I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[samagon]

20 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

More lies from Mr Speck:

 

He tells us that "Houston has more freeway miles per capita than every large city except Kansas City and St. Louis". I'm sure he's referring to the Federal Highway Administration statistics, which indeed had Houston at No. 3, back in 2007!

 

Using current numbers (would it be too much to ask the self-appointed expert to use current numbers?), among urbanized areas with more than 1 Million population, Houston's freeway lane miles per capita ranks Number 4 . . . IN TEXAS (there are only 4 such urbanized areas in Texas).  Houston ranks Number 19 among the 41 US urbanized areas with more than 1 Million population.  https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hm72.cfm

 

 

you do realize what you linked is dated October of 2008?

 

the only per capita they have on that spreadsheet is roadway (not freeway) miles per capita.

 

finally, the data that he probably used is from this site:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/04/20/cities-with-the-most-highway-miles-a-whos-who-of-decay/

 

spoiler alert, we are number 3, behind KC and StL.

 

which was published in 2012, after the data you referenced was released. so, maybe you linked the wrong thing?

 

I admit I didn't look much farther than the first page of google for data that backs up your claim, but you're gonna have to provide a better source than the wrong link.

[Houston19514]

On 9/11/2019 at 8:12 AM, samagon said:

 

you do realize what you linked is dated October of 2008?

 

the only per capita they have on that spreadsheet is roadway (not freeway) miles per capita.

 

finally, the data that he probably used is from this site:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/04/20/cities-with-the-most-highway-miles-a-whos-who-of-decay/

 

spoiler alert, we are number 3, behind KC and StL.

 

which was published in 2012, after the data you referenced was released. so, maybe you linked the wrong thing?

 

I admit I didn't look much farther than the first page of google for data that backs up your claim, but you're gonna have to provide a better source than the wrong link.

 

Sorry.  I linked to the outdated data Speck used.  Here (I hope) is the link to the recent data.  (No, it does not show per capita data.  But it does show population and freeway lane miles.  With that data, one can easily calculate the lane miles/capita.)  https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2017/hm72.cfm

 

1. Kansas City 1.44 miles/1,000 people

2. St. Louis       1.2

3. Cleveland       .868

4. Jacksonville   .819

5. San Antonio   .817

6. DFW                .794

**

10. Austin           .776

**

19. Houston              .689

Edited September 12, 2019 by Houston19514

[Luminare]

22 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Sorry.  I linked to the outdated data Speck used.  Here (I hope) is the link to the recent data.  (No, it does not show per capita data.  But it does show population and freeway lane miles.  With that data, one can easily calculate the lane miles/capita.)  https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2017/hm72.cfm

 

1. Kansas City 1.44 miles/1,000 people

2. St. Louis       1.2

3. Cleveland       .868

4. Jacksonville   .819

5. San Antonio   .817

6. DFW                .794

**

10. Austin           .776

**

19. Houston              .689

 

Not putting this on you. This is interesting data, but this data can't be observed in a vacuum either. Look at all these cities. They are all centrally located cities either in the geographical center in the US or geographical centers between other bigger cities. Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and Houston are centrally located at the geographical center line of the US and are on major interstates that cross the entire span of the country. Cleveland is centrally located between Chicago and the East Coast cities. Jacksonville is centrally located between Atlanta and Miami and is the starting point for I-10. So not only do these cities have to contend with their own citizens needs, but they are also nodes in larger systems and links to other cities which people travel between. Yeah the numbers look big in a vacuum, but the world doesn't operate that way. In context the amount of freeway lanes makes sense, now could this be mitigated by having better transportation between cities and within cities...of course, but context does matter and its why these cities are at the top statistically on this list.

[samagon]

6 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

Not putting this on you. This is interesting data, but this data can't be observed in a vacuum either. Look at all these cities. They are all centrally located cities either in the geographical center in the US or geographical centers between other bigger cities. Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and Houston are centrally located at the geographical center line of the US and are on major interstates that cross the entire span of the country. Cleveland is centrally located between Chicago and the East Coast cities. Jacksonville is centrally located between Atlanta and Miami and is the starting point for I-10. So not only do these cities have to contend with their own citizens needs, but they are also nodes in larger systems and links to other cities which people travel between. Yeah the numbers look big in a vacuum, but the world doesn't operate that way. In context the amount of freeway lanes makes sense, now could this be mitigated by having better transportation between cities and within cities...of course, but context does matter and its why these cities are at the top statistically on this list.

Well, I think what's being said is that because we aren't number 4 on the list, we need to build more freeways, so we can be number 4 on the list. 

[Houston19514]

8 hours ago, samagon said:

Well, I think what's being said is that because we aren't number 4 on the list, we need to build more freeways, so we can be number 4 on the list. 

 

No, what's being said is that Jeff Speck's analysis is sloppy, at best. How does someone who can't even bother to get his foundational facts correct get such a reputation as an expert?

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

No, what's being said is that Jeff Speck's analysis is sloppy, at best. How does someone who can't even bother to get his foundational facts correct get such a reputation as an expert?

 

So because Houston is number 14 instead of 3, everything else he says it's invalid, and let's build that freeway and climb that ladder?

 

Or are you just attacking his character where you can because his points are actually valid and you can't argue against them?

 

I'm still waiting on someone to show his points to be invalid without attacking his character, or a random stat. 

 

Sure, he might be a sleezeball with an agenda (still trying to figure out what that agenda is, other than a better place to live). 

Edited September 14, 2019 by samagon

[ToryGattis]

14 hours ago, samagon said:

 

I'm still waiting on someone to show his points to be invalid without attacking his character, or a random stat. 

 

Response to Jeff Speck's anti-45N expansion op-ed

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2019/09/response-to-jeff-specks-anti-45n.html 

[ADCS]

16 hours ago, samagon said:

 

So because Houston is number 14 instead of 3, everything else he says it's invalid, and let's build that freeway and climb that ladder?

 

Or are you just attacking his character where you can because his points are actually valid and you can't argue against them?

 

I'm still waiting on someone to show his points to be invalid without attacking his character, or a random stat. 

 

Sure, he might be a sleezeball with an agenda (still trying to figure out what that agenda is, other than a better place to live). 

 

The agenda is he doesn't like freeways, period. His analysis will never get around or past that agenda.

 

I agree we need more and better public transportation, but that doesn't mean this particular project shouldn't be done. The lack of particularity and nuance is the most glaring weakness in his position.

[Houston19514]

On 9/14/2019 at 7:21 AM, samagon said:

 

So because Houston is number 14 instead of 3, everything else he says it's invalid, and let's build that freeway and climb that ladder?

 

Or are you just attacking his character where you can because his points are actually valid and you can't argue against them?

 

I'm still waiting on someone to show his points to be invalid without attacking his character, or a random stat. 

 

Sure, he might be a sleezeball with an agenda (still trying to figure out what that agenda is, other than a better place to live). 

 

We're currently number 19, not 14.  Doing this project is unlikely to cause us to climb the ladder, at least by any significant amount.  With our population growth, we would have to add more than 400 lane miles every five years just to maintain our current stat of .689 lane miles per 1,000 population.

 

I don't believe I have attacked his character.  Only his competence.  If he can't get the foundational facts right, his conclusions are worthless.  Garbage In, Garbage Out.   Upthread you told us that all the claims he's making are true.  I and others have demonstrated multiple claims he made that are false and points he made that are invalid. If you are still waiting for someone to show his points to be invalid, you should re-read the thread.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Houston19514

[samagon]

On 9/14/2019 at 9:54 PM, ToryGattis said:

Response to Jeff Speck's anti-45N expansion op-ed

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2019/09/response-to-jeff-specks-anti-45n.html 

 

thank you, I can't say I agree with the points, but they are a response, rather than just showing one point to be invalid and ignoring everything else.

 

On 9/14/2019 at 11:43 PM, ADCS said:

 

The agenda is he doesn't like freeways, period. His analysis will never get around or past that agenda.

 

I agree we need more and better public transportation, but that doesn't mean this particular project shouldn't be done. The lack of particularity and nuance is the most glaring weakness in his position.

 

I don't see a problem with his agenda of not liking freeways.

 

I do agree that a better fleshed out argument that had more accurate data would be good. I also believe that when he makes an argument that it would probably be good to lay out that you don't just not build, you have to still invest in transportation, just of a different sort, aka, public transportation. maybe he assumes everyone knows that this is the only logical thing? 

 

I also very much agree that just because the TXDOT plan is what is there, doesn't mean it is in the interests of Houstonians, nor does it mean it can't be improved.

 

Whether his methods are good or not, the very positive thing about what is happening is that more people are finding out about this and are getting a chance to speak on it. rather than the expansion just happening. 

 

If the only thing that comes from this is that TXDOT agrees to make changes to the plan that will:

 - increase local street surface mobility at least to what it is currently 

 - increase local access to at least what it is currently

 - reduce the amount of land that is taken for this project

 

I will say that Speck was successful.

Edited September 16, 2019 by samagon

[Houston19514]

Speck tells us that the plan adds "as many as 13 new lanes in some places".  Can anyone identify where the plan adds 13 lanes?

[crock]

24 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Speck tells us that the plan adds "as many as 13 new lanes in some places".  Can anyone identify where the plan adds 13 lanes?

 

The current plan has 22 lanes being built underground between GRB and Eado.  This shows 8 lanes existing and 5 more if you count the feeder.  So 8 to 22 is 14? If you want to be generous, then i guess this is showing 13 lanes being subsumed by 22, so "only" 9?
 

Edited September 16, 2019 by crock

[Houston19514]

5 minutes ago, crock said:

 

The current plan has 22 lanes being built underground between GRB and Eado.  I think, counting the feeder lanes, i59 has 10 currently there?  So theres 12.  

 

But that is not "adding" twelve lanes to our current infrastructure.  Those replace how many lanes that are currently routed on the west side of downtown?  (I suspect this is exactly the area Speck is referring to when he says we are "adding" as many as 13 lanes in places;  another disingenuous statement, to put it lightly.)

Edited September 16, 2019 by Houston19514

[crock]

15 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

But that is not "adding" twelve lanes to our current infrastructure.  Those replace how many lanes that are currently routed on the west side of downtown?  (I suspect this is exactly the area Speck is referring to when he says we are "adding" as many as 13 lanes in places;  another disingenuous statement, to put it lightly.)

 

it's adding.  Highway construction is not some cutesy libertarian math equation.  They don't get to drop the pierce elevated into the hole and reuse it.   

[Houston19514]

4 minutes ago, crock said:

 

it's adding.  Highway construction is not some cutesy libertarian math equation.  They don't get to drop the pierce elevated into the hole and reuse it.   

 

  Libertarian math equation???   LOL  

 

You are quite right they don't get to reuse the Pierce Elevated.  That is rather the point.  Today we have a total, what, 16, 18 lanes? At the end of the project we'll have 22, by your count.  So, we're adding 4 or 6 lanes, not 12 or 13.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Houston19514

[mollusk]

Without parsing lane counts (actual point being there are still more lanes, regardless of whose math you use), I'm more concerned by more than doubling the right of way to make room for those added and/or rerouted lanes.

[samagon]

5 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

But that is not "adding" twelve lanes to our current infrastructure.  Those replace how many lanes that are currently routed on the west side of downtown?

 

bottom line is, there is only one area that gains by having lanes removed, all other areas have to pay in a big way by having lanes added, and fabric of the neighborhoods taken, and connectivity reduced.

 

if someone were to look at the geographical section of freeway being removed, and overlay that on where people of certain demographics live they could go so far as to say the downtown section of the freeway realignment is racially biased.

 

freeway is being removed along the areas of the map near downtown that is green, and being added to the areas of the map that are blue and red. 

 

I am in no way suggesting that anyone in this thread is racist, and I am in no way suggesting that the people at TXDOT have intentionally biased this racially.

 

what I am saying is that the downtown segment is bad in a really bad way.

Edited September 16, 2019 by samagon

[ADCS]

9 hours ago, samagon said:

I don't see a problem with his agenda of not liking freeways.

 

Really? You don't see how it's too broad of a statement?

 

Look, I'm in favor of rail development, even where it's not (yet) appropriate, because the underlying infrastructure is what drives the overlying development. However, once the development is there, it has to be accounted for. 45 must be rebuilt, because if it is not, people will unnecessarily die from what is already a very dangerous route. This plan, while not perfect, does significantly reduce the impact on the surface around downtown. That's the part I'm invested in, because it's the next step in Houston becoming the kind of city I would like it to be.

 

That's not to say that there aren't big issues regarding the rest of the route. But those need to be considered separately, and the argument should not be to kill the project altogether.

 

9 hours ago, samagon said:

I also believe that when he makes an argument that it would probably be good to lay out that you don't just not build, you have to still invest in transportation, just of a different sort, aka, public transportation. maybe he assumes everyone knows that this is the only logical thing? 

 

Also, this is wrong. If they don't spend the money on 45, the money simply won't get spent in Houston. They're about to start work on sinking 35 in Central Austin. Don't you think they'd love to have a nicer version of the plans, including a fully-covered tunnel, something they could possibly get with the money from the 45 plan? And TxDOT money will not get to METRO, no matter how much of a "good idea" it is. There are too many in the Lege who are ideologically opposed to metropolitan transit services getting more state cash than they already do.

 

And you know as well as I do that race has nothing to do with how/where the Pierce is being handled. It's all money and development potential there. The racial argument makes you sound disingenuous.

Edited September 16, 2019 by ADCS

[Houston19514]

I have a suspicion that if the project were reversed (with I-45/I-69 being built below grade with a likely cap park on the West and South sides, and the North and

East side rights-of-way partially replaced with connecting ramps) we'd be hearing complaints that THAT plan favors the west and south sides.

 

I don't accept the talking point that this plan reduces connectivity everywhere except the west and north sides of downtown.  The neighborhoods along this entire route were disconnected when the freeway was first built.  There are very few places where this plan exacerbates that disconnection and a LOT of places where it will reduce the disconnection.

[samagon]

14 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

Really? You don't see how it's too broad of a statement?

 

Look, I'm in favor of rail development, even where it's not (yet) appropriate, because the underlying infrastructure is what drives the overlying development. However, once the development is there, it has to be accounted for. 45 must be rebuilt, because if it is not, people will unnecessarily die from what is already a very dangerous route. This plan, while not perfect, does significantly reduce the impact on the surface around downtown. That's the part I'm invested in, because it's the next step in Houston becoming the kind of city I would like it to be.

 

That's not to say that there aren't big issues regarding the rest of the route. But those need to be considered separately, and the argument should not be to kill the project altogether.

 

it's weird, because I see less wrong with the rest of the route, and more wrong with what they are doing around downtown.

 

14 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

Also, this is wrong. If they don't spend the money on 45, the money simply won't get spent in Houston. They're about to start work on sinking 35 in Central Austin. Don't you think they'd love to have a nicer version of the plans, including a fully-covered tunnel, something they could possibly get with the money from the 45 plan? And TxDOT money will not get to METRO, no matter how much of a "good idea" it is. There are too many in the Lege who are ideologically opposed to metropolitan transit services getting more state cash than they already do.

 

I understand that part, accepting the status quo shouldn't be a thing though.

 

It really just underpins how horrible the whole process is.

 

14 hours ago, ADCS said:

And you know as well as I do that race has nothing to do with how/where the Pierce is being handled. It's all money and development potential there. The racial argument makes you sound disingenuous.

 

I know it wasn't racially motivated, I even said as much, no one planned this to be more taxing on one race vs another, but it absolutely is.

[samagon]

50 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

I don't accept the talking point that this plan reduces connectivity everywhere except the west and north sides of downtown.  The neighborhoods along this entire route were disconnected when the freeway was first built.  There are very few places where this plan exacerbates that disconnection and a LOT of places where it will reduce the disconnection.

 

whether you try to soften the words by calling it an exacerbation of an existing disconnection, or a reduction in connectivity, it is a reduction in local connectivity.

 

specific to downtown...

 

on the east, you have Commerce, Franklin, Texas, Polk and Leeland these are major thoroughfares, or major collectors of the east end as designated by Houston https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/transportation/MTFPMap/MTFP_map_2018.pdf. Yes, there are other roads that cross 59. With the new freeway, you won't be able to access Bell from Leeland, and Polk is gone. direct connectivity will be reduced to 70% of current. sure, users will be able to turn onto the feeder at Polk and dodge exiting freeway traffic to get in the uturn lane, or maybe they continue straight to Capitol street. Or maybe I turn on Dowling or Hutchins to access Lamar. that's just trying to get into town. Point is, now people are going to be forced by txdot onto other smaller side streets that Houston hasn't maintained as a major thoroughfare, or a major collector. when you consider the growth of the east end over the past decade, and the growth potential, it makes this situation even worse.

 

on the north end you can't really reduce connectivity any farther, there's 2 roads, you have Main and Elysian major thoroughfares. that is kept, but the psychological barrier that is created by the tall ramps and freeway, that's enough of a wall. have you seen some of the mockups of what the view is going to be from the north side looking south? it is atrocious, and absolutely a big keep out sign.

 

meanwhile, on the west side there's talk of spending hefty dollars on a delicately beautiful bridge over Buffalo bayou, and let's not ignore that connectivity between Houston Ave and Allen Parkway is being added. 

 

so yeah, I can confidently say that while it is highly likely that no one planned on being racially biased, it's there.

 

at the end of the day, I am not saying that the whole project needs to be scrapped, I'd love for all of this money to instead be spent on rail, or some other form of alternative transit, but that's not realistic. I am saying that the plan needs to be sent back to the design table to come up with creative ways to at the very least, keep or improve local connectivity along the entire corridor. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by samagon

[Houston19514]

5 hours ago, samagon said:

 

whether you try to soften the words by calling it an exacerbation of an existing disconnection, or a reduction in connectivity, it is a reduction in local connectivity.

 

specific to downtown...

 

on the east, you have Commerce, Franklin, Texas, Polk and Leeland these are major thoroughfares, or major collectors of the east end as designated by Houston https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/transportation/MTFPMap/MTFP_map_2018.pdf. Yes, there are other roads that cross 59. With the new freeway, you won't be able to access Bell from Leeland, and Polk is gone. direct connectivity will be reduced to 70% of current. sure, users will be able to turn onto the feeder at Polk and dodge exiting freeway traffic to get in the uturn lane, or maybe they continue straight to Capitol street. Or maybe I turn on Dowling or Hutchins to access Lamar. that's just trying to get into town. Point is, now people are going to be forced by txdot onto other smaller side streets that Houston hasn't maintained as a major thoroughfare, or a major collector. when you consider the growth of the east end over the past decade, and the growth potential, it makes this situation even worse.

 

 

Current I-69 crossings:             NHHIP Plan I-69/I-45 crossings:

St Joseph                                             St Joseph

Jefferson                                             Jefferson

Pease                                                   Pease

Leeland                                                Leeland

Polk                                                      Lamar

Rusk                                                     McKinney

Capitol                                                 Walker

Texas                                                   Rusk

Preston                                                Capitol

Congress                                             Texas

Franklin                                                Preston

Commerce                                          Congress

Ruiz                                                      Franklin

Runnels                                               Commerce

                                                             Runnels

                                                            

So, under the plan, we will have one MORE crossing than we currently have. Nobody should have any difficulty getting to the east side from downtown or vice versa (if they do, they probably should not be driving).  But what I have in mind is more the community/pedestrian connectivity. That will be improved immeasurably on the east side (even if the deck park does NOT happen), by the movement of the freeways below grade.

 

By the way, Pease, Jefferson and St Joseph are also in major throrughfares or major collector streets, so even if we accept your limiting the consideration to major thoroughfares and major collector streets, your 70%, however you came up with it, is seriously understated. Among the 8 streets that are in that category, 7 will remain as full through-streets; the eighth will take a short detour.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

6 hours ago, samagon said:

specific to downtown...

 

on the north end you can't really reduce connectivity any farther, there's 2 roads, you have Main and Elysian major thoroughfares. that is kept, but the psychological barrier that is created by the tall ramps and freeway, that's enough of a wall. have you seen some of the mockups of what the view is going to be from the north side looking south? it is atrocious, and absolutely a big keep out sign.

 

As you say, you can't reduce connectivity on the north end much more than it has already been reduced.  There is currently really no connectivity there, especially from the community/pedestrian standpoint, which is my focus (and supposedly the focus of Mr. Speck).  I honestly don't think the structures being elevated higher than is currently the case is terribly important. Once you have elevated freeway structures, I doubt that elevating it another 50 feet really exacerbates the disconnection.  Further, I believe the project will also hasten the connection of Fulton/San Jacinto, so it will in fact improve connectivity. (And the shifting of the freeway to the north also provides huge community/pedestrian benefits to the UH-D campus.)

 

Where is the reduction in local connectivity?

Edited September 17, 2019 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

6 hours ago, samagon said:

specific to downtown...

 

 

meanwhile, on the west side there's talk of spending hefty dollars on a delicately beautiful bridge over Buffalo bayou, and let's not ignore that connectivity between Houston Ave and Allen Parkway is being added. 

 

so yeah, I can confidently say that while it is highly likely that no one planned on being racially biased, it's there.

 

at the end of the day, I am not saying that the whole project needs to be scrapped, I'd love for all of this money to instead be spent on rail, or some other form of alternative transit, but that's not realistic. I am saying that the plan needs to be sent back to the design table to come up with creative ways to at the very least, keep or improve local connectivity along the entire corridor. 

 

Meanwhile, on the east side, there's talk (and far more of it) of spending hefty dollars on a deck park over the below-grade freeway. (The deck park is on Houston First Corporation's agenda. I have not seen anything on their agenda about a bridge over Buffalo Bayou.)

 

Again, I ask, where does the project fail to keep local connectivity? I am not as familiar with Segment 1, so maybe up there.  But in neither Segment 2 nor Segment 3 is there a reasonable argument to be made that the project fails to keep (and indeed improve) local connectivity.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Houston19514

[Luminare]

5 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Meanwhile, on the east side, there's talk (and far more of it) of spending hefty dollars on a deck park over the below-grade freeway.

 

...But then they can't complain about neighborhoods being separated.

 

Its almost as if both sides of downtown are being treated in unique ways, but both will benefit in the end. In fact I think the east will immeasurably benefit from this reroute with a giant park that will only increase investment on that side of town

 

...oh right but then they will complain about gentrification.

 

Then we will incorporate aspects of the ethnicity and cultures that live on the east side so it celebrates them.

 

...oh yeah I forgot, then they will complain about cultural appropriation.

 

 

 

Its almost like these are people you will never be able to appease and will just whine about anything because they are completely irrational.

[samagon]

17 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Current I-69 crossings:             NHHIP Plan I-69/I-45 crossings:

St Joseph                                             St Joseph

Jefferson                                             Jefferson

Pease                                                   Pease

Leeland                                                Leeland

Polk                                                      Lamar

Rusk                                                     McKinney

Capitol                                                 Walker

Texas                                                   Rusk

Preston                                                Capitol

Congress                                             Texas

Franklin                                                Preston

Commerce                                          Congress

Ruiz                                                      Franklin

Runnels                                               Commerce

                                                             Runnels

                                                            

So, under the plan, we will have one MORE crossing than we currently have. Nobody should have any difficulty getting to the east side from downtown or vice versa (if they do, they probably should not be driving).  But what I have in mind is more the community/pedestrian connectivity. That will be improved immeasurably on the east side (even if the deck park does NOT happen), by the movement of the freeways below grade.

 

By the way, Pease, Jefferson and St Joseph are also in major throrughfares or major collector streets, so even if we accept your limiting the consideration to major thoroughfares and major collector streets, your 70%, however you came up with it, is seriously understated. Among the 8 streets that are in that category, 7 will remain as full through-streets; the eighth will take a short detour.

 

you really have to.

 

what do businesses use when going to a bank and getting a business loan for a specific location? They are going to use numbers generated from data that starts with what the city deems as major thoroughfares and collectors. 

what do developers use when deciding where to face the townhomes so they have the best selling features? They are going to base their decision on what the city deems as major thoroughfares and collectors. 

what does the city use when a business, or developers comes to them and wants to put in a driveway access? They city is going to use their own thoroughfares and collectors to decide where a business is allowed to have access.

the city itself, they put in appropriate signaling and signage to manage the traffic that a major thoroughfare has. Lamar (and aside from McKinney every other non-major thoroughfare/collector) has stop signs at every other intersection.

 

imagine if there were some plan to close Westheimer at Bagby because of an extension of spur 527, you're suggesting that people get on Avondale as a suitable alternative because it is a street that crosses Bagby. No, there is not a world (at least not the one I live in) where Avondale is a suitable solution. The same is true on the east end. 

 

so it's not as simple as pointing out there are 15 crossings under the new plan and only 14 under the old.

 

to look at it from a different direction, let's review the 15 streets you mention. of them Lamar, McKinney, Walker, Rusk, Capitol, Preston, Congress and Runnels, they all stop immediately. GRB, BBVA, MMP. Now, find the streets that make it out to the railroad track before stopping. guess what you are left with at the end of the day? That's right, the streets that the city has deemed as their major thoroughfares and collectors. 

 

and no, I do not consider Pease, Jefferson and St Josephs, they are there 100% to collect people onto the freeway, and not to get people farther into the east end. if you consider them as access points for the east end, you are being disingenuous. 

 

so yeah, we can argue your opinions against my opinions of the other areas, and at the end of the day, it's opinion on the effect of beautification projects, or higher bridges, or removal of freeways, or adding cap parks. it's guessing, and a lot of that guessing is assuming someone fronts the money to pay for these projects. and I'm ok with your opinion, it doesn't change my opinion regarding the impact these change will have on their respective areas.

 

the connectivity thing, there is no so much guessing. it's based on data. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by samagon

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

 

you really have to.

 

what do businesses use when going to a bank and getting a business loan for a specific location? They are going to use numbers generated from data that starts with what the city deems as major thoroughfares and collectors. 

what do developers use when deciding where to face the townhomes so they have the best selling features? They are going to base their decision on what the city deems as major thoroughfares and collectors. 

what does the city use when a business, or developers comes to them and wants to put in a driveway access? They city is going to use their own thoroughfares and collectors to decide where a business is allowed to have access.

the city itself, they put in appropriate signaling and signage to manage the traffic that a major thoroughfare has. Lamar (and aside from McKinney every other non-major thoroughfare/collector) has stop signs at every other intersection.

 

imagine if there were some plan to close Westheimer at Bagby because of an extension of spur 527, you're suggesting that people get on Avondale as a suitable alternative because it is a street that crosses Bagby. No, there is not a world (at least not the one I live in) where Avondale is a suitable solution. The same is true on the east end. 

 

so it's not as simple as pointing out there are 15 crossings under the new plan and only 14 under the old.

 

to look at it from a different direction, let's review the 15 streets you mention. of them Lamar, McKinney, Walker, Rusk, Capitol, Preston, Congress and Runnels, they all stop immediately. GRB, BBVA, MMP. Now, find the streets that make it out to the railroad track before stopping. guess what you are left with at the end of the day? That's right, the streets that the city has deemed as their major thoroughfares and collectors. 

 

and no, I do not consider Pease, Jefferson and St Josephs, they are there 100% to collect people onto the freeway, and not to get people farther into the east end. if you consider them as access points for the east end, you are being disingenuous. 

 

so yeah, we can argue your opinions against my opinions of the other areas, and at the end of the day, it's opinion on the effect of beautification projects, or higher bridges, or removal of freeways, or adding cap parks. it's guessing, and a lot of that guessing is assuming someone fronts the money to pay for these projects. and I'm ok with your opinion, it doesn't change my opinion regarding the impact these change will have on their respective areas.

 

the connectivity thing, there is no so much guessing. it's based on data. 

 

Carefully cherry-picked and misrepresented data.  So now, you've introduced a new criteria. Funny how when you are disproven you change your argument or change your criteria to try to keep your position afloat. Now that it's convenient for your purposes we are only to consider the streets that get people further into the east end.

 

But it doesn't matter how many of the streets you try to define away, the facts still show that we are losing zero connected Major Thoroughfare/Major Collector Streets (with Polk only getting a very minor detour).  And that detour is more than offset by the additional through capacity being added.  In the interest of presenting complete data, a couple other items should be noted.  (1) The designation of all of these streets at Major Thoroughfares/Major Collector Streets terminates at the freeway. That termination has nothing to do with this project. (2) Polk, the one street that has some deleterious effect from the plan, carries relatively little traffic on a daily basis in the section near the freeway.

 

Again, where is the loss of connectivity? The actual data shows there is no loss of connectivity. And again, this only considers motor vehicle connectivity.  I am far more concerned with community/pedestrian connectivity (and supposedly, so is Mr. Speck), which will be hugely improved on the east side.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Houston19514

[crock]

19 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Meanwhile, on the east side, there's talk (and far more of it) of spending hefty dollars on a deck park over the below-grade freeway. (The deck park is on Houston First Corporation's agenda. I have not seen anything on their agenda about a bridge over Buffalo Bayou.)

 

Again, I ask, where does the project fail to keep local connectivity? I am not as familiar with Segment 1, so maybe up there.  But in neither Segment 2 nor Segment 3 is there a reasonable argument to be made that the project fails to keep (and indeed improve) local connectivity.

 

There is a huge argument to be made that the project fails to keep local connectivity between the heights and near northside. 

 

The current plan takes away the North Street bridge, taking away germantown's connection to near northside.  IIRC there is also a big question mark on if Link st and Cottage st are kept connected.  

 

also the deck park is a fantasy.  It would take 100 milion of private money to make any of that work. 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by crock

[Houston19514]

35 minutes ago, crock said:

 

There is a huge argument to be made that the project fails to keep local connectivity between the heights and near northside. 

 

The current plan takes away the North Street bridge, taking away germantown's connection to near northside.  IIRC there is also a big question mark on if Link st and Cottage st are kept connected.  

 

 

I don't know where you got the idea that Cottage or Link are question marks. They are on the plan and I have neither heard nor seen anything to suggest they are candidates for removal.  You are right, at least as far as the latest plans on their website show, that we lose North Street, so, yes a minor loss of motor vehicle connectivity.  (I say "minor" because that overpass carries very little traffic.)  Because the freeway at this point will be about at ground level, a North Street bridge is apparently  impossible.  Seems like it might be a good place for a pedestrian bridge. (I have submitted a comment to TxDOT to that effect. I encourage you to do the same.)

 

FWIW, the area will still have Quitman, North Main, Cottage, Patton, Cavalcade, Link and the new 610 frontage road connecting the west and east sides of the freeway. That's seven connections in less than 2 1/2 miles. (And currently, there are seven connections in that stretch.)

Edited September 18, 2019 by Houston19514

[samagon]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Carefully cherry-picked and misrepresented data.  So now, you've introduced a new criteria. Funny how when you are disproven you change your argument or change your criteria to try to keep your position afloat. Now that it's convenient for your purposes we are only to consider the streets that get people further into the east end.

 

But it doesn't matter how many of the streets you try to define away, the facts still show that we are losing zero connected Major Thoroughfare/Major Collector Streets (with Polk only getting a very minor detour).  And that detour is more than offset by the additional through capacity being added.  In the interest of presenting complete data, a couple other items should be noted.  (1) The designation of all of these streets at Major Thoroughfares/Major Collector Streets terminates at the freeway. That termination has nothing to do with this project. (2) Polk, the one street that has some deleterious effect from the plan, carries relatively little traffic on a daily basis in the section near the freeway.

 

Again, where is the loss of connectivity? The actual data shows there is no loss of connectivity. And again, this only considers motor vehicle connectivity.  I am far more concerned with community/pedestrian connectivity (and supposedly, so is Mr. Speck), which will be hugely improved on the east side.

 

oh no, it only reinforces what COH already states, and we should focus where COH focuses, which are on the major thoroughfares and collectors. do you think they just picked those roads for that designation because they had a hat with 14 street names and picked the first 4 they removed from the hat?

 

if spur 527 were to be reconfigured and Westheimer had to be closed, would Avondale be a suitable replacement? I suspect you ignored that because you know the answer is what I already said. no. so why is it when Polk is going to be shut down that suddenly all these other roads are acceptable?

Edited September 18, 2019 by samagon