Traffic Calming Being Tested in East End

[samagon]

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Houston-testing-whether-signs-make-East-End-15333585.php

 

Quote

Taking a page from some other cities, Houston officials are slowing traffic along about a mile of East End streets in a test to see if they can curtail zip-through drivers and offer a safe route for bicyclists and pedestrians.

 

long overdue, and I hope they are happy with the success and do make permanent additions to neighborhood streets.

[Montrose1100]

3 minutes ago, samagon said:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Houston-testing-whether-signs-make-East-End-15333585.php

 

 

long overdue, and I hope they are happy with the success and do make permanent additions to neighborhood streets.

McKinney doesn't allow on street parking but it doesn't stop people. They just need some of those speed bumps next to the Athletic Club & Town homes. Maybe even a stop sign at Cullen (since there is a massive blind spot).

 

Forcing the gym parking and residents to go down Walker or Rusk is dumb & dangerous. Residents park on both sides only allowing 1 vehicle at a time. Do you know how many run over pet posts there are on NextDoor already?

 

The City needs to spend the money to adjust/mark the streets accordingly. Putting up a barricade no one will look at or abide to a "look, we're doing something stunt", that isn't even Chronicle worthy.

[samagon]

On 6/12/2020 at 10:38 AM, Montrose1100 said:

McKinney doesn't allow on street parking but it doesn't stop people. They just need some of those speed bumps next to the Athletic Club & Town homes. Maybe even a stop sign at Cullen (since there is a massive blind spot).

 

Forcing the gym parking and residents to go down Walker or Rusk is dumb & dangerous. Residents park on both sides only allowing 1 vehicle at a time. Do you know how many run over pet posts there are on NextDoor already?

 

The City needs to spend the money to adjust/mark the streets accordingly. Putting up a barricade no one will look at or abide to a "look, we're doing something stunt", that isn't even Chronicle worthy.

 

the sign says road closed to through traffic. which means, cars passing through that area that have a destination outside of that area. so if you are traveling from McKinney and White Oak, and you are going to Maga's at Polk and Dumble, that is through traffic and you better turn on Milby to get to Polk, rather than continuing straight on McKinney to go down the Dumble.

 

what is fully allowed is if someone is traveling to a destination on McKinney that is between those two barricades, then you can pass the barricade, you don't have to go over to Polk or Walker to get around. so if you are starting at McKinney and White Oak and you are going to Cullen and McKinney, you can pass the barricade and stay on McKinney with no issue.

 

I think the people who are complaining about it are misinterpreting the sign.

 

I will say I recall reading many years ago that as part of a quiet zone for the railroad they were going to remove the street crossing at the railroad track between York and Milby. like, street permanently closed style remove. not sure what happened to that, but it would certainly have the desired effect of keeping through traffic from using McKinney.

Edited June 17, 2020 by samagon

[samagon]

looks like there's another chron article.

 

https://www.chron.com/houston/article/City-of-Houston-launches-Slow-Streets-project-for-15346265.php

 

it clarifies what 'no through traffic' means:

 

Quote

"Vehicles traveling to local homes and businesses may continue to access these streets, along with all emergency vehicles. No parking spaces have been removed."

 

hope that helps, and please share with the nextdoor people. misunderstanding the point of this can cause failure all because of bad communication.

[BeerNut]

As someone that lives on Hutchins St, blocking access to 'cut through' traffic has been trans-formative.  

[TacoDog]

How do they make this permanent? 

I went on a virtual ride on McKinney via Google Maps and noticed three things about the street that indicates to me it would be a good thru street. First, double yellow line on the road tells me it is more than just a residential street. Second, no stop signs along the street tells me it is a thru street. Third, the speed limit is posted as 30 mph. Those seem like better ways to fix this problem than closing it off.
 

Edited June 21, 2020 by TacoDog

[Texasota]

30 mph is the minimum speed limit in Texas, and plenty of residential and mixed streets have fewer stops signs than they need. The existence of double yellow lines as evidence that it's a good through street is a weird tautology - it's treated as a through street therefore it must be a good through street. A better question would be: is its value as a through street high enough to outweigh the benefits to residents of opening it primarily to them.

 

That said - this is an experiment, and you're absolutely correct that more stop signs would be helpful. 

[zaphod]

Maybe they could also try curbs that stick out further, or circular concrete raised areas in intersections. Those would make driving through inconvenient and discourage through traffic as well.

[BeerNut]

2 hours ago, zaphod said:

Maybe they could also try curbs that stick out further, or circular concrete raised areas in intersections. Those would make driving through inconvenient and discourage through traffic as well.

 

Just add some chicanes to slow traffic down.

[wilcal]

5 hours ago, Texasota said:

30 mph is the minimum speed limit in Texas,

 

Not the case, evidently.

 

Austin just voted last week to drop all speed limits in their neighborhoods to 25 MPH (along with many other speed drops). 

 

Counties, (cut not cities evidently?) have the ability to drop speed limits to 20mph, but it must be contextual in line with a church, school, or some other approved metric.

 

 

[TacoDog]

10 hours ago, Texasota said:

30 mph is the minimum speed limit in Texas, and plenty of residential and mixed streets have fewer stops signs than they need. The existence of double yellow lines as evidence that it's a good through street is a weird tautology - it's treated as a through street therefore it must be a good through street. A better question would be: is its value as a through street high enough to outweigh the benefits to residents of opening it primarily to them.

 

That said - this is an experiment, and you're absolutely correct that more stop signs would be helpful. 

 

I grew up in Pennsylvania where 15-20 was the speed limit on residential streets. Roads that have a double yellow line tend to be 35 to 55, so it's a significance to me. The street I grew up on had stop signs every block, whereas the other streets were every third block or so, so it limited traffic on my street. 

[samagon]

On 6/21/2020 at 11:41 AM, Texasota said:

30 mph is the minimum speed limit in Texas, and plenty of residential and mixed streets have fewer stops signs than they need. The existence of double yellow lines as evidence that it's a good through street is a weird tautology - it's treated as a through street therefore it must be a good through street. A better question would be: is its value as a through street high enough to outweigh the benefits to residents of opening it primarily to them.

 

That said - this is an experiment, and you're absolutely correct that more stop signs would be helpful. 

 

clarification, 30 mph is the residential speed limit unless otherwise posted, that is to say, it is not the minimum speed limit, it is the maximum speed limit.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm#545.352

Quote

 

Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

(b) Unless a special hazard exists that requires a slower speed for compliance with Section 545.351(b), the following speeds are lawful:

(1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district on a street other than an alley and 15 miles per hour in an alley;

 

 

now, section 545.355 goes on to say:

Quote

Sec. 545.355. AUTHORITY OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ALTER SPEED LIMITS. (a) The commissioners court of a county, for a county road or highway outside the limits of the right-of-way of an officially designated or marked highway or road of the state highway system and outside a municipality, has the same authority to increase prima facie speed limits from the results of an engineering and traffic investigation as the Texas Transportation Commission on an officially designated or marked highway of the state highway system.

(b) The commissioners court of a county may declare a lower speed limit of not less than:

(1) 30 miles per hour on a county road or highway to which this section applies, if the commissioners court determines that the prima facie speed limit on the road or highway is unreasonable or unsafe; or

(2) 20 miles per hour:

(A) in a residence district, unless the roadway has been designated as a major thoroughfare by a city planning commission; or

 

there's 

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm#545.363

Quote

Sec. 545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

 

which is to say, when you combine all this stuff together, that:

 

30mph is the MAXIMUM speed one may drive in a residential area, unless a slower speed (down to 20 mph) is posted.

you should only go that fast when it is safe to do so.

you can drive slower if safe operation of your vehicle requires it, be it from road conditions, or the condition of your vehicle

 

anyway, I don't want it to feel like I'm coming after you here, you probably just mis-wrote what you meant to say. just wanting to make sure the law is understood so everyone is communicating from the same base knowledge.

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by samagon

[Texasota]

Useful info.

 

My point was just that a 30mph speed limit is standard on residential streets in Houston. This isn't Philly, or DC, or any other Northeastern city where higher density streets are often marked 25.

[thedistrict84]

Just saw this post here, but the “Slow Streets” project is fresh in my mind after a few recent posts on Nextdoor. 
 

I personally think it’s a bad idea. McKinney gets a lot of traffic because it is one of the main connectors towards downtown, along with Polk and Leeland. It’s relatively high traffic, and even the intersection with Chartres by GRB is designed to encourage traffic to use McKinney (this will be eliminated with the I-45 reroute, but that is somewhat beside the point).

 

There will undoubtedly be further development on McKinney west of Sampson/York in the coming years as the remaining abandoned or disused warehouses are slowly replaced with townhouses, apartments, and retail developments. McKinney, as an east/west corridor, will definitely see an increase in traffic through to Lockwood and Dumble/Adams (as north/south corridors).

 

Implementing this program permanently on McKinney is just going to push more traffic to Walker and Lamar. To address the core issue here, the City needs to revisit the intersection at McKinney and Cullen. It should be a four way stop. I understand that a traffic study led to the removal of the light that was at Cullen, but I feel that that study was a bit premature given the predictable future increases in traffic volume.

[Montrose1100]

19 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

Just saw this post here, but the “Slow Streets” project is fresh in my mind after a few recent posts on Nextdoor. 
 

I personally think it’s a bad idea. McKinney gets a lot of traffic because it is one of the main connectors towards downtown, along with Polk and Leeland. It’s relatively high traffic, and even the intersection with Chartres by GRB is designed to encourage traffic to use McKinney (this will be eliminated with the I-45 reroute, but that is somewhat beside the point).

 

There will undoubtedly be further development on McKinney west of Sampson/York in the coming years as the remaining abandoned or disused warehouses are slowly replaced with townhouses, apartments, and retail developments. McKinney, as an east/west corridor, will definitely see an increase in traffic through to Lockwood and Dumble/Adams (as north/south corridors).

 

Implementing this program permanently on McKinney is just going to push more traffic to Walker and Lamar. To address the core issue here, the City needs to revisit the intersection at McKinney and Cullen. It should be a four way stop. I understand that a traffic study led to the removal of the light that was at Cullen, but I feel that that study was a bit premature given the predictable future increases in traffic volume.

I was anti-anti-thru traffic initially, because I thought people would use Walker or Rusk as an alternative. Was worried because those streets are tight with cars parked on both sides. Only one car can really navigate at a time. Who would use Lamar?

 

If your destination is not directly on McKinney but it is in the neighborhood you can still use McKinney. Anyway, Polk is a great alternative east & west as it goes under the tracks already. Harrisburg has the light rail but the lights are quick. Lockwood, York and Sampson are good North & South thoroughfares. 

 

I've seen the reasons to dislike it on Next Door. They're not legit. Just people bitching about tax dollars. Any other reason is a huge stretch. McKinney sees a lot of pedestrian activity, runners, joggers, cyclists, and dog walkers. Come around to thinking this is a good idea since most drivers jack rabbit after the Milby stop sign. A 4 way stop at Cullen would be a welcomed addition as well. Many kiddos and people crossing there.

[linearmovement]

20 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

To address the core issue here, the City needs to revisit the intersection at McKinney and Cullen. It should be a four way stop. I understand that a traffic study led to the removal of the light that was at Cullen, but I feel that that study was a bit premature given the predictable future increases in traffic volume.

 

Not to mention the poor visibility of eastbound traffic around the corner on McKinney when stopped at the northbound stop sign on Cullen.

[thedistrict84]

3 hours ago, Montrose1100 said:

I was anti-anti-thru traffic initially, because I thought people would use Walker or Rusk as an alternative. Was worried because those streets are tight with cars parked on both sides. Only one car can really navigate at a time. Who would use Lamar?

 

If your destination is not directly on McKinney but it is in the neighborhood you can still use McKinney. Anyway, Polk is a great alternative east & west as it goes under the tracks already. Harrisburg has the light rail but the lights are quick. Lockwood, York and Sampson are good North & South thoroughfares. 

 

I've seen the reasons to dislike it on Next Door. They're not legit. Just people bitching about tax dollars. Any other reason is a huge stretch. McKinney sees a lot of pedestrian activity, runners, joggers, cyclists, and dog walkers. Come around to thinking this is a good idea since most drivers jack rabbit after the Milby stop sign. A 4 way stop at Cullen would be a welcomed addition as well. Many kiddos and people crossing there.

I walk my dog down McKinney fairly often, so I’m well aware. I realize there are a lot of joggers and walkers out and about there, which is why the East End Management District needs to redo the sidewalks in the area as they have on the other side of Harrisburg. This program almost implies that people should be walking in the street, which is reckless regardless of the volume of traffic.

 

For cyclists, the bicycle lanes on Polk a few blocks south-southwest (which are currently being redone) and the Harrisburg Hike and Bike Trail just across Harrisburg are much better suited as east/west corridors for recreational and commuter cyclists.

A four-way stop sign at McKinney and Cullen would solve nearly all of the problems, which again came about after they removed the traffic light at that intersection.

[Montrose1100]

20 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

I walk my dog down McKinney fairly often, so I’m well aware. I realize there are a lot of joggers and walkers out and about there, which is why the East End Management District needs to redo the sidewalks in the area as they have on the other side of Harrisburg. This program almost implies that people should be walking in the street, which is reckless regardless of the volume of traffic.

 

For cyclists, the bicycle lanes on Polk a few blocks south-southwest (which are currently being redone) and the Harrisburg Hike and Bike Trail just across Harrisburg are much better suited as east/west corridors for recreational and commuter cyclists.

A four-way stop sign at McKinney and Cullen would solve nearly all of the problems, which again came about after they removed the traffic light at that intersection.

I agree with your points but closing a street to thru traffic seems more cost effective than replacing all the sidewalks. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, cyclists don't usually commute on McKinney, it's normally the folks that go for leisure rides in the afternoon and/or whatever critical mass has turned into.

 

Had a feeling Eastwood would slowly turn into the Heights. Didn't know it would be so rapid. Never in my life would I've thought to see people want to "save the train horns". They don't give a rip about train horns... they don't want gentrification. That's the main rally point against this on NextDoor anyhow.

 

Also unsure if any residents are pushing for this. Someone must be, would the city just do this at random? 

[linearmovement]

20 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

For cyclists, the bicycle lanes on Polk a few blocks south-southwest (which are currently being redone) and the Harrisburg Hike and Bike Trail just across Harrisburg are much better suited as east/west corridors for recreational and commuter cyclists.

 

I ride a lot and completely disagree with this - maybe it'll be different when the bike lanes are redone, but currently on Polk there's always a ton of debris in the bike lanes (especially under the railroad bridge near Milby), plenty of vehicle traffic, and the miserably long light at Scott. The Hike and Bike trail requires slowing at every street crossing (same with Columbia Tap). As long as you don't get stuck at the train near Milby, McKinney is by far the best cycle connector between Dumble and downtown - it's a straight shot with relatively low traffic, few stop lights, a second lane in each direction, and an easy jog over to Polk to cross 59. I'll always opt for McKinney or Leeland over Polk or the Harrisburg trail.

[thedistrict84]

42 minutes ago, linearmovement said:

I ride a lot and completely disagree with this - maybe it'll be different when the bike lanes are redone, but currently on Polk there's always a ton of debris in the bike lanes (especially under the railroad bridge near Milby), plenty of vehicle traffic, and the miserably long light at Scott. The Hike and Bike trail requires slowing at every street crossing (same with Columbia Tap). As long as you don't get stuck at the train near Milby, McKinney is by far the best cycle connector between Dumble and downtown - it's a straight shot with relatively low traffic, few stop lights, a second lane in each direction, and an easy jog over to Polk to cross 59. I'll always opt for McKinney or Leeland over Polk or the Harrisburg trail.

Aside from the bus stop islands they are installing up and down Polk now, I believe they are also redoing markings and possibly integrating armadillo bumpers in certain areas/intersections to help protect bicyclists. It should be vastly improved when they are finished. And from my understanding, Leeland is also due for installation of protected bike lanes, so that will be one more east/west corridor option.
 

I agree that McKinney between Milby and GRB (through EaDo) is ideal for biking, and use it often myself. And the traffic volume on McKinney between Milby and Dumble is still low enough, even before this pilot program, that it is still somewhat safe for biking. The main issue is people speeding; again, putting in a four-way stop at McKinney and Cullen will solve that problem, without the uneven effects (i.e., unintentionally directing traffic to narrower neighboring streets) that would result from permanently implementing this program.

[thedistrict84]

1 hour ago, Montrose1100 said:

I agree with your points but closing a street to thru traffic seems more cost effective than replacing all the sidewalks. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, cyclists don't usually commute on McKinney, it's normally the folks that go for leisure rides in the afternoon and/or whatever critical mass has turned into.

Fixing the sidewalks is something that needs to be done anyway, and would benefit more people than just those that live on McKinney. And again, if the sidewalks aren’t fixed, you’ll have people walking in the street, which is ill-advised regardless of traffic volume.

 

If you’re going for a leisure ride on your bike, you should be heading to the nearest park or the Harrisburg Hike and Bike Trail. City streets in close proximity to downtown aren’t the best for that. This isn’t the suburbs (thankfully).

[Texasota]

Except making the street safe to walk in is literally the point of this project. This is not meant to be a permanent solution - it's more about showing what might be possible, so the City is in a better position to come in and make permanent changes further down the road. 

 

And the City will never have the budget to go through and rebuild every street at once, so if it can use faster, cheaper, temporary techniques in a way that makes a short-term difference, I think that's a lot better than doing nothing.

 

To me, the project implementation on something like this should be phased. For example:

Phase 1: the City puts up these quick, cheap, temporary barriers 

Phase 2: temporary barriers are replaced with quasi-permanent concrete curbing (similar to how many protected bike lanes are being handled) AND additional stop signs are installed

Phase 3: Curb extensions, chicanes, lane removals, raised crossings etc are installed. Sidewalks are replaced and widened.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Texasota

[samagon]

On 7/15/2020 at 8:07 AM, Montrose1100 said:

I was anti-anti-thru traffic initially, because I thought people would use Walker or Rusk as an alternative. Was worried because those streets are tight with cars parked on both sides. Only one car can really navigate at a time. Who would use Lamar?

 

If your destination is not directly on McKinney but it is in the neighborhood you can still use McKinney. Anyway, Polk is a great alternative east & west as it goes under the tracks already. Harrisburg has the light rail but the lights are quick. Lockwood, York and Sampson are good North & South thoroughfares. 

 

I've seen the reasons to dislike it on Next Door. They're not legit. Just people bitching about tax dollars. Any other reason is a huge stretch. McKinney sees a lot of pedestrian activity, runners, joggers, cyclists, and dog walkers. Come around to thinking this is a good idea since most drivers jack rabbit after the Milby stop sign. A 4 way stop at Cullen would be a welcomed addition as well. Many kiddos and people crossing there.

 

nearly 10 years of driving into the office 5 days a week, 50ish weeks a year, you start timing all the possible routes down to the seconds.

 

my office is Texas/Travis. for the drive home I prefer Texas > Avenida DLA > Rusk > St Emanuel > McKinney > Dumble > Telephone > home. this is assuming there isn't a train crossing McKinney, in which case I jog down to Polk. it's just quicker.

 

my office is actually on Texas, which turns into Harrisburg. The Texas vs Chartres vs St. Emanuel vs Emancipation vs light rail intersection can literally double the amount of time I'm sitting at stop lights on my way home. this is a no go.

 

I say all of this to help drive home that once you get across 59, the fastest way to get to Dumble is on McKinney.

 

I actually found out rather recently from my mom that my grandfather who worked for the Southern Pacific in the SP building (what's now the Bayou Lofts) and lived on Lawndale and Dismuke, he preferred to commute on McKinney as well, so it's not only the fastest now, but it has always been. 

 

all that said, I am completely indifferent to the change, but I lean more towards it not being designated as not a through street permanently, it's not like it's a residential street that people use to cut through, I would say that from Milby to Lockwood there are more businesses (or empty lots) lining the street, so I don't buy that it's a neighborhood street, on the other side of Lockwood though, it is only homes though. but then, Richmond just inside the loop is only homes too.

 

IDK, maybe a longterm answer is McKinney east of Lockwood gets designated as no through traffic, and west is keeps the current.

 

as I've said before though, if I remember one of the plans for railroad quiet zones, the plan is that McKinney crossing of the railroad goes away, so that would force the subject on its own.

Edited July 20, 2020 by samagon

[samagon]

here's the link to the thread in east end.

 

I may do more searching to see if I can find any updated info on this.

 

 

and here's a link I found to the website with data:

http://www.gcrd.net/westbelt.htm

 

and some nice videos on the bottom. you can see just how useful McKinney will be as a through street when that project is complete...

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by samagon

[Montrose1100]

3 hours ago, samagon said:

here's the link to the thread in east end.

 

I may do more searching to see if I can find any updated info on this.

 

 

and here's a link I found to the website with data:

http://www.gcrd.net/westbelt.htm

 

and some nice videos on the bottom. you can see just how useful McKinney will be as a through street when that project is complete...

 

Wow, those improvements are awesome! There's no current way to cross the tracks that parallel Harrisburg (other than heading to 59 or Alt Hwy 90). 2017 update, but nothing done as of yet.

 

Cutting off McKinney & Milby at the tracks is interesting. But why would the city try out with the signs in the crossing is to be no more?

 

Edit: Also, noting nothing being done about cullen/lockwood. The Train horns will live on.

[samagon]

18 hours ago, Montrose1100 said:

Wow, those improvements are awesome! There's no current way to cross the tracks that parallel Harrisburg (other than heading to 59 or Alt Hwy 90). 2017 update, but nothing done as of yet.

 

Cutting off McKinney & Milby at the tracks is interesting. But why would the city try out with the signs in the crossing is to be no more?

 

Edit: Also, noting nothing being done about cullen/lockwood. The Train horns will live on.

 

the full details of the project can be seen here http://www.gcrd.net/docs/West Belt Study.pdf it does include Leeland/Cullen. you don't need grade separation to have a quiet zone. actually, the Leeland/Cullen crossings are certainly already quiet zones. I've been stuck there many times as trains approach, and there are no horns. Lockwood wouldn't need to be accounted for as it turns into Elgin at gulf freeway, and this is where that train line crosses, and it is grade separated already.

 

here's another PDF with a map of the impacted area:  http://www.gcrd.net/docs/map.West Belt.pdf

 

from here, I'm going off memory and guessing...

 

memory:

I recall reading that the Navigation/Commerce underpass was going to be included as part of the i45 realignment project.

 

guessing:

maybe they decided to just let the NHHP handle the Navigation/Commerce, and then scrap the Scott street changes? 

[Arternative]

Hey HAIF, I live in Eastwood and have skimmed some of the above posts. I believe I have some opinions regarding some of the things said on the streets and traffic. 

 

Firstly, Mckinney @ Cullen is good the way it is and I think they made the right choice making it a 2 way stop. It just takes a few more seconds than a normal intersection to make sure it is safe to go. I use this intersection all the time and lived here before, during and after the change and at first it was jarring but quickly got used to it. Be safe! That said, if they do cut off the Milby/ Mckinney RR crossing, then they should make Cullen/ Mckinney a 4 way stop.

 

The thru traffic restriction on Mckinney east of Lockwood is a huge success IMO. The same cannot be said on the thru closure on Dumble between Harrisburg and Polk. Dumble is too vital, it's a railroad crossing and logistically a essential road. There are two high schools across Polk. I imagine implementing this during the school year would affect a lot of people negatively.

[Houston19514]

Just ran across this info and wasn't sure where it was best to post it:  The City has applied for a federal grant as follows

• DOT Railroad Crossing Elimination grant for West Belt Phase 1 to fund the construction of two railroad underpasses at Commerce Street/Navigation Boulevard and York Street in the East End neighborhood of Houston (Announcements expected in Q1 2023).

[004n063]

17 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Just ran across this info and wasn't sure where it was best to post it:  The City has applied for a federal grant as follows

• DOT Railroad Crossing Elimination grant for West Belt Phase 1 to fund the construction of two railroad underpasses at Commerce Street/Navigation Boulevard and York Street in the East End neighborhood of Houston (Announcements expected in Q1 2023).

Would this be connected to the roundabout plan?

[samagon]

the roundabout will be at Jensen, Runnels, Navigation intersection (blue outline).

this is where Navigation goes under the rail line, and then Commerce and Hutchins intersect (red outline).

my guess would be Hutchins will not be invited to the party, and Commerce would be an underpass and a signaled intersection under the track will be a thing. also I suspect Bastrop will no longer intersect Commerce.