Jump to content

mattyt36

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,276

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mattyt36

  1. mattyt36
    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."
  2. mattyt36
    Whaddya know? It's almost as if this project isn't being designed for that.
  3. mattyt36
    Well I'm going to drive from Conroe to Galveston this weekend. I must be missing out on something.
  4. mattyt36
    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.
  5. mattyt36
    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.
  6. mattyt36
    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)
  7. mattyt36
    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.
  8. mattyt36
    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.
  9. mattyt36
    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.
  10. mattyt36
    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.
  11. mattyt36
    What happened to Oscar’s tome on this project being surely canceled? It seems to have disappeared.
  12. mattyt36
    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.
  13. mattyt36
    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?
  14. mattyt36
    Because you said so? I'm not convinced. But at least I'm clear on the rationale.
  15. mattyt36
    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?
  16. mattyt36
    Um, OK. But that doesn't change the fact that your assertion is not grounded in anything, er, factual--just your view of the world. If the project is being opposed by LOCAL officials of the same party, isn't coordination among them a more likely explanation than some hot take of "Democrats are going to stick it to Texas because Trump stuck it to California?" And the question remains . . . Even if it is true that a smaller amount of people would have to move, WOULD THIS ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM? Not sure why this fundamental question keeps on being ignored.
  17. mattyt36
    That's a bit too cynical of a take for me for a variety of reasons, chief among them being I don't think Democrats are in the habit of employing the same retributive tactics. I wouldn't be surprised if County or City officials backchanneled and asked for more time, in fact all signs point to them likely doing so. The USDOT announcement came the same day as the County (a solid Democratic constituency) announced it was suing TxDOT. And even if they didn't, pausing a project of such magnitude for a new administration to review what had been done to date could still have been done in good faith.
  18. mattyt36
    You keep saying that, but is it true? Would be nice to see some actual numbers. What about the potential positive externalities of the improved flood control? How should those be weighed? Even more importantly, would it even solve the stated problem? Seriously, what percentage of peak-hour demand do you think this would address? And how many of these people aren't they using this option they technically already have? We're back, then, to the whole crux of this being that the East Loop is re-signed with a 45 shield. Might as well do it today.
  19. mattyt36
    Added pollution around East Loop schools and disrupted East Loop communities are OK then? Not to mention you still have the same problem with segments 1 and 2. And does it really "solve so many problems it's not funny"? If the name of the game is to reduce congestion, how much of demand during peak congestion periods is really thru, outside-of-the-loop demand, people going, say, from The Woodlands to Clear Lake? These people already have 2 choices for bypasses.
  20. mattyt36
    And they can’t do that now because … ?
  21. mattyt36
    Or … just … widen … the … East … Loop? In your scenario what difference does it make if it’s signed 45 or not?!
  22. mattyt36
    I hate to be “that guy” since I’m sure it’s been discussed to death in previous posts, but if the main stated concern of the County and City really is people being dislocated, how many people are we really talking about? For whatever reason the number that sticks out in my head was around 500 housing UNITS, the majority of which were in a single multifamily complex.
  23. mattyt36
    It's certainly a "showcase project" for a new administration to make a national example. Which means bad timing or good timing, depending on one's view. The cynic in me (given how quickly the project was put on hold) says I highly doubt DoT has a view of what they want the project to be, either.
  24. mattyt36
    As far as I'm concerned, "high cost" really isn't an issue because it's not like gas tax rates are going to change if the project proceeds. If we don't want the $9 billion spent locally (tremendous stimulus in and of itself), it'll (happily) go somewhere else. The only major unfunded items that I am aware of is for the cap parks. I, too, hope it proceeds, but the link between freeways and DFW's growth is spurious. The idea that rail will be some panacea to alleviate congestion is also problematic. I hope if it does get scaled back the investment gets redirected elsewhere locally. I agree that Mayor Turner appears to have the most balanced and pragmatic approach.
  25. mattyt36
    The implication being more freeways and tollways=more HQ relocations? Just a tad bit simplistic, don't you think?
×
×
  • Create New...