Big E

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I'll say it again: for anybody on a bike (which is an ever-increasing number), losing Polk is significant. Fixable with proper lanes or paths along Leeland and Rusk, but right now the only safe crossings are Gray and Polk (and kindasorta Runnels). 

All that will probably come down to what the city and state are planning to do regarding extending bike paths and what the sidewalks look like on the bridges. Seems like all the roads are getting new bridges, even the ones with existing bridges, so it will ultimately come down to what the sidewalks look like. In any case, TxDOT have made Bike and pedestrian mobility a major part of their design work, so take solace in that.

5 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Thanks for the laugh @Big E. Specifically, "the city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it." 

I mean, at the end of the day, that is what it's going to come down to. Either the city takes the railroads to task for excessive idling, or the city gets around to burying the crossing roads, maybe go after the railroads to make them foot the bill for it, and both of those options are, by your admission, what Chicago is looking at doing. Either way, its an issue that is beyond the scope of the NHHIP to actually address.

5 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Where are you getting information about Leeland and Polk traffic volumes and patterns? 

Its just a matter of looking at the existing road network as its currently designed, particularly directions and capacity. Then taking into account the changes brought upon by the NHHIP and comparing. Its rough estimating, but I'm assuming that TxDOT and the City of Houston have both looked at actual more concrete numbers regarding usage, and since both have ultimately signed off on this design and neither made a big deal about Polk (the recent presentations regarding potential changes to the design didn't even mention Polk), they clearly believe that the network won't be severely impacted by losing this one connection.

First of all, before I address JClark's post directly, some corrections and clarifications. I did in fact locate the NHHIP website and, via said website, the most up to date schematics. Based on those schematics:

1. The Leland crossover has in fact been turned into a two way crossover, vs. the one way it currently is. The second crossing leading into Bell Street has been removed, but the reason for that is...

2. There is now a freeway offramp leading off of I-69 that directly connects to Bell Street, thus giving direct freeway access to downtown. This is the real reason that one can no longer go from Leland directly to Bell.

3. I was mistaken and there is no crossover as Dallas. However, instead of that, the crossover at Lamar has a dedicated U-Turn lane, so traffic coming down Polk can easily U-turn at the Lamar crossover and continue on to Polk without having to sit at an additional light (assuming there is no light at the Dallas junction, which there shouldn't be since Dallas only meets on one side). Thus, connectivity between Polk on both sides is preserved.

2 hours ago, JClark54 said:

You're rationalizing the Polk crossing elimination on the grounds it transitions from two-way to one-way traffic beyond Avenida and the Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker connections? Those streets will not proceed beyond the GRB. 

What I'm telling you is that there is no Eastbound traffic on Polk past Avenida. Most eastbound traffic heading into EaDo already defaults to Leland unless its specifically coming down Avenida, based on downtown street patters. So, for Eastbound traffic in most of downtown, nothing really changes. Traffic coming down Avenida can just take Jackson down to Leland, which is only three blocks. Westbound traffic can use the new crossover at Lamar to reach Polk with minimal difficulty. In other words, the actual inconvenience to local traffic is minimal.

1 hour ago, JClark54 said:

Dovetailing off the will-or-won't-Polk-close-I-can't-be-bothered-to-look debate, I find it interesting certain regular posters here go to great lengths to write losing the Polk connection won't noticeably burden transit around freight rail without ever providing evidence to support their claims. 

Representatives from Chicago, an oft-discussed city on this forum, recently testified before the FRA that stopped miles-long freight trains have caused what they deemed as untenable transit harm. The remedy proposed was regulating freight train traffic in the city or compelling railroads to fund separations to alleviate those issues, if they planned to continue parking on public streets.

The tagline atop the PowerPoint presentation used during the public comment? "Could Chicago become the next Houston?" The speakers then stated Houston east end vehicular-pedestrian transit is a "catastrophe," especially when multiple lines are blocked simultaneously. Houston was used as a worst-case scenario that the FRA would be behooved to help Chicago avoid, not mirror. 

If planners at Chicago say Houston's freight rail-traffic infrastructure is catastrophically subpar and the FRA has ranked the Houston complex as the nation's most congested two years in a row, I'm going to value their opinion over someone who comments without familiarizing themself with the situation. 

This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

Ok, so, instead of scouring the internet for the schematics, I decided to go back and take a look at the 3D presentation of the NHHIP that TxDOT posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUFK6KcBbGA

Its six years old at this point, but I don't think any drastic changes have been made to the project since to render it obsolete in regards to the portion of the project we are talking about.

Going by that video, yes the crossover at Polk is being removed. Also being removed are the crossovers at Ruiz and Runnels. But, according to that schematic, new crossovers are being added at the streets that run between Polk and Rusk (Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker). This will be achieved by extending Hamilton around the back of the convention center and cantilevering it over the freeway, thus reconnecting the two disconnected portions of that road and creating one long continuous frontage road, and the new crossovers will tie into that road, with the freeway cap being built between the crossovers. So, for the connectivity that is lost, new connectivity is gained.

@JClark54 One thing that bothers me about your claims regarding Polk, however. You claim that the loss of this road will negatively effect traffic. But Polk is a one-way street going westbound when it runs downtown beyond Avenida. So anyone trying to go Eastbound, back into EaDo will have to take Leland regardless, unless they specifically come down Avenida. Most of the traffic probably already defaults to Leland for that reason alone. The only people who will be possibly inconvenienced will be those who crossing from EaDo to downtown, but by the time they have to make the decision, the train tracks are a non-factor.

36 minutes ago, samagon said:

the fact that you happily point out that there are 15 crossings shows just how little you know of the actual value of those crossings to the people who commute daily.

for example, that there is a crossing at Preston is literally the most useless feature of this project.

furthermore, in addition to Polk going away, the Leeland crossing which currently allows WB traffic to drop onto Bell street goes away as well.

at the end of the day, this project is going to happen, it's going to suck for everyone during construction, and it will continue to suck for a lot of people who have to live with the impacts to their community. you can keep arguing about it, or you can acknowledge that there are people who might be more in tune with the area in which they live than you are.

Firstly, you appear to be correct that the Leland-Bell connection is removed, but this may be mitigated if the new Leland crossing carries traffic in both directions; the only thing that would be lost would be a direct connection to Bell. And regardless if it doesn't, it's further mitigated by the fact that the Pease Street crossing remains, allowing one to still crossover into downtown, while a new connection is added at Dallas, allowing traffic to crossover and come back down to Bell or Polk.

Second, whether you personally consider the Preston connection "useless" is irrelevant. It is a connection between Downtown and EaDo and it will remain after construction is finished.

Third, I doubt you are more "in tune" with the effects of this project anymore than anyone else here, regardless of whether or not you even live close to the area. Anyone can look at what's added, what's lost, and come to their own conclusions about this project.

13 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

You must have looked at the schematics when compiling the list of cross streets for the other poster, right? 

I looked at a map. No I haven't actually checked the most recent schematics.

5 hours ago, 004n063 said:

It's also ten cross streets, not 15.

And from the perspective of someone whose "car" is a bicycle, closing Polk is significant.

St. Joseph Parkway

Jefferson Street

Pease Street

Leland Street

Bell Street/Westbound portion of Leland

Polk Street

Rusk Street

Capital Street

Texas Avenue

Preston Street

Congress Street

Franklin Street

Commerce Street

Ruiz Street

Runnels Street

That's 15 cross streets. Not 10.

16 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Cool! So you now agree Polk will be closed. Took a long time to reach this moment. 

I said "Assuming your correct", genius. I didn't concede anything. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

On 11/18/2023 at 8:57 PM, Highrise Tower said:

I didn't know where to post my random thought about the Texas Medical Center.  Thought I'd create a thread dedicated to random things related to the TMC.

This afternoon, I thought to myself how many vacant parcels are there left in the TMC?  What exactly is taking developers so long to buy and build on these high-profile lots?

- 7200 Main

- 7100 Fannin

- 1500 Old Spanish Trail

Does Hines or Hanover have a luxury residential tower in the TMC?  Hanover TMC sounds so good!

7200 Main:

7100 Fannin:

1500 Old Spanish Trail, includes the parking garage:

That top parcel actually is owned by a developer that was planning a massive development, but they've not done any major work there, and nobody's seen any current plans.

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

What an insane waste of money (and I'm just referring to the million-dollar "study", not the even-more-insane idea of building high-speed rail between Dallas and Fort Worth).  For a tiny fraction of the cost, they could add trackage to the already-existing TRE, allowing for express trains connecting Dallas and Fort Worth. Done. Years earlier; and actually affordable.

Considering the close distance between the two cities, its not even remotely economical to build high speed rail there unless it was was part of the large Texas Central Project, and was merely a connector between the Dallas-Houston route and a theoretical Forth Worth-San Antonio route, linking the two main stations together on a single trip to create a "loop" between the cities involved. Just building the connector alone would make no sense.

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

If you aren't aware of what's closed or not, why bother telling the other commenter there were no closures? Do you just jump into threads and make claims despite, as you write, "I did not actually check the design plans to see if your claim about Polk being closed was even true."

The only thing I said is that I didn't bother to double check your claim. Since you bothered to dispute the point, I considered that you were responding in good faith, so if I was going to clap back on it, I would have brought up the schematics and either conceded the point, or pointed out you were wrong, Simple as. Since I didn't have time to confirm one or another, I didn't concede or dispute the point. Don't get your panties in a twist.

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Surprised to read you're ignorant about the closure, as you've engaged in discussion about this exact segment and it on this thread for quite some time.

 Been a long time since I looked at the plans. Assuming you're correct, its possible I simply forgot or overlooked the fact that Polk was closed. Oh gosh, I missed that a single street will be closed out to the 15 cross streets that cross under I-69 between the bayou and the interchange with I-45. Sue me.

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

What exactly about my claim is erroneous? Please tell me. Traffic will be directed onto Leeland, as you confirmed above. If drivers aren't aware of the need to jag, they will continue straight. That's natural. It already happens now, and will worsen when Polk closes. 

You claimed that traffic would be pushed onto Leland with the closure of Polk's crossover at I-69, necessitating them dealing with the rail crossing. This is simply not true. For local traffic, nothing functionally changes regarding whether or not they can take Leland or Polk due to the train tracks.

The exact same configuration that currently exists there will continue to exist. The only change will be that you can't take Polk itself between downtown and EaDo, which would require a minor detour at best. Local traffic is already aware of the crossings in the area, and if they really want or need to detour down Polk, they will still be able to do so effortlessly. Non-local traffic will most like use a Map app, like Google maps, navigate. If a train is idling or holding up traffic on Leland, their app will redirect them to Polk. Otherwise, they might very well simply default to Polk.

Either way, there's literally no material difference for either local or non-local traffic in regards to the streets, outside the loss of the crossover. They are the same either way, and the same problem of non-local traffic getting caught by a train at Leland persists regardless. The real answer to this issue would be to put an underpass at Leland similar to the one at Polk. Not even sure if that's doable.

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

There are currently years-long impacts to significant thoroughfares in greater Montrose, Heights, yet drivers still take and complain about those impacts on this forum, ND, and social media. Those areas also have comprehensive street grids, with access to a parallel major street from the impacted one just a few blocks away. Those projects even have signage warning drivers of imminent delays or stoppages many blocks in advance, yet they still proceed forward. Why would you expect any different in the east end?

If these problems already exists and persist, then the loss of the crossover at Polk won't matter much either way; the problem is already a known and persistent one, and will be a known and persistent problem whether or not the crossover at Polk is removed. Either way, its the loss of one street out of the many that crossover, assuming it is in fact removed by the project.

19 hours ago, JClark54 said:

So your comment confirms there is a street closure, making of your prior claim erroneous. If you think drivers unfamiliar with the area are going to know to make the jag, you’re kidding yourself.

I did not dispute the fact that Polk would be closed in my follow up statement, and in fact, I didn't even address your claim that Polk would be closed because I did not actually check the design plans to see if your claim about Polk being closed was even true. What I did address was your actually erroneous claim that traffic would be forced to use the rail crossing at Leland instead of crossing under at Polk, which just isn't true.

And why wouldn't non-local traffic make the jaunt from Polk to Leland or vice versa? Nothing is stopping them from doing so, just like nothing is stopping them now. Its literally a difference of a few blocks.

7 hours ago, JClark54 said:

That's not true at all. I don't typically find value in entering this commentary, as this project is happening so bickering is pointless. But you're disregarding facts you clearly know as you've engaged in discourse about them above.

Polk, one of only three east end connector streets to downtown with a rail separation, will be closed to auto traffic. Traffic will be pushed to Leeland and ultimately hit an at-grade crossing for a rail line that is subject to up to 75 trains daily. That means it's blocked for half the day in the optimal scenario in which trains clear the intersection in 10 minutes or so, common on the west side. That's not the case on the east side, so more than half the day this crossing is blocked with by trains, whether moving or stopped completely. 

Polk and Leland are literally only a few blocks from each other. The rail crossings are like half a mile's worth of blocks away from downtown. Traffic can still take Polk under the tracks, then cross to Leland at any of the other cross streets.

On 12/13/2023 at 8:19 AM, samagon said:

this is going to be a nightmare, and no less a nightmare because of the side of town on which they have chosen to realign the freeway.

Its going to be a nightmare either way because there will be years of construction. Using the expanded footprint in the East End just lowers the amount of disruption to local traffic and streets.

On 12/13/2023 at 8:19 AM, samagon said:

yes, it's true, the city in particular has dumped on connectivity from the east end, which created the lack of development you speak of. so yeah, that's a perfect argument, the cities already destroyed the area by removing connectivity, may as well just add to it by removing more connectivity, and then point to the pretty park someone might make which does absolutely nothing for connectivity.

Connectivity in the East End will not be negatively effected; all currently existing cross streets will remain after the realignment and sinking of the freeway. The lack of connectivity doesn't come from the existence of the current highway, but from the existence of the convention center and Toyota Center. They aren't going anywhere, hence, the lack of connectivity isn't going anywhere, no matter what TxDOT does.

On 12/13/2023 at 8:19 AM, samagon said:

as far as room, there is room in the current corridor, the only reason there isn't room to add enough lanes is because TXDoT has said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "we don't wanna". no double decker (they don't want to add height to any freeways, yet look at what's going to happen on the I-10 side), no trenching with a cantilevered Pierce street over the top of it.

Have you considered the fact that it would cost more to double decker the freeway? Or the fact that they would have to tear down the Pierce elevated and completely rebuild it regardless because its at the end of its service life, adding even more to the cost? Have you considered the added cost and difficulty to bury the freeway in place without disrupting the existing freeway and road traffic above? I'm sure TxDOT have actually considered all of those options. There is a reason they are going with the option they going with now.

8 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

I know conspiracy theories are cool and all, but I think if you take 15 seconds and think about constructability, the answer is wildly obvious.

Seriously. Fact of the matter is, there is limited space to actually work with due the Pierce Elevated being sandwiched between major development. It would be a nightmare to work in the current corridor, not even getting to the issue that because the street network is still very much intact underneath the Pierce Elevated, they would have to workaround not messing with traffic on the both the highway and the cross streets while they work on it, or the difficulties they would face trying to rebuild the interchange with I-69/TX-288. There was a lack of development in the East End, making land acquisition, clearance, and construction easier, and the street network was already broken due to the presence of the Toyota Center and the Convention Center, meaning not as many cross streets to worry about, and rebuilding the interchange would be easier.

If Texas Central is still committed to using Shinkansen, they'd have to use their own lines anyway, making it a moot point. I don't see Amtrak building any new trackage in Texas.

Great. The sooner they finish this, the sooner they can get started on the others.

11 hours ago, tigereye said:

IIRC the non-compete clause at Toyota Center has long expired and I spy an arena replacement for NRG Arena. Might it also house an NHL hockey franchise? Could add additional revenue to the overall complex. Also a competing bid might force Tilman’s hand or beat him to the punch. 

Considering the age of the Toyota Center itself, Tillman may consider moving himself. Though I would consider this proposal in particular an attempt to woo an NHL franchise, like the floundering Arizona Coyotes.

On 11/6/2023 at 12:32 PM, Houston19514 said:

It definitely should not be demolished. It should be saved and used for additional convention/exhibition space, below-grade parking, arena and facilities to replace the Astro-Arena building; any other "year-round" functions would have to be with the cooperation of the Texans and the Rodeo.  That does not, in my mind eliminate all other possibilities. If there are restaurants or hotel space, they just have to include the Rodeo and Texans in their plans and probably share a portion of their revenue with them.

No business would agree to give up a portion of their profits (twice, since they would have to appease both organizations) to operate a business that going to be in the middle of a no mans land ocean of parking lots 80% of the time, and then wouldn't even be able to operate during game days or the Rodeo because neither of the two tenants would ever okay them disrupting their operations. There's no boon in it for any potential tenant. That's why no private group has ever attempted to do anything with the Astrodome.

On 10/31/2023 at 1:49 AM, Urbannizer said:

A neat idea that unfortunately has no intention on becoming reality. I’d put this one as #2 right the movie studio proposal, but other than those concepts, I think the Astrodome should be demolished. It has served its purpose. Build high-density mixed-use here in connection with NRG Stadium. Could be set as phases over time. Sure it was the first enclosed football/baseball stadium, but all these proposals and ideas just show how challenging it is to turn the structure into something. Demolish it and sell the land off in plots that it sits on and the surface parking to developers. NRG, rail line and the Med Center nearby would entice them to invest here.

It definitely should be demolished. But I don't see anything requiring year round parking being built here because it would interfere with parking and such for the stadium and convention center, which the rodeo and Texans would definitely say no to. More than likely, it would just be redeveloped as more parking lot. However, doing so might allow some of the outer parking farther away from the main structures to be redeveloped.

On 10/13/2023 at 3:07 PM, monarch said:

^^^ actually, in any of my prior posts vs comments thereafter, i have never ever stated that this PARTICULAR PROJECT was an insult per se.  actually, I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT is not only quite beautiful, posh, elegant, and stately, i also think that this project shall be a wonderful asset to the woodlands vicinity or region overall.  

however, i feel that the overall INTENT to construct this particular (well-known and quite popular) luxury brand within the SUBURB of houston proper... is in itself an INSULT to the city of houston proper.  city of houston officials have been trying now for DECADES to re-capture the glory of THE RITZ CARLTON back to our fair city.  in fact, there are people that i know for whom has sworn that they have turned over every stone (that is lawfully possible) in landing this most luxurious brand back to our city.  in fact, no one really knows just why they left in the first place.

sooooooo, there you have it, it's not the development per se that i have an issue with, it's the INTENT to construct in the woodlands vs the city of houston proper... which has been trying in earnest to get them to come back for decades now...

Would you care as much if Houston had just annexed The Woodlands already like it was supposed to?

I'll go out on a limb and agree with others in that:

a) There won't be a follow up hotel portion because The Woodlands is so far away from everything else in the Greater Houston era it makes no sense to put such a posh brand there. If they were building a hotel, it would either go downtown or in Uptown.

b) The building design is nothing to write home about.

On 10/27/2023 at 9:55 AM, downtownian said:

There is a lot of available Class A (or A+) space downtown for cheap. 

Most of that is older office space, a lot which probably hasn't been renovated recently. Big companies like Chevron tend to build their own spaces for their workers, because they want newer, top of the line office space for their employees to draw top talent. Older buildings built in the 80s won't cut it.

According to information posted by @august948 in the abandoned Astrodome thread, that proposal is just part of some annual competition that held to reimagine old structures. No sign that this is actually any kind of serious proposal.

On 10/13/2023 at 10:34 AM, tigereye said:

I don’t understand why they can’t put the economic mixed use area inside a redeveloped Astrodome, topped with an onsite hotel on the upper levels of the Dome. It would be a climate controlled mixed use destination to support all events at NRG Park. Extends the funding to essentially kill two birds with one stone. 

Because any attempted redevelopment of the Astrodome is immediately vetoed by both the Texans and the Rodeo, the two biggest tenants. Its been that way for years.

Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out why the street abandonment is even necessary. This appears to be a car centric, suburban development, not a large mixed use or office park style development. Why even have the ped street at all?

On 9/26/2023 at 4:42 PM, bookey23 said:

Oh, HAIF actually made it super easy for me to find the map I made:

 

Pretty sure that small piece on the northern part of the Platinum Parking block was sold. Its set to be part of the Discovery West development. One of the two remaining towers will be built there. 

On 9/26/2023 at 9:57 AM, editor said:

I'm with you.  If it's not in writing, it didn't happen.

 

Something like this wouldn't be in writing. Its one of those things they tell you off the books, since they can't officially demand anything be done with the dome. But they can make it clear to those with power to do something about it that the league just won't consider Houston in the future. Plenty of other places to host Super Bowls; it doesn't have to be held in Houston again.

15 hours ago, steve1363 said:

Mike Acosta is AWESOME!  He has advanced many innovative ideas for the Astrodome over the years.

And none of those ideas went anywhere. Any business that wants to open up there will get vetoed by the Texans and Rodeo, because they don't want something there that will compete with them for space. Its what killed every other revenue generating proposal. Neither the Texans nor the Rodeo have shown any interest in doing anything with the dome themselves. Doubt they'd back somebody else doing anything either.

Just two stories? Yeah, lost interest in this one.