Jump to content

I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, samagon said:

you keep going on about plausibility, we're not having the same conversation. I fully understand both the denotative and connotative definition of the word "could", and I understand what it means in the context of what the spokesperson for TxDOT stated.

I will rephrase the question, maybe you'll get it this time and answer the question asked, rather than go on about something else entirely?

why would TxDOT go on record and say:

and then provide this as a possible outcome of the revisitation?

 

Sammy, this question has been thoughtfully answered multiple times above. If you can’t connect the dots, well, then, that’s on you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

New article in today's Chronicle, with Turner stating that the TTC chairman misrepresented his position by saying on 8/31 that Turner supported the project.  Turner referred to a MoU between the City and TxDOT proposed by the City on 8/30.

Turner: TxDOT leader misrepresented my position on I-45 project (houstonchronicle.com)

The actual MoU is available at https://www.scribd.com/document/525534277/Agreement-on-I-45#download&from_embed

From a quick reading of the MoU (which originated from the City . . . the article doesn't mention if the text was based on any formal or informal negotiations . . . if it purely reflects the City's position, then I'd say it's more of a term sheet), the major provisions are:

-Increased support for dislocated residents

-Design changes to mitigate floods

-Reducing the footprint of the expansion where possible (but rather soft language if you ask me) 

-Collaboration language re transit, neighborhood connectivity, and parks that I'd characterize as "soft" and serving simply to memorialize what is already in the plan

In terms of likely outcomes, it seems like the best chance for the project proceeding is some agreement in this form between the City and TxDOT, which would be used as a vehicle to satisfy the USDOT review as the preferred "local solution."  Not sure how Harris County fits into Segment 3, if at all, due to it being entirely within the city limits.  I'm not sure why TxDOT wouldn't agree to the spirit of the MoU, but there may be a long list of reasons.  The biggest may be so as not to create a new precedent as to how to deal with relocations.

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

New article in today's Chronicle, with Turner stating that the TTC chairman misrepresented his position by saying on 8/31 that Turner supported the project.  Turner referred to a MoU between the City and TxDOT proposed by the City on 8/30.

Turner: TxDOT leader misrepresented my position on I-45 project (houstonchronicle.com)

The actual MoU is available at https://www.scribd.com/document/525534277/Agreement-on-I-45#download&from_embed

From a quick reading of the MoU (which originated from the City . . . the article doesn't mention if the text was based on any formal or informal negotiations . . . if it purely reflects the City's position, then I'd say it's more of a term sheet), the major provisions are:

-Increased support for dislocated residents

-Design changes to mitigate floods

-Reducing the footprint of the expansion where possible (but rather soft language if you ask me) 

-Collaboration language re transit, neighborhood connectivity, and parks that I'd characterize as "soft" and serving simply to memorialize what is already in the plan

In terms of likely outcomes, it seems like the best chance for the project proceeding is some agreement in this form between the City and TxDOT, which would be used as a vehicle to satisfy the USDOT review as the preferred "local solution."  Not sure how Harris County fits into Segment 3, if at all, due to it being entirely within the city limits.  I'm not sure why TxDOT wouldn't agree to the spirit of the MoU, but there may be a long list of reasons.  The biggest may be so as not to create a new precedent as to how to deal with relocations.

All the issues we've already been talking about. They didn't agree because they don't care. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

All the issues we've already been talking about. They didn't agree because they don't care. 

Yes, one would expect a proposed MoU between two opposing parties to address the issues that have been raised.  That checks out.

How you get from 1 to 2, I'm not sure.  But I suppose that's a possibility.

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Ridiculous.  The event is being run by TAG, not TxDOT.  That's like expecting any other NGO with a policy platform to pay to rent space and feed people from an NGO with the complete opposite policy position.  It'd be no different than the DNC being forced to admit Republicans to an official event for free when all of their members paid a nominal admission.  Or Planned Parenthood hosting a fundraiser and being required to admit anti-abortion activists for free.  It may not be a "good look," as noted in the article (although that's quite the stretch for anyone but an entirely unserious person), but one would be entirely disingenuous if they said this was anything other than a routine annual event.

From the article:

"I think people are just now paying attention to the fact that we've done these things for the last 10 years," French said. "We cannot host a free event at the Omni, that's just not something we are able to do with our budget, certainly not several events a year. We have to charge something to cover the sheer cost of hosting a luncheon. I think there is a perception that we are bigger and wealthier than we are, and that's just not true.

"I get it," French said. "I understand how the optics look."

Spoiler alert: Anyone can buy tickets here, for the same price as everyone else.

State of TxDOT 2021 | Oct. 21 - TAG Houston

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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...