

Pie in the sky for Houston....

[IronTiger]

13 minutes ago, Visitor said:

 

Can't say I'm sure on the number of spaces to be honest.  But adding even 20-30 cars into the already terribly planned side streets would be a mess. 

 

If I were going 4/4? They would do the bike lanes separated by a curb and remove the parking.  There would be a signaled crosswalk at Patterson and Washington (I dont think a median is neccesary).  The bridge over I-10 would be replaced to accommodate a full bike lane continuing north. Within the neighborhood streets between 10 and the RR tracks bordered by Bonner and shepherd on the east and west, all ditches would be filled with 3-5' culverts, covered and paved over with curbs to allow for street parking on at least one side and possibly both sides where width permits. I would also look at potentially creating 1 way streets in this part of the neighborhood depending on traffic flow.  At Patterson and Koehler I'd add stop signs for north/south traffic.  South of Washington I would widen the street by covering ditches in the manner listed above and continue dedicated bike lanes.  I'm sure there are elements I'm missing but that would be the foundation. 

 

Pie in the sky for Houston....

If the idea was to connect the two trails, I'd suggest (as far as Interstate 10 was concerned), something far more daring: to convert the Patterson Road bridge over Interstate 10 to pedestrian/bike use only, add turnarounds at Shepherd and Yale to make up for loss of connectivity, and replace the stoplights with HAWK lights, which would make traffic flow smoother for the Shepherd/Durham intersection rather than encounter one odd light in that exit/entrance interchange. You could argue that the Patterson light was made obsolete as soon as they finished the frontage roads from Yale to Patterson in 2014, as prior to that there were no ramps west of Heights/Yale, and THAT was because of a connecting rail line paralleling Yale which was abandoned sometime around 1998 (at the latest).

[Visitor]

Great thought. I'd like to see turn arounds at yale and shepherd regardless. I'm actually shocked there aren't any at Yale/Heights. 

 

If we wanted to get really radical we would redo heights/Waugh for connectivity.  With Buffalo Heights going up, there are far better POI's along that route. 

[Angostura]

On 11/30/2018 at 10:28 PM, dbigtex56 said:

Ah. Although the parking situation was clear when she and her neighbors bought their properties, they now feel that it's their right to appropriate public property for their outsize trucks and guest parking. 
They want special privileges? Fine. They can pay for them. A reasonable charge (say, $20 a day) should apply. Add in administrative and enforcement fees, and round it up to $1,000 a year permit fee per space for their exclusive parking rights. It's a bargain at that price.

 

I'm in favor of allowing every block in the city to charge for parking. The residents on the block set the price--can be zero, can be $1000/hr--but EVERYONE has to pay it, including residents.

 

[wilcal]

They had what I think was their final public meeting on the bikeway last night. Did anyone go? I was planning on it, but couldn't go at the last minute. 

[wilcal]

Got a copy of the presentation. Here it is.

 

TLDR: 

 

Closed median at Washington @ Patterson.

No bike lanes planned at the moment, just share the road signage. 

Possibly doing them just for the four of five blocks closest to Cleveland Park.

 

Disappointing

[Triton]

25 minutes ago, wilcal said:

Got a copy of the presentation. Here it is.

 

TLDR: 

 

Closed median at Washington @ Patterson.

No bike lanes planned at the moment, just share the road signage. 

Possibly doing them just for the four of five blocks closest to Cleveland Park.

 

Disappointing

Honestly, as someone who bikes all over this city, I don't want to inconvenience a neighborhood by taking their parking away but this seems like a good compromise. I'm not concerned sharing the road on a neighborhood road like this and the Washington median is VERY welcome! Right now it is so difficult to get to the Heights from Buffalo Bayou on a bike.

[skooljunkie]

I might as well start filling out the 311 forms now because that directional sign in the Washington median will no doubt be on the ground more than upright. More medians are needed in the area. Crossing on foot and bike gets more difficult as time goes on and the population increases. This median illustration--that don't impress me much. I spy ample space for land barge curb-jumping.

 

A bike lane north of Washington sure would have been nice...but yeah. Looking south, bike lanes on Jackson Hill are needed more than Patterson in my opinion. Patterson south of Washington is narrow and sleepy.  A sidewalk on the city-owned land at Cleveland Park would also be nice--we'll see if that happens. I've been asking District C to place this 100-foot stretch of sidewalk on a CIP list for years now. Crickets. That block of Jackson Hill is easily one of the most used pedestrian paths in Houston, and everyone has to dodge tree roots and walk in the busy street when it's muddy. 

[wilcal]

On 6/14/2019 at 1:45 PM, Triton said:

Honestly, as someone who bikes all over this city, I don't want to inconvenience a neighborhood by taking their parking away but this seems like a good compromise. I'm not concerned sharing the road on a neighborhood road like this and the Washington median is VERY welcome! Right now it is so difficult to get to the Heights from Buffalo Bayou on a bike.

 

The traffic counts are pretty high at almost 4,500 for a neighborhood bikeway imho. I talked with one of the planners and the hope is that the traffic counts will drop with the blocked median in place. Time will tell. It just sucks that we have no imminent plans for a north/south connection that is continuously protected. 

 

On 6/14/2019 at 2:21 PM, skooljunkie said:

A bike lane north of Washington sure would have been nice...but yeah. Looking south, bike lanes on Jackson Hill are needed more than Patterson in my opinion.

 

Really? I feel the opposite way, but most of the Rice Military streets are too narrow to have a two-way bike lane and I believe the traffic counts are much lower. I don't ride here too often though (I usually just ride to Buffalo Bayou to UHD and then back around). 

 

Quote

Patterson south of Washington is narrow and sleepy.  A sidewalk on the city-owned land at Cleveland Park would also be nice--we'll see if that happens. I've been asking District C to place this 100-foot stretch of sidewalk on a CIP list for years now. Crickets. That block of Jackson Hill is easily one of the most used pedestrian paths in Houston, and everyone has to dodge tree roots and walk in the busy street when it's muddy. 

 

I'm thinking of doing a photo series on desire paths in Houston, and I'll add this to my list! CoH planner felt pretty strongly that they would move forward on a bike lane in this section, although with their plan, it would remove street parking on both sides.

 

Quick aside: Back when I was just friends with my wife, about 6 years ago, she had been playing softball at the field right there, and had locked her keys in her trunk. She didn't know many people in town, and was living in Tomball actually, and called me to see if I could help. My main toolkit was at my office, but I went to Walmart and bought a cheap set of ratcheting wrenches to disassemble part of her back seat to break into her trunk. We were dating a month or so later and got married last summer.