Jump to content

2/10/20 meeting for public input re: Bridge over Brazos street at Spur 527


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The rendering is¬†ūüėć ¬† ¬† I used to live in Westmoreland, and it is so dangerous crossing at Holman.¬† ¬† This would be a real benefit for the area.¬†

I know dozens of people that live in midtown/downtown hi- rises. Most of them only use their cars socially. They commute via walking, rail, or bike. That's why building along a simple transit corridor

It was open on both sides originally          We are not talking about removing the spur.  We are talking about removing one of the entrances and the exits to the spur

Posted Images

1 hour ago, trymahjong said:

Is there an ‚Äúelsewhere‚ÄĚ to put it? ūüėē


We need to truly understand the need here-

1. do we want better walkability?

2. do we want more green space?

3. do we just want less freeway?


1: there are options to decrease lanes to allow for better pedestrian walkability

 

2: there are many older 60’s era apartments that could be converted to green space. Also blocks in midtown could be converted to parks, much like what’s happening in downtown.

 

3. if this is the true reason, masked as a needed park, I would think this idea will go forward.

 

I am in the landscape design business. I help create outdoor spaces, parks, wildlife on a regular basis. The proposal just really looks like paths with some trees. While I love green space, it doesn‚Äôt feel like a ‚Äúpark‚ÄĚ. I think traffic headaches would increase. If it ends up being a full fledge park, where would visitors park / hang out. We have to be a smart about these proposals. Sticking a park at the expense of traffic ease is not the way to win over the general public.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

More programming would probably require MMD to throw some money at it, which I imagine they eventually would. To me the obvious precedent here is Bastop Street in EADO which has been gradually upgraded over time - even if you think this would need more programming that's something that could come later.

 

But this really does a few things -

1. it creates a park (even if it's just trees and grass to start) at a location that I believe is genuinely well placed

2. it creates a very high quality, pleasant pedestrian and cycling connection between Holman and Brazos

3. it creates a public area for all the residential construction nearby

4. it replaces the existing wall between Montrose and Midtown with a shared gathering space

 

I really don't understand the opposition to this plan. Partly because it sounds wonderful, but also because I have literally never used this ramp. 

 

Not when I lived in Avondale.

Not when I lived in Midtown.

Not when I lived in Riverside.

Not when I lived in west Montrose.

Not when I lived in SugarLand.

 

Never. Not once. 

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

I hope I didn‚Äôt mislead anyone or confuse anyone¬†COH was always consistent using¬†the term ‚Äú green space‚ÄĚ as I-hope I have used that term. This is the term for that small median at intersection of Elgin, Westheimer and Bagby that Avondale Civic hopes to become stewards of. There is another small green space at Tuam, Fairview and Genesee. These small green spaces are all one could hope for as all the ¬†remaining land within Midtown and Montrose seems spoken for- sigh

Edited by trymahjong
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2020 at 9:26 AM, Avossos said:

there are many older 60’s era apartments that could be converted to green space.

And then what? 
There would be fewer residents in the area. Fewer residents means less demand for park space. 
It would reduce the number of affordable apartments in Montrose, which are increasingly difficult to find. Even more of the people who made this neighborhood interesting to begin with will be forced out. 
That's some mighty expensive dirt under those apartments - and the owners know it. I can't imagine the city spending millions to buy and demolish taxable property for the sake of tiny parks that will serve a handful of people. 
OTOH, the greens space that will replace the Spur is land that we already own.
In addition to the excellent points made by @Texasota (see above) it will also provide pedestrians a safe and enjoyable connection between Lower Westheimer/Elgin and the eastern end of W Alabama (an area which hasn't been given much love).
We've grown so used to the ugliness and inconvenience caused by the Spur that it's difficult to picture the neighborhood without it. 
Its elimination will be a vast improvement.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dbigtex56 said:


That's some mighty expensive dirt under those apartments - and the owners know it. I can't imagine the city spending millions to buy and demolish taxable property for the sake of tiny parks that will serve a handful of people. 
OTOH, the greens space that will replace the Spur is land that we already own.
 

 

This alone is more than sufficient reason to go ahead and make it a park/greenspace.  Realistically, little pockets like this are the only chance we have given the rising cost of land in the area.

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

Giant Midtown Park is literally 4 blocks from this corner ūüôĄ

And isn't that nice. And irrelevant.
Pay attention: the abandonment of this section of the Spur will not create a park. Not. A. Park.
What it will do is remove an awkward, ugly obstruction that should never have been built to begin with. It's the Montrose/Midtown equivalent of the Berlin Wall. 
Reclaiming that land will create a green space that will allow residents (especially in Westmoreland) much easier access to the Red Line, and the growing restaurant scene south of Elgin. It will provide a safer, more pleasant, and more direct connection  between Elgin and W. Alabama. 
If you choose to dispute this, I can say with certainty that you haven't walked around this part of town very much (or, more likely, at all).
I lived in Westmoreland for almost 25 years.  I know this part of town VERY well, and the frustrations brought about by the intrusion of that damn highway into an urban neighborhood. 
There is no shame to changing your mind in light of new evidence. I hope that you will reconsider your position.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ToryGattis said:

Giant Midtown Park is literally 4 blocks from this corner ūüôĄ

 

True, but opportunities to add greenspace are going to be few and far between in an area like this.  Heading west from midtown park you have to go past Montrose Blvd before you find the next park.  Plus, there are already on and off ramps for 527 nearby so having an extra one there is redundant.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dbigtex56 said:

What it will do is remove an awkward, ugly obstruction that should never have been built to begin with. It's the Montrose/Midtown equivalent of the Berlin Wall. 
It will provide a safer, more pleasant, and more direct connection  between Elgin and W. Alabama. 
I lived in Westmoreland for almost 25 years.  I know this part of town VERY well, and the frustrations brought about by the intrusion of that damn highway into an urban neighborhood.

Why do you think the Houston taxpayers should provide you (or anyone else) a bailout for your decision to live in a neighborhood next to a freeway that you now regret? The freeway has been there much longer than 25 years. This is morally bankrupt. You are owed nothing. Also, the implication that this needs to be done for the good of an urban neighborhood is elitist and while it may be your opinion, it does not justify the economic and social damage, nor the moral hazards, you seek to create.

8 hours ago, august948 said:

This alone is more than sufficient reason to go ahead and make it a park/greenspace.  Realistically, little pockets like this are the only chance we have given the rising cost of land in the area.

Given that we're on the cusp of creating the precedent that it's OK to bulldoze highly used roads to build pseudo-parks in urban areas, this is not a valid argument.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bulldog said:

Why do you think the Houston taxpayers should provide you (or anyone else) a bailout for your decision to live in a neighborhood next to a freeway that you now regret? The freeway has been there much longer than 25 years. This is morally bankrupt. You are owed nothing. Also, the implication that this needs to be done for the good of an urban neighborhood is elitist and while it may be your opinion, it does not justify the economic and social damage, nor the moral hazards, you seek to create.

Given that we're on the cusp of creating the precedent that it's OK to bulldoze highly used roads to build pseudo-parks in urban areas, this is not a valid argument.

 

It's a completely valid argument given that there are existing on and off ramps a block or two away.  I use both on and off ramps several times each week (during non-pandemic times) and there is never a backup so having an extra set a block or two away already proves these are redundant.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, bulldog said:

Why do you think the Houston taxpayers should provide you (or anyone else) a bailout for your decision to live in a neighborhood next to a freeway that you now regret?

Please allow me to correct you on a couple of points. First of all, the word 'bailout' does not mean whatever it is you seem to think it does. The definition is "an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse." Perhaps you meant 'handout'? But that makes no sense either. No one's asking for charity, only to be treated fairly.
The second half of this run-on sentence is just as problematic as the first. I'll answer to one possible interpretation of that sentence by saying that in no way do I regret living in Westmoreland. I regret that the freeway was built there, but that was hardly my error, as I was four years old at the time and living 1500 miles away.

 

20 hours ago, bulldog said:

Given that we're on the cusp of creating the precedent that it's OK to bulldoze highly used roads to build pseudo-parks in urban areas, this is not a valid argument.

Thank you for bringing this up. I cannot imagine how we've overlooked something so apparent. 
Far from "creating a precedent'", abandoning underused, intrusive, poorly designed and antiquated freeways is now an accepted practice. Think of the West Side Highway in Manhattan, or Boston's Central Artery ("the other Green Monster"), or the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. Even smaller cities have jumped on the bandwagon (the abandonment and reclamation of the Inner Loop in Rochester, NY). In every one of these cases, freeways were eliminated and the cities benefited by their absence.
This "precedent setting" practice has been going on for forty years. It's time for Houston to reevaluate some of the choices (and mistakes) that were made many years ago.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bulldog said:

Also, the implication that this needs to be done for the good of an urban neighborhood is elitist and while it may be your opinion, it does not justify the economic and social damage, nor the moral hazards, you seek to create.

Sorry, I almost forgot to address this remarkable statement.
Why is doing something good for an urban neighborhood elitist? Given your proclivity for using words in novel ways, I assume that you mean something, but I cannot puzzle out what it might be.
And please tell me more about the economic and social damage. I'll be interested to hear about it. I doubt the lack of a freeway entrance is going to doom Midtown's Whole Foods, and lead to Amazon's collapse. Same goes for Spec's, and Randall's. Let's hold them to the same standards that TXDot does to existing businesses, churches, schools, etc. when they're building or expanding freeways: "Get over it."
I'm especially interested in the "moral hazards" I seek to create. While I'm not as frisky as I once was, this does sound intriguing. Tell me more, and don't skip any of the details. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

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

I have mixed feelings about the park. On the one hand I use Bagby St. when I come home while using the IH10 East Frwy westbound from Baytown where I work. I live in the Audobon Place neighborhood and use Bagby to get off on Hawthorne. But today I rode by the small park on the north side of Camden McGowen and saw lots of homeless people using that park to camp out in. I realize that this park will become a homeless encampment since it will belong to the city and they don't crack down on these people.  But the park on the southern side of Camden McGowen is patrolled by private security and they do a good job keeping the homeless from congregating there. I have a feeling this too will become a homeless camp since a lot of homeless people come down Hawthorne going to Covenant House to get free meals.

 

When I come home on 225 I use Pease from IH 45 and don't go by here but use Milam St. to get home.

 

I love parks but this may not the right place for one since the city does little to patrol their parks. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hindesky said:

I have mixed feelings about the park. On the one hand I use Bagby St. when I come home while using the IH10 East Frwy westbound from Baytown where I work. I live in the Audobon Place neighborhood and use Bagby to get off on Hawthorne. But today I rode by the small park on the north side of Camden McGowen and saw lots of homeless people using that park to camp out in. I realize that this park will become a homeless encampment since it will belong to the city and they don't crack down on these people.  But the park on the southern side of Camden McGowen is patrolled by private security and they do a good job keeping the homeless from congregating there. I have a feeling this too will become a homeless camp since a lot of homeless people come down Hawthorne going to Covenant House to get free meals.

 

When I come home on 225 I use Pease from IH 45 and don't go by here but use Milam St. to get home.

 

I love parks but this may not the right place for one since the city does little to patrol their parks. 

 

A good point, but most of the camps I've seen have been under bridges and they'll be removing what's left of this one.  Does midtown park have the same issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

A good point, but most of the camps I've seen have been under bridges and they'll be removing what's left of this one.  Does midtown park have the same issue?

The little park on the north side of Camden McGowen doesn't have any overhead protection but it does have a fountain which was in operation as I rode by. The fountain maybe the reason they were congratating there to wash their clothes. I was kind of surprised it was running as most water features have been turned of to keep people out of them. ie. Discovery Green has all their water features turned off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly every point of access to this corner of Midtown and Montrose is under attack.  My family and I live a few blocks from here, and we have to use these roads for school, work, errands, etc.  Every new "traffic calming" feature adds up to steal a lot of time from us.

 

We walk the neighborhood and take the train a lot, but never see all the folks clamoring for ever grander pedestrian projects.  I suspect a new walkway would get used as much as the Gray Street bicycle lane.  It sounds like a great idea until it's time to lace up the running shoes in August.

 

Thousands of people actually use the bridge, dozens of people say they will use a walkway.  Seems pretty straightforward.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how resistant people who worship pavement are to anything that might cause them to have to drive two blocks further - in this case, literally two blocks.  One almost never had to wait for a second cycle of the traffic light, even during the teeth of rush hour.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mollusk said:

It's amazing how resistant people who worship pavement are to anything that might cause them to have to drive two blocks further - in this case, literally two blocks.  One almost never had to wait for a second cycle of the traffic light, even during the teeth of rush hour.

 

And that's the part of this i don't understand.  If they were talking about ripping up 527, I'd be opposed to that.  But here we have two ramps right next to each other.  Surely we don't need two ramps in such close proximity.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2020 at 2:37 AM, august948 said:

 

And that's the part of this i don't understand.  If they were talking about ripping up 527, I'd be opposed to that.  But here we have two ramps right next to each other.  Surely we don't need two ramps in such close proximity.

If it improved social utility, I would be all for closing the ramp.  I have not seen a suggestion that would benefit thousands of people a day or anyone outside of a very small radius.  I'm surprised the city would even consider closing a ramp commuters use to reach affordable housing in order to benefit our neighborhood anyway.  Seems pretty regressive.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know that thousands of people live within a small radius, right? And that there are, in fact, poor people in Midtown and Montrose? 

 

Holman/Hawthorne is a major route for people commuting by bike from affordable housing in garage apartments, '30s era small aprtement buildings, and '50s and '60s era garden apartments in Montrose to HCC, UH, TSU, and jobs in midtown and downtown. The completion of the Braxos St and Austin St bike lanes, in combination with the removal of this ramp and its replacement with off-street multiuse paths, will help formalize that connection and make the route safer. Almost as importantly, it will make the route (and in particular, this major connection point) *feel* a lot safer, which will mean more people will use it who might otherwise be afraid to. 

 

Slightly changing someone's commute isn't regressive. If you can't get to work because your car breaks down, you can't afford to fix it, and you don't have a safe alternative? That's *actually* regressive. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston Public Works withdraws Brazos Street bridge revamp plans

 

Houston Public Works has pulled proposals to permanently close the Brazos Street bridge and implement new pedestrian features around a corridor threaded between the Montrose area and Midtown.

 

‚ÄúPlease be advised that the Houston Public Works Department along with Mayor Turner has made the decision to resume the project with the original design,‚ÄĚ reads a Public Works notice sent to stakeholders on April 2.

 

https://communityimpact.com/houston/heights-river-oaks-montrose/transportation/2020/04/02/houston-public-works-withdraws-brazos-street-bridge-revamp-plans/ 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Chronicle story:

 

Houston engineers designed a Spur 527 plan bicyclists loved. Commuters drove it into the ground.

Dug Begley April 17, 2020 Updated: April 17, 2020 4:37 p.m.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Houston-engineers-designed-a-Spur-527-plan-15208732.php?utm_campaign=CMS Sharing Tools (Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral#photo-19310860 

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

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, trymahjong said:

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

Cheer up. We can always try to eliminate the Spur again in another sixty years.
(oh, wait....no, we can't.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny that this thread just woke up again. I was about to post on it myself. I found out how the sneaky tear-down project came about in the first place.

Public Works lied publicly about the origins of the tear-down project, which covered up the fact that the whole thing was initiated by one person in the Mayor's Office. Public Works was completely blindsided with the tear-down initiative by the Mayor's Office. The Brazos Street bridge tear-down proposal was just the start and Public Works threw in the Bagby Street closure as a bonus after the project landed in its lap.
 
There was an orchestrated effort by people in the Mayor's Office to manufacture "public support" for tearing down the bridge, by leveraging influence over the various Management Districts, TIRZs, and other local advocacy entities (Rice Kinder Institute, Bike Houston, etc.). All of the initial community support (Kinder Institute, Public Works' proposal, endorsement by the TIRZs and management districts, endorsement by Westmoreland and Annise Parker, etc.) all came AFTER it had already been decided by people in the Mayor's Office that they wanted to tear down the bridge and BEFORE any attempt was made to have a public announcement or meeting.
 
Regardless of your opinion on the bridge tear-down itself, you have to understand that this whole attempted project was a product of our corrupt local government.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trymahjong said:

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

 

Can you give us any details?  What safety measures had been proposed and which are not going to be incorporated?  Did the council member share the reasons for not incorporating the safety measures?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bulldog said:
Funny that this thread just woke up again. I was about to post on it myself. I found out how the sneaky tear-down project came about in the first place.

Public Works lied publicly about the origins of the tear-down project, which covered up the fact that the whole thing was initiated by one person in the Mayor's Office. Public Works was completely blindsided with the tear-down initiative by the Mayor's Office. The Brazos Street bridge tear-down proposal was just the start and Public Works threw in the Bagby Street closure as a bonus after the project landed in its lap.
 
There was an orchestrated effort by people in the Mayor's Office to manufacture "public support" for tearing down the bridge, by leveraging influence over the various Management Districts, TIRZs, and other local advocacy entities (Rice Kinder Institute, Bike Houston, etc.). All of the initial community support (Kinder Institute, Public Works' proposal, endorsement by the TIRZs and management districts, endorsement by Westmoreland and Annise Parker, etc.) all came AFTER it had already been decided by people in the Mayor's Office that they wanted to tear down the bridge and BEFORE any attempt was made to have a public announcement or meeting.
 
Regardless of your opinion on the bridge tear-down itself, you have to understand that this whole attempted project was a product of our corrupt local government.

 

One of the most frustrating things about the Turner Administration has been the lack of transparency and the dishonest way it has been attempting to pursue initiatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Texasota said:

*rolls eyes* the fact that this stupid overpass is being rebuilt kind of rebuts your whole "corruption" argument. I do think the alternate plan was somewhat half-cocked and rushed, but that's not the same as corruption or dishonesty. 

The only reason it's being rebuilt is because of all the people that objected to it once it was widely known what they were trying to do. The government was deliberately keeping it off public's radar to slip it through. If it weren't for the uproar stirred up on social media, etc. I think the outcome may have been very different. Ultimately it seems the mayor couldn't justify the project in light of the public response, otherwise why would they have proceeded with the rebuild?

Edited by bulldog
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, trymahjong said:

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

 

If this is true, then this is truly outthousand dollarsingrageous. 

 

5 hours ago, bulldog said:
Funny that this thread just woke up again. I was about to post on it myself. I found out how the sneaky tear-down project came about in the first place.

Public Works lied publicly about the origins of the tear-down project, which covered up the fact that the whole thing was initiated by one person in the Mayor's Office. Public Works was completely blindsided with the tear-down initiative by the Mayor's Office. The Brazos Street bridge tear-down proposal was just the start and Public Works threw in the Bagby Street closure as a bonus after the project landed in its lap.

 

Your timeline is messed up unless you want to elaborate further. BikeHouston identified the intersection as needing improvements well before the bridge was even closed for repairs. I'm one of the ones that suggested it as I lived in Westmoreland at the time (BH offices are in Westmoreland as well). The mayor's office was not pushing that upon us. The whole reasoning for closing the bridge was that it needed to be repaired and the money that it would cost could be better utilized and to change the intersection.

 

Turner approved of scheduled improvements a full year before the bridge even closed for emergency repairs. 

 

image.png.2aea3937f88c5b49223c930e39c9cabd.png

 

Source: https://www.h-gac.com/transportation-advisory-committee/pedestrian-bicyclist-subcommittee/documents/COH Safer Streets Initiative PBSC 20190124.pdf

I was also told, not in a specific way, but a member of HPW that I approached about how poor the lighting was underneath the spur and how dangerous it was. They hinted that significant improvements and a reconfiguration had been talked about. This would have been 3rd or 4Q17. I wouldn't call a potentially multi-year heads up surprising.

 

Quote

There was an orchestrated effort by people in the Mayor's Office to manufacture "public support" for tearing down the bridge, by leveraging influence over the various Management Districts, TIRZs, and other local advocacy entities (Rice Kinder Institute, Bike Houston, etc.). All of the initial community support (Kinder Institute, Public Works' proposal, endorsement by the TIRZs and management districts, endorsement by Westmoreland and Annise Parker, etc.) all came AFTER it had already been decided by people in the Mayor's Office that they wanted to tear down the bridge and BEFORE any attempt was made to have a public announcement or meeting.

Regardless of your opinion on the bridge tear-down itself, you have to understand that this whole attempted project was a product of our corrupt local government.

 

 

Except as I mentioned above.... the changes were being clamored on for this intersection for years before this happened. Even so, what's the relevance of someone in the mayor's office wanting to do it before? They're the ones that killed it in the end, too. Someone gets to decide, and that's the mayor's office, so how is that corrupt? 

 

If anything the corrupt nature is that they wouldn't even allow HPW to do a full traffic study to understand how unnecessary or necessary it actually is. HPW said that Smith could handle the load of cars, but that wasn't good enough for some people since it wasn't an actual traffic study. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking specifically about the attempted permanent tear-down of the bridge and the way the Mayor's Office created a false narrative of support for it in secret and used that to manipulate Public Works into pursuing it. I'm not talking about the proposed pedestrian/bicyclist improvements on Smith/Bagby/Holman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have known about the Bridge fiasco for quite a while. Montrose Commons has an informative PowerPoint presentation concerning the Bridge being built in the late 50‚Äôs and the disastrous result on on neighborhood cohesion as well as walkability. I bring this up as many of the Civic associations along Brazos bring up the negative stuff to the Mayors Office and City Council officials many many times after that bridge was built.........many many times.....so I‚Äôm sure every¬†¬†Mayors office and Council were aware of the resentment of that bridge. How could anything that is brought up year after year be labeled ‚Äú kept off everyone‚Äôs radar‚ÄĚ.¬†
I was in the minority who thought, the residents of the area next to Bagby should choose what was done to Brazos/Bagby. IMO living with the Spur over 50 years should have given more say in the outcome.
 

=>about the safety measures that won’t be incorporated into the Brazos bridge renovation. I’m not sure of the entire list, but the larger traffic lights, the red lights used to outline cross walks and the use of changing textures ( bricks) to slow down traffic are a few I can think of.
 

lastly, I have to admit I am confused and confounded that safety measures for Holman/Bagby is given¬†crap priority by COH for safety and therefore ‚Äúwalkability‚ÄĚ but one block south, the lower Westheimer corridor gets all kinds of hoopla From COH about safety and walkability.
It seems a mixed message


 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bulldog said:

I'm talking specifically about the attempted permanent tear-down of the bridge and the way the Mayor's Office created a false narrative of support for it in secret and used that to manipulate Public Works into pursuing it. I'm not talking about the proposed pedestrian/bicyclist improvements on Smith/Bagby/Holman.

 

To be clear, are you saying that there was a plan for a tear down of the bridge before they closed in summer '19 for emergency repairs? 

 

Also, in regards to reduction in pedestrian improvements, I reached out to someone who I would assume would have known about it, and they said it would be news to them.

Edited by wilcal
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, trymahjong said:

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

 

I've received confirmation from Houston Public Works that this is not true.

 

This is likely a case of telephone gone awry and CM Kamin was likely telling the group about how the bridge WOULD be reconstructed.

 

The planned bike/ped improvements are still going forward. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the PWE guys told you all plans are still a ‚Äúgo‚ÄĚ I can only tell you I have a bit of Civic¬†skepticism¬†

 

I have observed Councilwoman Kamin giving information to her constituents many many times IMO she is extremely diligent in fact checking, even rechecking the fact checking and will refuse to pass on any information she deems ‚Äú dicey-my word). She doesn‚Äôt hesitate to label some information as ‚Äúrumor ‚Äú or ‚Äúunconfirmed‚ÄĚ.

 

soooooooo hmmmmmm yup I’m a little skeptical. Plus, I think back on what PWE explained about the lower Westheimer improvements. So yes I’m skeptical. I suppose time will tell- lol

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

If the PWE guys told you all plans are still a ‚Äúgo‚ÄĚ I can only tell you I have a bit of Civic¬†skepticism¬†

 

I have observed Councilwoman Kamin giving information to her constituents many many times IMO she is extremely diligent in fact checking, even rechecking the fact checking and will refuse to pass on any information she deems ‚Äú dicey-my word). She doesn‚Äôt hesitate to label some information as ‚Äúrumor ‚Äú or ‚Äúunconfirmed‚ÄĚ.

 

soooooooo hmmmmmm yup I’m a little skeptical. Plus, I think back on what PWE explained about the lower Westheimer improvements. So yes I’m skeptical. I suppose time will tell- lol

 

Would you mind letting me know what meeting this was heard at? I had reached out to CM Kamin's office and they wanted to double back to the people at the meeting to clarify that all safety measures were moving forward. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2020 at 5:02 PM, wilcal said:

To be clear, are you saying that there was a plan for a tear down of the bridge before they closed in summer '19 for emergency repairs? 

No. The initial tear-down (as part of the original approved $4MM reconstruction project) started and then was halted when someone in the Mayor's Office found out the city owned the bridge and not TXDOT. The Mayor's Office cherry-picked entities to provide "public support" with the intent to justify not rebuilding it. They dumped the permanent tear-down proposal on Public Works, which fumbled around for a few months trying to figure out what to do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. This is pretty enlightening, although it sucks to hear this is why the project fell through.

Considering how other projects/proposals have gone through Planning ect. with overwhelming positive feedback, I thought it was really weird how this specific project fell through when it seemed on the outset to be a slam dunk: take expensive infrastructure off the city's books, increase pedestrian safety, local homeowners get less traffic on their neighborhood streets. Considering how much it usually takes to get a city initiative cancelled in Houston, the opposition seemed very disproportionate to the response.

Honestly kinda glad to know it was a cluster from the start, because it gives me more confidence in the current and upcoming city initiatives that I know are being done correctly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...