Jump to content

I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I don't think the linked map is the current state-of-the-art plan for the area.  I believe it now  routes in-bound Polk Street traffic north (right-turn) on St Emanuel (which is a one-way going north), then take a U-Turn lane at Lamar, which puts you directly on to Hamilton.  From there, you can turn on to Polk.  (Per the interactive map they have on the front page of the NHHIP website.)  

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip.html

"Realigning" Metro's 40/41 routes should be a pretty easy task.  Maybe the TIRZ was looking for an easy success story.  😉

From the e-brochure on the website listed above 

https://7afd0778.flowpaper.com/FactsHighlightsPapersENGLISHclickable/#page=12

image.png.e09d3438017549979426338a9dc85029.png

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I don't think the linked map is the current state-of-the-art plan for the area.  I believe it now  routes in-bound Polk Street traffic north (right-turn) on St Emanuel (which is a one-way going north), then take a U-Turn lane at Lamar, which puts you directly on to Hamilton.  From there, you can turn on to Polk.  (Per the interactive map they have on the front page of the NHHIP website.)  

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip.html

"Realigning" Metro's 40/41 routes should be a pretty easy task.  Maybe the TIRZ was looking for an easy success story.  😉

you're right, the linked map was specifically the first map I could find that showed Polk gone.

the most recent map also shows that there is no overpass on Polk. it also shows you can turn left onto St. Emanuel, and then right onto Leeland.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

so even though the map I linked wasn't the newest, the functionality of how a person can get into town is exactly the same.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, samagon said:

no, the linked map was specifically the first map I could find that showed Polk gone.

the most recent map also shows that there is no overpass on Polk. it also shows you can turn left onto St. Emanuel, and then right onto Leeland.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

so even though the map I linked wasn't the newest, the functionality of how a person can get into town is exactly the same.

Contrary to the interactive map on the front page of the website and contrary to the description quoted by sapo2367 above . . .   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Contrary to the interactive map on the front page of the website and contrary to the description quoted by sapo2367 above . . .   

right, TXDoT is doing a great job of ensuring everyone knows what's going on. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, samagon said:

you're right, the linked map was specifically the first map I could find that showed Polk gone.

the most recent map also shows that there is no overpass on Polk. it also shows you can turn left onto St. Emanuel, and then right onto Leeland.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

so even though the map I linked wasn't the newest, the functionality of how a person can get into town is exactly the same.

Where is this "most recent map" you speak of?  The functionality presented in the FEIS is contrary to what you are claiming.  The functionality shown in the interactive map on the front page of the website is contrary to what you are claiming. The functionality described in the brochure linked above (from April 2021) is contrary to what you are claiming. . .

To be clear, and completely forthcoming, it appears the U-turn lane I mentioned above may not have made the cut.  Nevertheless, in-bound Polk Street traffic will turn right on St Emanuel (which will be a one-way going North), left on the Lamar overpass, and left on Hamilton (which will be  a one-way going South), and back to Polk.

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

Where is this "most recent map" you speak of?  The functionality presented in the FEIS is contrary to what you are claiming.  The functionality shown in the interactive map on the front page of the website is contrary to what you are claiming. The functionality described in the brochure linked above (from April 2021) is contrary to what you are claiming. . .

To be clear, and completely forthcoming, it appears the U-turn lane I mentioned above may not have made the cut.  Nevertheless, in-bound Polk Street traffic will turn right on St Emanuel (which will be a one-way going North), left on the Lamar overpass, and left on Hamilton (which will be  a one-way going South), and back to Polk.

ugh, you're right, the TXDoT site doesn't have the right documents in the right places.

https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip/timeline.html

under 2019, the downtown loop overall plan links to what I was looking at. my mistake for trusting TXDoT site admins.

anyway, this map definitely is dated December 2019 https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/nhhip-segment-3-i-69-rollplot-2005.pdf

the updated version removes the ability to turn left onto St. Emanuel, and also removes the link from Leeland to Bell. the u-turn on Lamar is there, but if you look at the proximity to the u-turn lane with the exit from the freeway, you'll agree that accessing that u-turn from St. Emanuel isn't going to really be feasible. 

I'd love to see Leeland have one EB lane to Chenvert, where you could turn right, then left onto Bell.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is this thing going to finally start? As far as I can tell, the 59/I-69 portion near Midtown should be able to start moving forward right? That's the first phase and I don't believe the federal government is reviewing that section...?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Triton said:

When is this thing going to finally start? As far as I can tell, the 59/I-69 portion near Midtown should be able to start moving forward right? That's the first phase and I don't believe the federal government is reviewing that section...?

If I remember correctly, the federal government is only allowing some preliminary work to be done on parts of Section 3. But no major construction is forthcoming, nor will there be much, is any, right of way acquisition, until the federal government finally gets out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice :) not only is this on hold, but also the Texas Central Rail and the lovely lower Westheimer. Also, am I crazy or is Metro taking their sweet time expanding BRT/ LRT? They just spent 22 million on electric buses, which is cool but priority? All these major projects should be well underway.....

Houston.......get it together 👺 (Yes, I know Houston isn't the only one to blame)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 11:19 AM, hindesky said:

"State Transportation Leaders urge feds to end pause" Dug Begley reports in the Houston Chronicle.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/State-transportation-leaders-urge-feds-to-end-17049589.php

Seriously, it should not have taken them this long to review this project. The stoppage was BS to begin with, but there is no reason this should have taken another year.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2022 at 8:32 PM, Big E said:

Seriously, it should not have taken them this long to review this project. The stoppage was BS to begin with, but there is no reason this should have taken another year.

Yes, the reality of this project displacing thousands of low-income and minority residents and multiple small businesses is a BS reason to halt a project.

Everyone who agrees with moving the project forward is not adversely affected by it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2022 at 2:46 PM, Amlaham said:

Also, am I crazy or is Metro taking their sweet time expanding BRT/ LRT?

Didn't Metro get approval for the Downtown to Northwest Transit Center BRT line just last week?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Erik Asuncion said:

Yes, the reality of this project displacing thousands of low-income and minority residents and multiple small businesses is a BS reason to halt a project.

Everyone who agrees with moving the project forward is not adversely affected by it.

First, the so called "small businesses" are overwhelmingly national chains, strip malls, car lots, fast food restaurants, etc. when it comes to Section 1, while most of the "businesses" to be destroyed by section 3 are abandoned or already closed, with a handful remaining in the effected areas. Lets not act like this is some great loss in businesses that won't be immediately replaced by new ones once construction is over. We've been over this multiple times in this thread already.

Second, most of the people displaced are renters, who will simply rent somewhere else. And every resident effected by this will be compensated by the state and/or receive housing assistance, which that article linked to earlier points out:

 

Quote

That, coupled with $27 million in affordable housing assistance TxDOT must provide to make up for lost apartments and homes, will allow many residents to stay in the area despite risk of gentrification,

 Seriously, this is all known, and the federal government has this information, along with all other relevant info from the project, to judge by whatever BS criteria they want to use. With all the information they have, they should not have taken a year to review this project. You can't talk about wanting to "Build back better" while going out of your way to stifle a major infrastructure project and expect anyone to take you seriously.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Erik Asuncion said:

Yes, the reality of this project displacing thousands of low-income and minority residents and multiple small businesses is a BS reason to halt a project.

Everyone who agrees with moving the project forward is not adversely affected by it.

“Thousands”? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

opinion piece:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Opinion-Did-we-learn-nothing-from-the-Katy-17051502.php

and that $27 million that keeps being bandied about so people feel better about the people who will lose their homes, that's way less than CoH requested. see page 3:

https://mcusercontent.com/bbc8dea1a49ed98f626812405/files/1c7fe691-65a6-4f60-926d-923497847f8b/Mayor_s_NHHIP_Letter_12_08_2020.pdf

 

HUt5RRG.png

 

if you break down the 27 million that keeps being referenced as some significant number to the amount per unit to rebuild, you get just over $45,500 per unit. 

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Big E said:

First, the so called "small businesses" are overwhelmingly national chains, strip malls, car lots, fast food restaurants, etc. when it comes to Section 1, while most of the "businesses" to be destroyed by section 3 are abandoned or already closed, with a handful remaining in the effected areas. Lets not act like this is some great loss in businesses that won't be immediately replaced by new ones once construction is over. We've been over this multiple times in this thread already.

Second, most of the people displaced are renters, who will simply rent somewhere else. And every resident effected by this will be compensated by the state and/or receive housing assistance, which that article linked to earlier points out:

 

 Seriously, this is all known, and the federal government has this information, along with all other relevant info from the project, to judge by whatever BS criteria they want to use. With all the information they have, they should not have taken a year to review this project. You can't talk about wanting to "Build back better" while going out of your way to stifle a major infrastructure project and expect anyone to take you seriously.

That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car. I don't really care if their commutes suck, they should be taking park and ride or car pooling. The local benefits for reducing flooding and such could be accomplished without the expense of ripping people out of their businesses and homes.

Why do you hate renters? Or the businesses in strip malls? 

There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8. There are no benefits to rerouting the freeway East of Downtown. In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result. There will also never, ever be parks on the caps over the underground portions. That's  pie in the sky thinking with no basis in reality.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, samagon said:

No, a "letter to the editor," which is about as indicative as what we write on here.

From the letter:

"Think of all the mass transit projects that could be funded with that kind of money. Think of all the neighborhood homes, schools and churches that will be negatively impacted (and many destroyed)."

Hey, how about instead of "thinking" about it, why not try to put a number on it?

$9 billion for mass transit ain't much (not to mention that $9 billion includes mass transit, but let's not pretend we can be reasonable here).  

And then we have all the homes, schools, and churches (someone doesn't like businesses, I guess) that will move from being 1 block away from the freeway to on it, I guess?  Not to mention a potential implication of his "piece" is that it's A-OK to level them for a mass transit project?

Since everyone seems to think this is such an "easy" decision, please list all of the mass transit projects that increased transit ride share to, say, Chicago levels (~25%?) because we're talking about the need to move a lot of people going to destinations all across the city here.  There's been plenty of investment in LA and Dallas, not to mention a long list of "pet projects" that, if you ask me at least, are now poster children for urban decay.  How soon we all forget that mass transit lines were the original drivers of sprawl!

I know freeways are "bad" because people use them (Shocker!  That's always presented as some sort of argument against them) . . . how about all of the investment in mass transit projects that are relatively unused?  That won't be a short list!

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ross said:

That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car. I don't really care if their commutes suck, they should be taking park and ride or car pooling. The local benefits for reducing flooding and such could be accomplished without the expense of ripping people out of their businesses and homes.

Why do you hate renters? Or the businesses in strip malls? 

There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8. There are no benefits to rerouting the freeway East of Downtown. In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result. There will also never, ever be parks on the caps over the underground portions. That's  pie in the sky thinking with no basis in reality.

"most of the benefits from this work"

"There are no benefits from the proposed work"

Pick one!  I find it always reduces headaches if I think consistently.

"I don't really care if their commutes suck, they should be taking park and ride or car pooling."

I certainly won't pretend you're alone in this regard, but have you ever really listened to what you're saying there?  I'm sure the THOUSANDS who use I-45 every day have some choice words for what they think about your preferences.

"In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result."

In that case, then . . . 

"There will also never, ever be parks on the caps over the underground portions. That's  pie in the sky thinking with no basis in reality."

Is this another royal decree with "no basis in reality" like Pierce Elevated loss="major bad result"?  Do you think if you continually chant "There will never, ever be cap parks" it somehow makes it true?

P.S. Liked you on Friends.

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, samagon said:

opinion piece:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Opinion-Did-we-learn-nothing-from-the-Katy-17051502.php

and that $27 million that keeps being bandied about so people feel better about the people who will lose their homes, that's way less than CoH requested. see page 3:

https://mcusercontent.com/bbc8dea1a49ed98f626812405/files/1c7fe691-65a6-4f60-926d-923497847f8b/Mayor_s_NHHIP_Letter_12_08_2020.pdf

 

HUt5RRG.png

 

if you break down the 27 million that keeps being referenced as some significant number to the amount per unit to rebuild, you get just over $45,500 per unit. 

You do realize what seems to be stated here is that instead of relocated people getting subsidized housing, they should get totally free housing altogether?  Is this a policy position for which you are in favor, while also creating a new national precedent?

"Way less than the CoH requested," well quelle surprise is all I have to say.  Anyone ever lowball a request for free money to the federal government?

No, I know you're not . . . you're "just asking questions," as always.

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funniest thing about all of this is the suggestion that small business is in any way hard done in Texas.

You took a risk, and it's not paying out. Isn't that risk the whole reason we are supposed to let you profit?

I wish the opponents of the project would just own up to being NIMBYs and BANANAs, and will never argue about this in good faith.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ADCS said:

The funniest thing about all of this is the suggestion that small business is in any way hard done in Texas.

You took a risk, and it's not paying out. Isn't that risk the whole reason we are supposed to let you profit?

I wish the opponents of the project would just own up to being NIMBYs and BANANAs, and will never argue about this in good faith.

Good faith would sure go a long way.

People either don't know what they're talking about--they have this idea "freeway bad" and "freeway construction in 2022 means the same thing it did in 1962"

Or they are (IMHO) true bad actors and disingenuously choose certain points with a high level of emotional response . . . no different than the whole conservative media machine . . . I'm surprised they haven't come out and said "Pedophiles love freeways," as that seems to be the issue du jour.  

Or they are professionals/transit "junkies" who may indeed have a fully formed concept . . . but they never think through all of the conditions that would have to be controlled (or, better stated, conditions that alone have low probability, yet need to all be true together to achieve the outcome (e.g., people will move from The Woodlands to the City, paying more for something they value less, accepting worse schools, etc., etc. if only they sit in constant traffic long enough, instead of the most likely outcome in this situation being businesses moving to The Woodlands, Huntsville becoming Conroe, and Madisonville becoming Huntsville).

Or they are like most of us and say, yep, it's certainly not ideal, but there just isn't a better way, so make sure you add facilities for improved transit operations and make it look as good as you can. 

There aren't many histories of the world's great cities out there that include the line, "And what really made them "great" was they deliberately made it more difficult for citizens to move around."  If you add the qualifier "based on the personal tastes of a relatively small, but vocal minority," I think it's clear how ridiculous it sounds.

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ross said:

 

Quote

That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car.

No. I live in the inner loop and will greatly benefit from the reduction of dangerous short merging. Not to mention cut the time it takes to get past Downtown. Plus don't forget people also commute in from League City. Oh and it might reduce travel time to get down to Galveston for the weekend? Cool. It's also replacing some aging infrastructure and burying a portion to connect 2 neighborhoods to Downtown again? What would one call this? A benefit?

Quote

The local benefits for reducing flooding and such could be accomplished without the expense of ripping people out of their businesses and homes.

Where do you propose we put these giant retention ponds so close to Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods? Something will get bulldozed. 

Quote

There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8.

Uh, have you ever driven on 45 from Downtown to the Beltway? It's the worst freeway we have, apart from maybe the 225 & the south loop. Lanes are extremely narrow, the pot holes are enormous and bountiful, it's garbage. Traffic clears up past the beltway when the freeway lanes give you breathing room from the dump trucks, woodlands express buses, and paper plate nissan altimas.

Quote

In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result.

This confuses me the most. With the Pierce Elevated gone, there's more opportunity for renters and businesses to develop there?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ross said:

That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car.

So what? The fact is it benefits someone, and thousands of someones at that. And no it won't just benefit them either. It benefits anyone who uses that freeway, including people who live in the city and commute north, national international and state traffic, regional traffic in general, etc.

 

3 hours ago, Ross said:

I don't really care if their commutes suck,

Well, at least you are honest about your selfishness. Its not going to endear anyone to your side of the argument, however.

 

3 hours ago, Ross said:

they should be taking park and ride or car pooling.

You have no right to tell other people how to live.

 

3 hours ago, Ross said:

The local benefits for reducing flooding and such could be accomplished without the expense of ripping people out of their businesses and homes.

Can they? Maybe they can't. Maybe its something that can only be done by rebuilding the freeway to accommodate the changes? And even if they could, its honestly irrelevant. They are doing it as part of this project.

 

3 hours ago, Ross said:

Why do you hate renters? Or the businesses in strip malls?

I don't, and never said I did. I'm just not disingenuous, and won't pretend that what's being lost is some great, insurmountable loss for the city. Why do you hate commuters so much?

 

3 hours ago, Ross said:

There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8. There are no benefits to rerouting the freeway East of Downtown.

You are contradicting yourself now. First, you say it only benefits commuters (which isn't even true, but I digress), but now you say there are no benefits. Pick one and stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

3 hours ago, Ross said:

In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result.

Based on what exactly?

 

3 hours ago, Ross said:

There will also never, ever be parks on the caps over the underground portions. That's  pie in the sky thinking with no basis in reality.

Once again, I don't know what you are using to prognosticate but you should stop before you are made to eat crow when these things do in fact eventually happen.

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

3 hours ago, samagon said:

opinion piece:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Opinion-Did-we-learn-nothing-from-the-Katy-17051502.php

and that $27 million that keeps being bandied about so people feel better about the people who will lose their homes, that's way less than CoH requested. see page 3:

https://mcusercontent.com/bbc8dea1a49ed98f626812405/files/1c7fe691-65a6-4f60-926d-923497847f8b/Mayor_s_NHHIP_Letter_12_08_2020.pdf

 

HUt5RRG.png

 

if you break down the 27 million that keeps being referenced as some significant number to the amount per unit to rebuild, you get just over $45,500 per unit. 

We've been over this before, Samagon.  The $27 Million is over and above the costs of buying out the current buildings and moving and compensating the current residents.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

"most of the benefits from this work"

"There are no benefits from the proposed work"

Pick one!  I find it always reduces headaches if I think consistently.

 

I usually like your commentary, but the above is purposely misstating the original poster's claim. The poster wrote: 

"That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car."

"There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8." 

The poster wrote they feel the work most benefits people driving from The Woodlands and there's no benefit to the stretch from Downtown to Beltway 8. Those are two different concepts.

 

Edited by JClark54
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

I usually like your commentary, but the above is purposely misstating the original poster's claim. The poster wrote: 

"That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car."

"There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8." 

The poster wrote they feel the work most benefits people driving from The Woodlands and there's no benefit to the stretch from Downtown to Beltway 8. Those are two different concepts.

 

Color me confused 🤔 . . . the entirety of the project is downtown to Beltway 8.  How can benefits accrue to people from The Woodlands if there are no benefits from north of downtown to Beltway 8?  The benefits to The Woodlands people are only from the downtown segment?

Headache starting to set in again . . . !

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JClark54 said:

I usually like your commentary, but the above is purposely misstating the original poster's claim. The poster wrote: 

"That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car."

"There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8." 

The poster wrote they feel the work most benefits people driving from The Woodlands and there's no benefit to the stretch from Downtown to Beltway 8. Those are two different concepts.

 

In fairness, the OP also said there are no benefits to the downtown reroute, so taken as a whole, all the benefits accrue to Woodlanders driving alone to downtown and there are no benefits. In any event, all the statements were ignorant and false.

For starters, the vast majority of the added capacity north of downtown is in HOV/transit lanes.  That, by definition, benefits people other than those driving with one person in the car, and again, by definition, does not benefit those single occupant vehicle drivers.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

Color me confused 🤔 . . . the entirety of the project is downtown to Beltway 8.  How can benefits accrue to people from The Woodlands if there are no benefits from north of downtown to Beltway 8?  The benefits to The Woodlands people are only from the downtown segment?

Headache starting to set in again . . . !

I am acutely aware the project goes to the Beltway. I never said otherwise.

The OP didn’t comment on the distance of it, just which area they feel will most benefit and that they feel the portion from Beltway 8 to downtown has no benefit.

Again, those are two different concepts. They don’t have to choose one or another. Both can be true (or false). It may benefit Woodlands drivers and may offer no benefit from the beltway to downtown in their opinion.

Edited by JClark54
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misstating the commentary on purpose to make it appear as though they erroneously wrote no benefit and some benefit on the same concepts and then asking which is it could be perceived as just as “ignorant and false,” as one poster put it, because those are not the same and conflating them shows poor form or understanding of the OP’s message. 
 

Although I would never write that as I respect Matty and find value in constructive conversations. I value his pro project views as much as the opposition views of others.

Edited by JClark54
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

Misstating the commentary on purpose to make it appear as though they erroneously wrote no benefit and some benefit on the same concepts and then asking which is it could be perceived as just as “ignorant and false,” as one poster put it, because those are not the same and conflating them shows poor form or understanding of the OP’s message. 
 

Although I would never write that as I respect Matty and find value in constructive conversations. I value his pro project views as much as the opposition views of others.

My eyes are still going cross over this one . . . was not trying to be disingenuous . . . I don't understand how benefits can accrue to people in The Woodlands (or anybody for that matter), if there are supposedly no benefits to the project?  How can anyone benefit if there are no benefits?!

Anyway, if it makes sense to others, then I must be missing something!  

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ross said:

That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car.

As someone who lives in the Northside/Woodland Heights area, I have to disagree. This project is going to fix fundamental design flaws that are there in a highway system built decades ago. Just look at the 610/45 interchange for example... completely built for a different era and it is quite dangerous just to get to Crosstimbers when heading north, having to weave across oncoming traffic from 610.

Also, when I am on I-10 east and exit at I-45 north, I have to cross every single lane of traffic just to get to the N Main exit. Their new design fixes this by bringing the ramp all the way to the other side, allowing me to just stay on the feeder to N Main. 

I see examples of design improvements all over the map with this new highway. 

This project is moving forward either way... that's why it makes no sense to keep delaying this, especially if someone wants to be known as the infrastructure president.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Triton said:

As someone who lives in the Northside/Woodland Heights area, I have to disagree. This project is going to fix fundamental design flaws that are there in a highway system built decades ago. Just look at the 610/45 interchange for example... completely built for a different era and it is quite dangerous just to get to Crosstimbers when heading north, having to weave across oncoming traffic from 610.

Also, when I am on I-10 east and exit at I-45 north, I have to cross every single lane of traffic just to get to the N Main exit. Their new design fixes this by bringing the ramp all the way to the other side, allowing me to just stay on the feeder to N Main. 

I see examples of design improvements all over the map with this new highway. 

This project is moving forward either way... that's why it makes no sense to keep delaying this, especially if someone wants to be known as the infrastructure president.

they can, and should fix safety issues within the existing boundaries of the freeways.

if you really take a look at the designs they have, there are quite a few safety issues they throw into the mix.

i45 south and want to exit Runnels (which you'll have to do, if you want to go hang out at that new East River thingy)? you have to jog over 5 lanes in about 1000ft.

are you on St. Emanuel and want to u-turn at Lamar street to access Polk on the west of downtown? you've got just over 300ft to cross 2 lanes of freeway exiting to get there.

and that's just 2 examples, I could cite more if I really put effort into it. if safety is a concern, we need to expect more from TXDoT on this 9 billion project, either that, or not pretend like this realignment is some panacea of safety.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

My eyes are still going cross over this one . . . was not trying to be disingenuous . . . I don't understand how benefits can accrue to people in The Woodlands (or anybody for that matter), if there are supposedly no benefits to the project?  How can anyone benefit if there are no benefits?!

Anyway, if it makes sense to others, then I must be missing something!  

I didn't notice the OP state there are no benefits to the project. Here's the post in full: 

"That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car. I don't really care if their commutes suck, they should be taking park and ride or car pooling. The local benefits for reducing flooding and such could be accomplished without the expense of ripping people out of their businesses and homes.

Why do you hate renters? Or the businesses in strip malls? 

There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8. There are no benefits to rerouting the freeway East of Downtown. In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result. There will also never, ever be parks on the caps over the underground portions. That's  pie in the sky thinking with no basis in reality."

They see no benefits to specific segments of the project (northside/east end), but not all. There's still the 59 segment and so forth.

Mischaracterizing the statement, however much you may disagree, offers nothing to the conversation and makes you look as though you're either bullying or didn't read the comment itself before penning your missive. Regardless, it's unlikely TxDOT reads this board nor takes anything written here into account. So the project is likely happening. 

I see benefits to the project and feel it's likely the EaDo cap park will be built. Many parties have indicated their aim is to make it happen.

Where I will disagree in regards to safety is losing the Polk crossing. There are only so many grade-separated crossings to go around, and a primary one is Polk. Drivers unfamiliar with the area will continue down Leeland and, ultimately, hit a train. They will resort to flying through the area, looking for a way out. Keeping Polk will retain continuity, alleviating some of this issues. 

Why I suggested way-finding signs at two town halls. That way, drivers can know where those separated crossings are located and minimize stress on otherwise residential streets. 

 

Edited by JClark54
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

I didn't notice the OP state there are no benefits to the project. Here's the post in full: 

"That still ignores the fact that most of the benefits from this work accrue to people driving from The Woodlands to Downtown with one person per car. I don't really care if their commutes suck, they should be taking park and ride or car pooling. The local benefits for reducing flooding and such could be accomplished without the expense of ripping people out of their businesses and homes.

Why do you hate renters? Or the businesses in strip malls? 

There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8. There are no benefits to rerouting the freeway East of Downtown. In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result. There will also never, ever be parks on the caps over the underground portions. That's  pie in the sky thinking with no basis in reality."

They see no benefits to specific segments of the project (northside/east end), but not all. There's still the 59 segment and so forth.

Mischaracterizing the statement, however much you may disagree, offers nothing to the conversation and makes you look as though you're either bullying or didn't read the comment itself before penning your missive. Regardless, it's unlikely TxDOT reads this board nor takes anything written here into account. So the project is likely happening. 

I see benefits to the project and feel it's likely the EaDo cap park will be built. Many parties have indicated their aim is to make it happen.

Where I will disagree in regards to safety is losing the Polk crossing. There are only so many grade-separated crossings to go around, and a primary one is Polk. Drivers unfamiliar with the area will continue down Leeland and, ultimately, hit a train. They will resort to flying through the area, looking for a way out. Keeping Polk will retain continuity, alleviating some of this issues. 

Why I suggested way-finding signs at two town halls. That way, drivers can know where those separated crossings are located and minimize stress on otherwise residential streets. 

 

JC, for someone who seems concerned with the possibility of mischaracterizing others' statements, let me just say it's quite a leap to jump from these words:

"There are no benefits from the proposed work from North of Downtown to Beltway 8. There are no benefits to rerouting the freeway East of Downtown. In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result. There will also never, ever be parks on the caps over the underground portions. That's  pie in the sky thinking with no basis in reality."

to

They see no benefits to specific segments of the project (northside/east end), but not all. There's still the 59 segment and so forth.

I mean if you want to talk about the risk of putting words into peoples' mouths, I'd say you're guilty on that count.  (Not to mention, the 59 segment literally IS the rerouting the freeway East of Downtown to which he explicitly says there are no benefits.)  There are literally 3 segments of this project: 2 north of downtown to Beltway 8 and the rerouting of the downtown segment east of downtown.  He literally said there is no value to anything north of downtown and no value in rerouting the highway east of downtown.

In any case, what benefits exactly are accruing to drivers from The Woodlands if there are no benefits to the north or east of downtown?  The I-10 segment?  That seems to be the only thing not explicitly covered.  Um, you can't have the I-10 segment without the 59 segment.  And, he loves the Pierce Elevated to boot . . . which means he probably ain't a fan of the I-10 segment, either.

I'd say Occam's Razor here says my interpretation is probably closer to reality i.e., he's talking purely based on emotions, which generates the entirely inconsistent logic.  Regardless, I'm sure it was intended as a throwaway comment anyway, as most on this forum are, not as some window into his conception of the few hidden benefits to the project.

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

Where I will disagree in regards to safety is losing the Polk crossing. There are only so many grade-separated crossings to go around, and a primary one is Polk. Drivers unfamiliar with the area will continue down Leeland and, ultimately, hit a train. They will resort to flying through the area, looking for a way out. Keeping Polk will retain continuity, alleviating some of this issues. 

Why I suggested way-finding signs at two town halls. That way, drivers can know where those separated crossings are located and minimize stress on otherwise residential streets. 

 

the problem with this entire project is that any consideration from TXDoT for local impacts seems to only be to the adjacent blocks, if even that. it seems to me that maybe the stall at the federal level is to consider a bit deeper into the fabric of the neighborhoods than that, and maybe I'm giving them more credit than they are due, and they are just shuffling the paperwork to piss off TXDoT for R vs D politics. either way, the impact to the EE is very nuanced.

people don't realize that the only E/W streets that actually cross RR tracks in the EE are Leeland, Polk, McKinney, Harrisburg, Commerce, Jensen. the only crossings that are not at grade are Navigation, Harrisburg and Polk.

this is a significant issue because the RR crossings over here are not like the RR crossings on Westheimer near River Oaks, the trains aren't going 45 mph, they are going 10-15 mph, and frequently stop on the crossings for up to an hour (anything more and if someone can prove it, the RR gets a fine).

so yeah, if I'm driving out of DT on Leeland, I won't know that there's a train sitting on the track until after I cross Scott street, which means I'm now going to join every other person scrambling down Edmunson, or Milby to get over to Polk. hope your kids aren't playing stickball in the street.

someone might ask, hey Samagon, why don't you just head out Harrisburg, then jog back up on Sampson or Milby? I'm glad you've asked, because not only do I have to cross the same RR line at grade on those streets (which are just as likely to be blocked), but I have to cross another RR at grade, which is just as likely to be blocked, so twice as likely, for those keeping score to have a blocked intersection. I mean, sure maybe that first set of tracks isn't blocked by a train, and then I can jog through a neighborhood on McKinney from Milby, but yeah, going through a neighborhood. so now, if I want to get south, I have to go all the way out Harrisburg to Wayside to get a crossing that is grade separated, and pray to god that there isn't a train sitting on the 3rd set of RR tracks that will block my entry into the EE version of the Bermuda Triangle.

I lived at Telephone and Broadmore for 13 years, so this would have been a daily issue for me going into and leaving the office. personally, I now live east of Wayside (and I'm not ashamed to admit that this project did have a slight impact on my desire to move), so Harrisburg to Wayside is my most efficient way home in the evenings, but I totally get it and feel for you guys that live west Wayside. it just isn't something that can be understood until you live in the area, and you learn to live around the frequently blocked roads, but Polk street crossing going away is just another spanner thrown into the mix.

at the end of the day, our fight should be in a different direction to get the state to force the RR to put their tracks below grade through this area, but that's pie in the sky thinking that will never happen. 

you have to assume that any of the RR crossings with red X are going to be blocked, the green are only at grade separated access.

q0JKmTa.png

Edited by samagon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to provide to you what I feel the benefits are to those in The Woodlands and the I10 segment. I never opposed your fact-based points. I took issue with the clear mischaracterization just to win an argument an a board that has little meaning to the project. 

16 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

 

They see no benefits to specific segments of the project (northside/east end), but not all. There's still the 59 segment and so forth.

I mean if you want to talk about the risk of putting words into peoples' mouths, I'd say you're guilty on that count.  (Not to mention, the 59 segment literally IS the rerouting the freeway East of Downtown to which he explicitly says there are no benefits.)

If you read the sentence, I never put words in the poster's mouth. I never claimed the OP stated there's still the 59 section. I wrote that on my own based on the fact they omitted aspects of the project. If they meant the project as a whole as you allude to, they likely would have -- or should have -- written it. 

Edited by JClark54
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

I don't have to provide to you what I feel the benefits are to those in The Woodlands and the I10 segment. I never opposed your fact-based points. I took issue with the clear mischaracterization just to win an argument an a board that has little meaning to the project. 

If you read the sentence, I never put words in the poster's mouth. I never claimed the OP stated there's still the 59 section. I wrote that on my own based on the fact they omitted aspects of the project. If they meant the project as a whole as you allude to, they likely would have -- or should have -- written it. 

I have just one person blocked on this site, you can maybe take a guess who.

as hard as they seem to be in favor of this project, it feels like they are a representative of TXDoT :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, samagon said:

the problem with this entire project is that any consideration from TXDoT for local impacts seems to only be to the adjacent blocks, if even that. it seems to me that maybe the stall at the federal level is to consider a bit deeper into the fabric of the neighborhoods than that, and maybe I'm giving them more credit than they are due, and they are just shuffling the paperwork to piss off TXDoT for R vs D politics. either way, the impact to the EE is very nuanced.

people don't realize that the only E/W streets that actually cross RR tracks in the EE are Leeland, Polk, McKinney, Harrisburg, Commerce, Jensen. the only crossings that are not at grade are Navigation, Harrisburg and Polk.

this is a significant issue because the RR crossings over here are not like the RR crossings on Westheimer near River Oaks, the trains aren't going 45 mph, they are going 10-15 mph, and frequently stop on the crossings for up to an hour (anything more and if someone can prove it, the RR gets a fine).

so yeah, if I'm driving out of DT on Leeland, I won't know that there's a train sitting on the track until after I cross Scott street, which means I'm now going to join every other person scrambling down Edmunson, or Milby to get over to Polk. hope your kids aren't playing stickball in the street.

someone might ask, hey Samagon, why don't you just head out Harrisburg, then jog back up on Sampson or Milby? I'm glad you've asked, because not only do I have to cross the same RR line at grade on those streets (which are just as likely to be blocked), but I have to cross another RR at grade, which is just as likely to be blocked, so twice as likely, for those keeping score to have a blocked intersection. and then, if I want to get south, I have to go all the way out Harrisburg to Wayside to get a crossing that is grade separated, and pray to god that there isn't a train sitting on the 3rd set of RR tracks that will block my entry into the exclusion zone of RR tracks.

I lived at Telephone and Broadmore for 13 years, so this would have been a daily issue for me going into and leaving the office. personally, I now live east of Wayside (and I'm not ashamed to admit that this project did have a slight impact on my desire to move), so Harrisburg to Wayside is my most efficient way home in the evenings, but I totally get it and feel for you guys that live west Wayside. it just isn't something that can be understood until you live in the area, and you learn to live around the frequently blocked roads, but Polk street crossing going away is just another spanner thrown into the mix.

at the end of the day, our fight should be in a different direction to get the state to force the RR to put their tracks below grade through this area, but that's pie in the sky thinking that will never happen. 

I appreciate your concern. Same as mine. 

Drivers, both personal and freight, already fly through residential streets looking for a solution when there's a train stopped for hours. Creating another cause to cut through streets is not productive. Driver assist apps will place Leeland as a viable highway crossing point to those coming from more eastern locales or manufacturing sites. A stopped train on East End II will cause them to move through residential streets to reach Polk only to jog back later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

I don't have to provide to you what I feel the benefits are to those in The Woodlands and the I10 segment. I never opposed your fact-based points. I took issue with the clear mischaracterization just to win an argument an a board that has little meaning to the project. 

If you read the sentence, I never put words in the poster's mouth. I never claimed the OP stated there's still the 59 section. I wrote that on my own based on the fact they omitted aspects of the project. If they meant the project as a whole as you allude to, they likely would have -- or should have -- written it. 

Whoa boy, you are way out there.

You "characterize" me as "mischaracterizing" in my "characterizing" without realizing that you are also "characterizing" his comments a certain way and thereby are running the same risk of "mischaracterization"? 

Surely you see how circular that is.

It's as circular as being so certain of what his comments meant by essentially stating, "Because that was my interpretation . . . QED."

The truth of the matter is neither of us knows what he really meant.

But he can chime in whenever with his view of benefits accruing "only to residents of The Woodlands" that are not related to the NHHIP "north" or "east" of downtown.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, samagon said:

I have just one person blocked on this site, you can maybe take a guess who.

as hard as they seem to be in favor of this project, it feels like they are a representative of TXDoT

Shout out back at you, Sammy.  I know it must be painful to have the absurdity and shallowness of your thoughts on the matter repeatedly pointed out . . . by multiple people, no less. You must be, er, a resident of Dallas who wants the $9 billion to be spent in North Texas?

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, mattyt36 said:

Whoa boy, you are way out there.

You "characterize" me as "mischaracterizing" in my "characterizing" without realizing that you are also "characterizing" his comments a certain way and thereby are running the same risk of "mischaracterization"? 

Surely you see how circular that is.

It's as circular as being so certain of what his comments meant by essentially stating, "Because that was my interpretation . . . QED."

The truth of the matter is neither of us knows what he really meant.

But he can chime in whenever with his view of benefits accruing "only to residents of The Woodlands" that are not related to the NHHIP "north" or "east" of downtown.  

Thanks for your opinion on my out there-ness. Instead of continuing this exercise, I'll say I appreciate your continued commentary on the highway. Because I do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2022 at 1:22 PM, samagon said:

they can, and should fix safety issues within the existing boundaries of the freeways.

if you really take a look at the designs they have, there are quite a few safety issues they throw into the mix.

i45 south and want to exit Runnels (which you'll have to do, if you want to go hang out at that new East River thingy)? you have to jog over 5 lanes in about 1000ft.

are you on St. Emanuel and want to u-turn at Lamar street to access Polk on the west of downtown? you've got just over 300ft to cross 2 lanes of freeway exiting to get there.

and that's just 2 examples, I could cite more if I really put effort into it. if safety is a concern, we need to expect more from TXDoT on this 9 billion project, either that, or not pretend like this realignment is some panacea of safety.

And in those instances, I completely agree with you and even raised the Runnels issue directly to TXDOT when they were holding a town hall meeting at HHC Midtown (Dug Begley was at all of them!). You know that's going to be a prime spot for wrecks and they need to figure out some way to solve it. My hunch is, they may push forward but come back and try to resolve these new design issues when they're getting closer to construction in some of these areas. I know, wishful thinking but we'll see. I've seen that in surprisely a good amount of TXDOT schematics (I love pouring over them) that don't exactly match up to the final product because they made changes along the way. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Triton said:

And in those instances, I completely agree with you and even raised the Runnels issue directly to TXDOT when they were holding a town hall meeting at HHC Midtown (Dug Begley was at all of them!). You know that's going to be a prime spot for wrecks and they need to figure out some way to solve it. My hunch is, they may push forward but come back and try to resolve these new design issues when they're getting closer to construction in some of these areas. I know, wishful thinking but we'll see. I've seen that in surprisely a good amount of TXDOT schematics (I love pouring over them) that don't exactly match up to the final product because they made changes along the way. 

I'm not sure I follow this concern with Runnels. The schematics I see show Runnels being made a dead end at the railroad, is this not the current plan?

image.png.cb30974bc7865e4dcd6547f67067f853.png

 

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sapo2367 said:

I'm not sure I follow this concern with Runnels. The schematics I see show Runnels being made a dead end at the railroad, is this not the current plan?

image.png.cb30974bc7865e4dcd6547f67067f853.png

 

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

ugh, sorry, I meant Jensen exit. not sure why I said Runnels.

the exit itself is right before McKey street, but it takes you down to Jensen. the other option is to go down to Waco street exit, which I'm sure people who want to go to East River will only do once.

ikZcFKZ.png

if you go to google maps and use the measure tool to follow from the 45>10 ramp to the 10>whatever exit that will be named, you're looking at about 1000ft. there's 5 lanes of traffic. you have to get from the far left to the far right in 1000ft to exit.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/nhhip-segment-3-i-10-rollplot-ph-1-2.pdf

the other option is to go around to exit on the east side of town at the Commerce exit, which then takes you up Navigation, which is a safer (and probably longer) choice, but is it going to be the choice Google tells them to make?

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, samagon said:

ugh, sorry, I meant Jensen exit. not sure why I said Runnels.

the exit itself is right before McKey street, but it takes you down to Jensen. the other option is to go down to Waco street exit, which I'm sure people who want to go to East River will only do once.

ikZcFKZ.png

if you go to google maps and use the measure tool to follow from the 45>10 ramp to the 10>whatever exit that will be named, you're looking at about 1000ft. there's 5 lanes of traffic. you have to get from the far left to the far right in 1000ft to exit.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/nhhip-segment-3-i-10-rollplot-ph-1-2.pdf

the other option is to go around to exit on the east side of town at the Commerce exit, which then takes you up Navigation, which is a safer (and probably longer) choice, but is it going to be the choice Google tells them to make?

Thanks for the clarification! I see your point about the left entering exits (which I in general don't like). In the situation you describe above, I would imagine instead people would continue on i10 until the exit to Jensen st that is after 45 turns south (similar in location to the exit to Jensen today). That would give a lot more time to merge over.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

image.png.5ec0f14fa38b99f81bea83851175bfda.png

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...