Leonard

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your time at this point, but I'm glad you finally cleaned up your lawn.

I don't think that opposing spending $6M plus unknown and uncapped interest of public monies on something a private entity should have paid for is all that hard to understand.

They aren't "my" restrictions, they are TxDOT's. And yes, I do think the 3,000 lb/axle limit is keeping some people off the bridge, don't you? For example, Walmart delivery trucks? But I also think that the load limits are violated many times per hour. I'm not simple enough to think that the load limits are either a) keeping all over limit traffic off the bridge or keeping no over limit traffic off the bridge. So, are the restrictions working? No, not completely.

My main issue with the development is and has always been the 380. According to statements made in the City Council meeting on the 380 by the Mayor, they would build with or without the 380. They should have built it without the 380.

Some people are following the restrictions, some are not. Not sure why you think it would be all or nothing on this particular law. I think most people realize that some people follow laws and some don't. You'd think a defense attorney would be able to figure that one out.

The City approved a Traffic Impact Analysis for the development with "F" intersections - not sure what the City traffic engineers "know".

The Yale Street Bridge's extreme restrictions might have had an impact on the amount of traffic on Yale.

We, as citizens, should request that the City pay off Ainbiner via the installment plan in the 380. We will be able to request the amounts paid and can compare the acutal sales and property tax generated by the whole development to those projected instead of judging how well the Walmart is doing by how long someone is willing to wait for an up front space.

Niche, thanks for the info.

Gosh, I wonder was any of the stuff in the 380 in the seller's commitments to walmart?

Pretty sure that Walmart bought the land prior to development, maybe even prior to the 380.

Here is some news:

http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=2703

"Walmart sets opening date, promises no trucks on Yale St. Bridge"

If you want to think that Walmart wanted the bridge beautified but has no interest in whether it actually exists or not, that's perfectly ok with me. If you think that a bridge on the main throughfare to the Walmart is of no concern to Walmart, that is also fine with me.

If you want to think that, as Mayor Parker said over and over, that the 380 has nothing to do with Walmart that is also fine with me.

If you don't what hyperbole means, that's also ok with me.

If I have more news that I think will be of interest, I will post it.

Suggesting that someone commit suicide is reprehensible.

JJxi - you are absolutely right. It is the fault of the city and TxDOT. Why did they let this bridge get to this point?

But to suggest that Walmart has no interest in this bridge - except to want it to look prettier - is a little naive to say the least. I'm sure they are concerned about when and how long Yale will be closed. The smaller retailers in the development are probably even more concerned. And the developers must be concerned about unleased space - would you want to lease there now?

By the way, Walmart isn't a tenant, they own their property and developed it themselves.

It's not wrong to question how the government is spending tax money and how the government is or isn't maintaining infrastructure. It's not wrong to question why TxDOT and the City let the bridge get into this state with 4 more years before construction even starts - even with out of cycle funding obtained.

The City is going to have to repair the bridge if it is to remain open for the next 4 years before it is torn down. That's more tax dollars spent on this bridge.

If they don't know why this happened, they can't prevent it from happening over and over.

Yeah, Pleak, you're right. I'm sure everyone knows the weight of their vehicle plus passengers and cargo and how it is distributed between the axles.

Not sure what words I'm supposed to be putting in people's mouths.

For the record, I've said before and I've already said it today, I don't think non-commerical drivers should be expected to know the weight of their vehicles.

fwki, are you accusing the engineers of faking the ratings to appease RUDH?

Or maybe I just logged on at the right time.

So, you are saying if not for RUDH the bridge would not be fast tracked to replacement in 2016 and the load limits would be higher and unenforced? That the City would not be looking at options for temporary repairs in the meantime?

Marksmu, I agree with you that the load limits are ridiculously low and that it is ridiculous to expect drivers of non-commercial vehicles to adhere to the limits.

How is the bridge's load limit and enforcement RUDH's fault? Are you saying that if not for RUDH, the load limits on the bridge would be higher? Are you saying that RUDH controls HPD?

IronTiger, good question - what is the controversy? The bridge is scheduled to be rebuilt in late 2016. It will take from 3 weeks to 16 months to rebuild according to various HAIF posters.

If the bridge's rating decrease much further, the bridge will have to be closed before 2016.

The City is exploring repairs to make to the current bridge to bring up the ratings between now and 2016. What they can do is limited by the low load limits - scraping layers of asphalt off would improve the numbers, but the bridge can't support the equipment to do that.

Yes, the load limit is as low as it can go, but it's constantly violated and it is impossible to keep over limit vehicles off of the bridge. Posters here talk of intentionally violating the load limit, not sure as to what their reasoning is behind that.

Nothing to do with walmart except the over $100K the City is on the hook for for cosmetic improvements to the bridge due to the 380.

I'm sure what you guys have observed going on other places is much more reliable than an engineers report done by engineers who have actually looked at this particular bridge. AND they might not even do new foundations for the Yale Street Bridge, so much less time.

I'm sure the construction of this bridge it like totally the same as the other one and they could easily demolish half of it, no worries, while you and your kids drive across it.

Although, since the bridge is perfectly fine as evidenced by you driving across it illegally without collapsing into the bayou, I question the need to do anything at all.

Niche, whatever. I try to quote sources when I can, like the Entech report or the 380 agreement. I try to relay facts that I think others might be interested in, and keep my outlandish theories to myself.

I've said over and over I think the 380 shouldn't exist. I don't think it should have been increased to include the bridge, something else I've said over and over. I'm just pointing out that the 380 did not do what it was intended to do. They did not get out in front of infrastructure issues. There sidewalks are worse, the trees are worse. I'm not saying that they should spend more 380 money. I'm saying they should never have spent any of it, it does not do what the City said it would do.

For the last time, I don't think there should have been a single cent of 380 money spent on anything, regardless what Niche or Red may interpret from what I've said.

Niche, are you sure the state is funding this, or is it federal funds?

fwiki, for the time limit on the rebuild, I'm quoting the engineers the City commissioned to look at the bridge, which I clearly stated.

fwiki - it will be 12-16 months, 4 years from now. Or sooner and longer.

s3mh is right to say WHEN Yale Street closes not IF, because it WILL BE CLOSED.

Reconstruction of the bridge will "necessitate the closure of the road for approximately one year" ... If new foundations are constructed, "this might lengthen the construction time by 3-4 months" (Entech report). That's 12 - 16 months.

In late 2016 (according to COH) the bridge WILL BE CLOSED. It might even be closed before then, if they can't get the ratings up or if the ratings decline just a little bit.

The point of the 380 (according to Parker) was that it was supposed to get out in front of infrastructure issues. 380 FAIL.

Niche, you're the one who said you didn't know why the developer would care about the balusters being repaired.