mattyt36

He doesn't want the construction because he thinks the resulting vehicular traffic will reduce foot traffic in his store . . . and he's probably right! It's the EXACT SAME reason he was opposed to the Post Oak reconstruction. Standard NIMBYism, and there are plenty of examples of NIMBYism exploiting other "anti" arguments in bad faith. It's how it usually works! None of this is a mystery . . .

I'd still rank it ahead of making repeated blanket statements on the project having no support. Or singlehandedly deciding whose support counts. But, seriously, if you need some assistance gauging the prevalence this concept, you can always Google "vocal minority."

Montrose, thank you so much. 😃

It seems like there are more similar units being built outside of downtown without incentives, so I'm not sure I'd assign any of the "blame" to the tax incentives. I think this has to do with the fact that the Inner Loop area, particularly close in (Heights, Midtown, Montrose, etc.), really didn't have many large multifamily developments to begin with . . . and that dates back to the sewage development moratorium from the 1970s. So I think it is fair to say a lot of this development is "catch up," the problem being the price point for new developments, and the fact that there aren't a lot of older complexes in the area to absorb people priced out. I guess around Greenway, but mainly the Galleria, is where all that stock is. (And the Galleria isn't particularly attractive these days.)

I thought those people called it the "toy train"

No different, really, than someone calling 59 south of downtown "59," the "Southwest Freeway," or (ick) "69" like the New People.

I moved back 7 years ago after being away for 15+ . . . I remember asking myself a lot of times during the first few months, "Remind me again why in the hell am I doing this?" Took about a year . . . it's both a good and bad thing that city is not how you remember. You just need to rediscover it. And I really don't think there's any better place to live in the U.S. (It's ironically a similar process/experience to many people who move here for the first time.) That said, I agree that customer service here (especially with personal and small business contractors) is indeed like being in another world, or a place as you say that's like its own little world. I totally appreciate the "Houston is all about Houston" remark . . . it can come across as pretty insular. There are a lot of other cities that I'd also describe as "insular," but I think Houston has a quality most of those places don't have and that is that the city is extraordinarily welcoming, belonging to none and open to all. Must be all the freeways (joking).

Thanks for the argument in good faith! Isn't the federal share from the federal gas tax? Doesn't FHWA have a trust fund too? Regardless, the general point stands, though. This does not represent $1,000 in real additional tax outlays per Houston resident (under the existing system, at least, which I acknowledge you believe is broken). Fair enough. But if one really thinks about what this idea means politically, well, I don't think it's practical (this is why I think of much of this being an illusion). It is a defensible viewpoint, however. Appreciate the transparency. Are you saying, "Make America Great Again?" 🤣 I don't see why it's so difficult to understand that plenty of people would choose to live in the suburbs because they don't want to live in my neighborhood (Fourth Ward), for example, with two kids in a house half the size at best, have those kids attend a school that is perennially on some state watch list for academic performance, and pay higher taxes. You can describe that as "white flight" because that's indeed how it began, but I don't think the attitudes with Generation X and above is as racially motivated as it originally was. But, again, understood you believe the problem is the system. Entirely defensible. Doesn't have to be that way, but in terms of practicality, it'll take a long time to unwind with plenty of unforeseen (or completely foreseen!) effects. Well as far as I'm concerned the direct cost of living in the suburbs is not even fully appreciated by the average resident, nevermind the indirect ones. I'd again hold that your plan is not workable, given the propensity of suburbanites to vote. Honestly, it just reinforces my belief that these solutions are illusory as they presuppose individuals not voting in their own short-term interests (or not voting at all, really). We're going to have to wait awhile for the inevitable costs to become high enough that peoples' short term interests change . . . and unfortunately, it's been proven time and time again throughout history that humans have to be pushed to the brink until they can no longer wish the risks away. Now, it's all coming together, must be derived from "North Houston Highway Improvement Program District."

Congrats on calculating a ratio. That's not how this works. Fill up your tank, pay into the trust fund. From an economic perspective, we'll continue to pay this gas tax without regard to whether the project proceeds. The real difference is what we get . . . it all may end up going to North Texas or Austin. Well that's a revealing value judgment! No different than any other city. Anyone who thinks Chicago, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Washington, DC, etc., doesn't have similar patterns is blind. Fun fact: The NYC subway drove sprawl, just like it did in London and countless other places!!!!! In any case, it's "natural" simply because it is now endemic to the system. It certainly wasn't 70 years ago. How do you seriously think this "stick-it-to-the-suburbs" attitude will work out positively in the end? There's the implication that there will be some sort of population rebalancing (and we're talking hundreds of thousands of people doing this voluntarily and happily . . . you know, "the market" at work . . .) if this project does not proceed. Please provide an example of that ever happening in a non-centrally planned economy. You can't make up for poor planning (that was accepted as the "standard" at the time) 70 years ago. "Guesses" are always good. And preferring to live in suburbs because of different schools is a pretty big thing, no? Maybe not for you, but I "guess" that the question of having kids and living in the City is way more significant and a bit more complex than you have characterized it here. "I hereby deem that people live closer to their jobs because that's what I want them to do." Maybe we can get HGAC to vote on that. At its heart, this is why everyone's new urbanist dream will never work in a market economy. It is an illusion. You mean CityNorth? (Or is it City Center? Or City Place . . . )

Oh, the irony. At its heart, a "straw man" is not a real argument, but something just put on the table because it relies on people's "gut feel" that it is true, good, or bad. (1) "I'm opposed to this because of the pollution." (Who is for pollution?) (2) "I'm opposed to this because of all the relocated poor people." ("These days, who can possibly be against poor people?") (3) "I'm opposed to this because I don't think we should make it easier for people to get from Conroe to Galveston." ("Yeah, why should we care about these people?") (4) "I'm opposed to this because an HGAC vote showed there is no local support." ("Well, if the board voted against it, it must be bad." That's the substance of your arguments against the project. (1), (2) you have proven in your own words you don't really care. (3) given plenty of opportunities for you to school us on how this is what the project is really addressing, you've supplied nothing. (4) cherry-picking at best, willful ignorance at worst. In none of your responses have you provided any semblance of a logical counterargument, just appealing to the same tropes. Therefore you can go with the Oxford definition of a "straw man," i.e., an argument having no substance or integrity. What, specifically, about the premise (i.e., "people need a way to work and that if the "cost" increases in terms of additional time it may affect business location decisions") do you not agree with? Maybe you don't care or don't think it's worthy of consideration. That's fine, just say so. At the end of the day, I suspect that's why you have "quit responding" (while still, in fact, responding).

Another straw man. The billions are going to spent somewhere and mostly on highways (that's how the trust fund works). It can either be here or somewhere else. Again, I'm not sure what interest those of us who live inside the loop have in making it more difficult for people to get to work in the City. Any idea that there is going to be a population shift into the City of any meaningful magnitude to affect the natural demand patterns in effect for 40+ years is inane--it's simply not an option for many people. So, instead, businesses will just move out. But if that's what people want, I guess it is a "position."

Whaddya know? It's almost as if this project isn't being designed for that.

Well I'm going to drive from Conroe to Galveston this weekend. I must be missing out on something.

Well, regardless of what "official" comment period it is, it hasn't been linked to the future of the NHHIP until now and that is because of USDOT. So I'm not sure the glib "nothing to see here" attitude is justified.

I have to tip my hat to you and your ability to go down new rhetorical rabbit holes without actually engaging with any substantive arguments. You didn't provide proof of anything. You reported out a vote count. There's a perfectly logical explanation for how those people voted, which has been presented to you. But you want to introduce another straw man (and bring up this Conroe to Galveston straw "king" yet again). And local versus regional? Give me a break. It's just as local to the other board members as it is to the City of Houston and Harris County.

Well I put my money where my mouth was and answered my own question. "How many residential units will be displaced in total"? See page 5-2: Single family residential: 160 Multi-family residential: 433 Public and low-income housing: 486 Total: 1,079 (on page 5-3, of the 1,079 displaced, 76 are owner-occupied units) Also shown in this table . . . other displacements: Business: 344 Place of worship: 5 School: 2 Parking business: 11 Other: 11 The argument that this is about preventing displacement is simply nonsensical. Yes, I realize it may suck for some (but probably not all!) of the people who live in the 1,079 units to have to move, but to me it is a straw man. DRAFT_NHHIP_CIA_TR_Public_Comment_Version_2.pdf (ih45northandmore.com)

Great question and one I keep asking myself. Historically for things like this, there has to be an organization advocating for it. Usually someone like GHP would take that role, but my understanding is the GHP-City relationship is strained as a result of pressure from Mayor Turner over wanting them to take a public stance on the proposed state voting rights bill. So that may be part of the reason why we haven't heard from them. Or maybe the GHP isn't enthusiastically for it, either. I honestly don't know. Up until Oscar's (deleted) post in which he essentially said the writing is on the wall and the project is going to be canceled, I was just under the impression this extension of comment period was a way to buy time and develop some compromise between the City, County, and State so everyone could emerge and say "We've gone back to the drawing board and are addressing the City's and County's concerns." That's essentially how these things have worked in the past. I'm worried that's not going on now. There's some (I say misguided) municipal political romance about stopping freeway construction, but there is a tremendous difference between clear cutting neighborhoods for the initial 45, 59, 288, etc. and expanding an existing footprint. As H-Town Man implied in his rule of thumb above, urban planning wonks seem to just want to wish reality away. I used to subscribe to most of their mantra as I studied it myself but my mind has changed since I moved back to Houston about 5 years ago. As much as urbanists want to pretend it's not the case, people live in suburbs (many not as a first choice, mind you!) and need a way of working in the City. They seem to prefer that they work somewhere else. I'm not sure how that's a good or desirable outcome.

Absolute nonsense, but not surprising as none of these arguments have not been made in good faith. ("I'm against poor people losing their houses!" "I'm against pollution!" "Wait, what they really should do is route it around 610!" "Well what I'm really concerned about is safety." Yeah right.) The last municipal elections were in 2019, and the NHHIP wasn't even an issue in that election. As for people mobilizing to support the project, it's only in the past 6 months or so that it became clear that this project is really at risk. So the people who have mobilized thus far are the ones who have been organized against it from the beginning, i.e., there wasn't anything to "mobilize." I'm sure the vast majority of people who are tacit supporters aren't aware of what's going on at all. Any political fallout from this has yet to occur.

That's it, thanks. Put another way, if Ed Emmett and Buzbee won I'm sure the vote would've gone differently. But that wouldn't have told you much, either.

Well that's simply fallacious. How are the Committee members appointed? Harris County has SUED TxDOT over the project . . . why would anyone appointed by the County vote in support for the resolution? As the editorial states, Mayor Turner has also made his position clear. The City has de facto control of the METRO Board, with another 2 of the remaining 4 appointed by the County. The outcome of the vote shouldn't have surprised anyone . . . or at least anyone who knows how these things work. (Not to mention it's a toothless resolution . . . ) There is undoubtedly plenty of support within the County and City for this project, and plenty of examples within this post. They aren't appointed by the Mayor or Commissioner's Court to the HGAC Board, however. Look at it this way . . . just because Ken Paxton decided to sue GA, PA, WI, and MI because of some wacky partisan plot to undo the 2020 election results doesn't mean that all of Texas supported him. In fact, even though TX went for Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Texans did not support him. But people in these political positions tend to be a bit more ideological and catering to their perceived base.

What happened to Oscar’s tome on this project being surely canceled? It seems to have disappeared.

Is this even true, though? Where are you getting this from? I doubt those flows account for even 10% of peak hour demand, but I'll be the first to tell you I have zero data to back it up. But somehow you've convinced yourself that the East Loop alternative doesn't do the same thing. I appreciate that most people just have a gut reaction one way or the other. Honestly, I do, too, likely for the same (or opposite) reason. I live in Fourth Ward. Obviously a big improvement for me. Other peoples' NIMBYs are my YIMBY. I've got a couple of other reasons to support my "feelings," a couple being: 1) The sheer magnitude of a $9 billion investment and all that comes along with it. 2) Potential flooding improvements. 3) Enhanced transit options with a 2-way transitway. 4) Everything I've read about the displacement is overblown (certainly not overblown as to the people actually being affected, but we're not talking about many people). 5) I-45 from the North Loop to the Beltway really is a mess. 6) There certainly is a well-known urbanist bias against freeways based on what they did when they were originally put in. I guess the current push is for restoring these now-broken connections, which I certainly understand. But that's not an alternative for I-45. This is affecting people who are essentially already on the freeway and have been for 40 years. 7) I think any comparisons of this project to I-10 are disingenuous. There really was a clear transit corridor there. I-10 probably could've reduced a couple of main lanes and frontage road lanes in its alignment and capacity would certainly not have gone down proportionately . . . it's so big the size itself seems to cause congestion with the lane changes from the HOV lanes and the lane changes required when exiting on to the frontage road. BUT the fact that it accommodates increased volume cannot be denied, i.e., you can't say it didn't accomplish anything. 8) Downtown benefits from the hub-and-spoke freeway system, and if you choke it, I'm afraid that risks the opposite of the increased densification that people want. (But, again, I will acknowledge that plenty of people disagree or judge such an outcome as desirable.) As for what it will do to the East End and the Near Northside, hey, I probably wouldn't be supporting it either.

That may very well be, but I think the inconsistent logic and seeming dogged determination not to confront such inconsistencies when questions are posed can be used to judge the proposed "solution" amongst armchair "experts": -People can do what you're saying now (and they can do it in at least one other place, i.e., Beltway 8, if not 2, with the Grand Parkway) -Your stated premise is that these projects never solve congestion in the long run (which I can accept, with the obvious caveat that additional demand can be accommodated) . . . so, if that's the case, why do anything? -You've supplied no data indicating fewer people would be displaced in a hypothetical East Loop expansion, other posters have stated why they think that might be incorrect (and, from looking at Google Maps, I can see what they're saying) . . . actually I still don't know how many would be relocated in the proposed alignment, but I don't think it's the number people are making it out to be -Therefore I guess from your perspective the "so many problems" that this is solving seem to really be just "safety" (unless you value East Loop neighborhoods less than those along I-45) -And, in light of your stated concerns about "safety," how would you value the positive externalities from the proposed concept, e.g., flood control? I think at the end of the day it just reveals the fact that you don't like the project as proposed . . . and the rhetoric is being shaped around this "feeling." Why not just leave it at that?

Because you said so? I'm not convinced. But at least I'm clear on the rationale.

So why are we talking about doing anything to 610 then? What are the "so many problems it's not funny" then that you said this project would solve?