Big E

8 hours ago, samagon said:

a lot of people want to not be forced to drive cars because the other options are horrible. they don't like having to pay for infrastructure they don't want to use, but they are forced to, all because you don't want to have to pay a small amount in extra taxes to support other options.

What you are failing to understand is that far more people drive cars than take transit. And most people really have no problem with driving and don't necessarily want an alternative. The weight of government spending will always go to the most used method. Everybody pays for roads because everybody uses them. Even many forms of transit (like buses and trolleys) use them. Hence the majority of money that goes into transportation goes into road maintenance. Its not a zero sum game, but their is a limited pool of funds, so governments have to prioritize. 

8 hours ago, samagon said:

I absolutely want to pay more taxes so that mass transit, and other infrastructure can be better built out, I know this will take people who don't want to drive off the road which will make more room for me to drive (so yes, my motives are selfish).

Those are your personal feelings, but the fact is, you represent a distinct minority.

8 hours ago, samagon said:

that you are extremely self centered.

No, that makes me a normal human being. I want things that I will use to be well be funded and don't necessarily care to fund things I won't use or need. That's how the majority of people think. Hell, its how YOU think. I have no problem putting some money towards things like buses or trains. But I sure as hell don't want my taxes to go up to fund something I will never use or will never benefit me or my community directly. Frankly, I think such things should be funded primarily by ridership fares. The people who actually use the service should pay for its upkeep. And if people really want to use these things, they will more than pay for themselves.

15 hours ago, samagon said:

European cities aren't even designed like European cities. if you do any small amount of research you can see that in the 50s, 60s and even into the 70s and 80s as they rebuilt Europe (after a war completely bombed out a fair number of big cities) they favored a very car centric design philosophy. and then they changed their philosophy as they saw cars killing pedestrians (children walking to school usually), and then the cost of oil/gas started to skyrocket, so public opinion forced change. they've been working for 40+ years to revert the scars created by huge roads. we all visit now and presume that because a church in the middle of town is 400 years old that the city itself and the way it was designed is held over from 400 years ago.

Not every European city was a bombed out shell of itself, and not every European country followed car centric development. The places where care centric development really took off were the U.K. (which developed more in line with the rest of the Anglosphere and was bombed to hell and back by Germany) and Germany (which the Allies pounded to cinders). Scandinavia was not bombed to hell. Neither were Switzerland, Spain, or Portugal. Italy and France, despite being invaded, were left relatively intact (Paris and Rome were mostly untouched compared to London and Berlin). Meanwhile, everything east of West Germany fell under the Iron Curtain and followed Commie Block style of development. This idea that Europe suddenly became like America post-WWII isn't really true. Many cities were bombed out shells (see Rotterdam after the Rotterdam Blitz), but many were intact, and even the ones that had to be rebuilt aren't in any way recognizable as anything similar to an American land use pattern today.

15 hours ago, samagon said:

as far as a European lifestyle, nope, it's all marketing from car manufacturers, the same marketing that has been convincing people that trucks and SUVs are safer than cars because they give you a better view, when in fact, there are more deaths associated with truck/SUVs in accidents. you've been convinced that the American way is driving, and it's simply not true. that's what the car companies want us to believe so we keep buying their cars to keep them in business.

I'm pretty sure the American way is driving at this point. Car manufacturers didn't tell me that. Urban planners and urban planning boosters like Not Just Bikes have been telling me that, for years. Their entire mantra is that Americans are too attached to their cars and need to get out of them more. That's literally what they've been preaching. They've also been preaching about how the European lifestyle of walking everywhere and mass transportation is superior to the American style of driving for most trips, despite the fact that Europeans do in fact drive, in many cases just as much as Americans when it comes to medium and mid-long range trips. So if the European lifestyle doesn't exist and the American lifestyle doesn't exist, then what are we arguing over?

15 hours ago, samagon said:

imagine living in a world where you don't have to spend $100 a week on gas, $200 a month on insurance, and $500 a month on a car payment.

Imagine living in a world where none of that matters because your cost of living is so low, you can easily afford it. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine it. People in Houston live that life right now.

15 hours ago, samagon said:

yeah, $1000 a month so you can use the transit infrastructure the state/city built. talk about subsidized transit!!! 

Nobody wants to pay for transit they don't use or don't want to use. Paying an arm and leg to live in a matchbox apartment in the middle of a crowded city, to walk taxi or drive to the nearest bus/subway station to ride in slow mass transit with people I don't want to be around to get within a few miles of my workplace that I still have to hail a cab to get to doesn't sound like my idea of great time.

15 hours ago, samagon said:

and yet, you've been convinced that paying a few dollars a month in taxes is too high of a subsidy for mass transit.

It is when I don't want to take the transit. Which is what you are missing.

15 hours ago, samagon said:

well then, we should look at Manilla, that is a city with super cheap cost of living, and great public transit.

The Philippines are still a developing country that was a third world dictatorship not that long ago. Its an apples to oranges comparison.

15 hours ago, samagon said:

anyway, to consider cost of living without also considering the kinds of wages people make is kind of only looking at half the equation, and without stating that, people are going to naturally try and equate their own wage, which is worse than not equitable. heck, even cost of living in San Diego vs Houston is silly.

Wage comparisons are helpful, but at the end of the day, if cost of living is low, then you simply don't need as high a wage to live comfortably anyway. Which means even having lower wages is not necessarily an issue.

15 hours ago, samagon said:

any which way you look at it though, they have roughly $1000 extra in disposable income that they aren't putting towards a car, so they can afford to put more into their housing needs.

That $1000 extra disposable income is merely an assumption on your part. Once again, cost of living will wipe out most of those savings, just in housing and utility costs, not even getting into things like the higher costs of groceries, or higher taxes. City-Journal did an excellent article actually look at this issue, comparing Houston to New York, and looking at the variables we've discussed, including the differences in wages, cost of living, the cost of owning a car vs. not owning one, etc.

15 hours ago, samagon said:

true enough, TXDoT's job needs to be changed to include all forms of transportation, not just the one that lobbying oil companies, and car companies get them to fund.

TXDOT doesn't have the money to cover all forms of transportation. They barely have the money to cover the state's highway network, which always needs work and maintenance.

14 hours ago, Amlaham said:

-European cities weren't always designed the way that they are today. Car culture was huge in Europe, its until recent decades that they started to change. This idea that "we're not Europe and will never be Europe" is so weird considering "Europe" isn't what it was until recently. By your logic, we don't deserve to ever change and progress as a country, just keep it the way it is forever because its always been that way, extremely non-progressive thinking. Images below for reference of what Europe WAS and what it is NOW (not always) :) 

1976 Lisbon

Today :)

1960s Copenhagen Vs Today

2000s Netherlands Vs Today

 

I can go on with thousands of other references/projects, but for clarification to everyone.....Europe was NOT what it is today. The difference is that the auto Industry has paid and prevented politicians to allow these types of transitions... NOT that "its just how Europe is and we are not Europe" thats such a close minded/ and poorly thought out theory. 

-Again, the comment that it doesn't matter if people need other modes of transit, and that they should just move to another city is sooo absurd and such a "if you don't like it, get out of here" instead of progressing a city forward, sticking to Stone Age "we don't need change" theory. Its sooooo non-progressive and does not make sense in a city thats literally growing by millions. 

-Lastly, TXDOT is in FACT in charge of certain poorly condition streets, https://apps3.txdot.gov/apps-cq/project_tracker/ use this link to see which roads :)

You've posted a lot of nice pictures, but the one thing you seem to neglect is what is actually in them besides cars or the lack thereof. Look at the pictures of Lisbon and Copenhagen. What you notice is that the cities themselves haven't changed at all between the then-vs-now pictures. The city is the same. The same with the pictures of Toulose and the Netherlands. This is what I mean when I say America isn't Europe. The bones for the walkable city utopia you speak off was already present. In Lisbon, they took a plaza that had been turned into a parking lot and turned it back into a plaza. In Copenhagen, they just blocked off a street. In Toulouse, they changed an old parking lot into a park (which even Houston has done with Discovery Green). But the cities were already designed in such a way that minimal change was necessary to achieve this. American cities are generally built to be car centric, with the exception of a few older cities on the East Coast. It will take a lot more effort to achieve the same end goals as Europe, because European cities are in fact centuries old and designed with walking, maybe the horse and buggy in mind.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:51 AM, Amlaham said:

The difference is the entire culture of walking. The buildings sit closer to each other making it more comfortable to walk. Trees, canopies, and buildings provide adequate shade. The streets are narrower so cars can't zoom by, making it feel safer to walk. Also, walking from place to place isn't looked down upon, a lot of places in America sound so classest talking about cars and look down on walking.

All of this just goes to emphasize the fact that we are not Europe. Our cities are not designed like European cities and we don't have a culture that likes walking like Europeans. So trying to emphasize a European style of lifestyle is simply a lost cause. We aren't Europe. We never will be Europe.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:51 AM, Amlaham said:

Beside the mental and physical benefits of walking (America has one of the highest obesity rate in the entire world), there are people who simply cannot drive and from your logic it sounds like "who cares since they're not the majority." For example, teenagers/kids, people who can't afford cars, pts with medical conditions like epilepsy, macular degeneration, MS, Parkinson's, etc......all deserve to have options of getting around that equates to how grand our highways are.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have options, but they aren't the majority of the population. And many do have options. They can take public transportation (which does still exist), catch an Uber, catch a ride with somebody else, etc. Cities can't necessarily be everything to everyone. You have to find the place that works best for you. More walkable communities exist in America. Just so happens they are in cities, which are among the most expensive places in America to live in. The cheapest places to live are car-centric suburban cities like Houston. Would you rather be able to walk or live in a house? Many "walkable" European cities (London, Paris, etc.) are also extremely expensive to live in, and you probably won't be able to live in a decent home in the city unless your rich, unless you want to live in a slum.

On 9/18/2023 at 11:51 AM, Amlaham said:

TXDOT legit wants to rebuild perfectly good highways, while we still have crumbling streets and abysmal bike and walking infrastructure.

TXDOT's job is to maintain, repair, and build the state's highway network. Streets, bike and walking infrastructure are the responsibility of local governments. You want to improve the latter, talk to the local governments, not TXDOT.

37 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

Some of us like fresh air, want to move our bodies and get some steps in, and don't mind the weather.

I don't deny that some people do. Now, do the majority? That's a different question entirely.

38 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

The "its hot" argument is soo overdone, our weather isn't 100 degrees 24/7. Also, have you been or heard about summers in Southern Europe? Rome, Athens, Milan, multiple other cities legit reached near the 100s for weeks (Athens actually reached 108 for a few days straight).......and people legit walked or metro'd everywhere.

I'm sure summers in Europe are not the same as summers in muggy, humid Houston, just like there's a difference between 100 degrees in Houston and 100 degrees in Arizona. And just because Euros are willing to walk in 100 plus degree weather doesn't mean that everyone is.

39 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

Also, lots of people can be seen walking outside, even in our HOT summers, you just have to slow down in your AC'd car to see them 

Once again, I never denied that people do in fact walk. They sure as hell don't make up the majority, not even getting into whether or not those people have to walk because they lack a car (the poor unfortunate souls).

On 9/15/2023 at 2:00 PM, samagon said:

end of the day, nothing is a panacea, but for their system, at least they have the ability to choose between 4 very effective, and equitably maintained methods of transportation:

1. pedestrian
2. bicycle
3. train
4. single occupant vehicle

Its not like those options aren't available. You just have to work a little harder to get them.

You can take the bus...but who really wants to ride a bus everywhere? Especially in the wake of COVID where mass transportation was one of the easiest vectors for transmission?

You can live close enough to your job to walk if you are willing to put in the effort to do so (and possibly pay more money to live where you want to)…but once again, why would you want to walk anywhere in freaking Texas? Its hot as fish grease out here!

For most people, biking is a leisure activity to be done in the fall or the early morning for exercise. You could, once again, move close enough to your job to do so, but why would you?

Options may be more limited than a European city, but they aren't nonexistent, its just that nobody would necessarily consider these options better than driving an air conditioned car or worth the extra effort to attain.

8 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Are they planning on keeping that giant surface parking lot forever? Feels kinda pointless to build a skinny highrise if you're still gonna have a huge footprint like that...

Depends on what Phase II, if its ever built, will ultimately look like.

3 hours ago, samagon said:

there's a calculator on SAP Concur (a very common expense portal used in business) that shows the break points for a trip car vs rental vs flight. and most companies are going to make you take the cheapest option. so if they would reimburse me $280ish to drive my car from Houston to Dallas and back, but a rental is $100 (plus $50 for gas or whatever), they are going to make me rent a car (this depends on how many days I have the rental).

if there's a train, and the ticket is $75 round trip, round trip uber is $50, it's now magically the cheaper travel option, and guess what they're going to make me do? that's right, take the train. every time. there's people in my company who do that trip once a week. this isn't a unique situation.

that's for business travel. from a business perspective, if the price is right, it doesn't matter if the travel time matches, or is faster than a car, it matters that it will be predictable and the least expensive option.

for personal travel, or just for the weekend, or whatever, it really will depend on how long it takes, and each person has to do the calculus from there. do you have a family that needs to stop every hour for a bathroom break? does traffic on a long journey induce a lot of stress? is there a lunch break in there?

This hypothetical assumes a few thing. First, it assumes you rent a car for the trip rather than just use your own. In the latter case, you just need the company to reimburse you for gas, which would potentially be cheaper than a train ticket, but if I rent a car, the company would have to reimburse me for the cost of the rental, driving the price up. It also ignores the fact that the train only gets you to your destination. Once you arrive in Houston (or Dallas), you still need to rent a car to get around. Which means your paying for a rental either way. So your probably not saving money either way.

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Even if Amtrak switches to Acela trainsets, as long as they use dedicated rail and dont add too many stations it will still be faster than driving. The old Acela trains are rated at 150mph, and I believe the new ones are rated at 185mph.

Even with tons of stations and bottlenecks the Acela (and even just the NE corridor in general) is usually faster than driving, even if it's not really true high speed rail. 

The other example is Amtrak's Keystone line in PA. Not "high speed" and it uses old trains, but it does use dedicated rail and is almost aways comparable to driving at worst. 

Once again, this ignores that a train only gets you to your destination. The difference between Acela and any train that operates in Texas is that Acela operates in the Northeast, where most major cities have very good public transport, like subways, so will conceivably never need to use a car. In Texas, the train will only get you where you need to go. You still need to drive once you get into the city, which means you will need to rent a car either way, weakening any potential benefit of taking the train. Also, even though Acela trains are rated at those speeds, they hardly ever travel that fast, except for one relatively short section rail. Most of the time, they travel no faster than normal trains. Whether or not they actually travel that fast in Texas is questionable.

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

I think there's real potential for 2-3 parallel options actually improving the market rather than cannibalizing it. More price points and more frequent trains = potentially much better service. Frequency matters, even for these longer distance regional routes. 

If multiple providers mean there's a train leaving for Dallas every 30 minutes, then that makes it a much easier last minute decision. 

If you can choose between a 3 hour train ride or a 2 hour train ride for %50 more (or whatever), then that opens up options for more people. That hour will still be worth paying for for a lot of people (myself included), but having the cheaper option that is still no slower than driving is huge for expanding the market. 

That last sentence is key. I don't think the slower trains will be able to compete because they won't be as fast as driving. The trains will move slowly, making driving potentially faster, and whenever you get to your destination, you will still have to rent a car to move around anywhere in either Dallas or Houston due to the lack of mass transit, so its not necessarily more convenient than just driving in the first place. The main selling point for Texas Central was using Bullet Trains that were specifically much faster than cars, and could even compete with plane travel on time, but lacked the hassle of trying to take a plane (like dealing with the TSA and the sorry state of most American airlines).

I think anything Amtrak tries to do is dead in the water for that reason. A slower train will not be able to compete with auto travel or plane travel (which is why passenger train travel died in the U.S. in the first place), the Texas legislature will never support train development or the expansion of Amtrak, the Republican controlled house will never support train development or the expansion of Amtrak, train expansion isn't a pressing issue for Democrats in either the state or federal government either way, the cargo railroads will never allow Amtrak to use their tracks and interfere with their train service, and Amtrak will never be able to fund building a track anywhere near the existing interstates when it already loses money.

So yeah, I was watching this video on the Texas Central Project and all the controversies its currently undergoing, and I saw an interesting comment:

Quote

Amtrak, along with the "now on board" TexDOT railroad division (I kid you not!) has applied to the FRA to get funds for implementing the fabled "Texas Triangle" segmented rail line. Amtrak's plan is to bypass a couple of the major obstacles befalling the Texas Central Plan, namely the "eminent domain" backlash, and the objection of rural communities that this just a "big city" benefit; well, that plus all the federal bucks that could finally be had for rail projects in the state.

They plan on doing all this by taking what many view as the most common sense approach, which is to utilize federal right-of-way by putting in track on the medians of four of the Interstate highways that run through the state, namely a section of I-30 that runs between Fort Worth and Dallas, I-35 that runs from Fort Worth (through the population centers of Waco and Austin) down to San Antonio, I-45 that runs from Dallas to Houston (through Corsicana and Bryan/College Station, and finally I-10 that runs from Houston to San Antonio (with a proposed mid-way stop in rural Flatonia, Texas).

Texas Central has gone on record saying that the reason they didn't choose the Interstate option for their line was that I-45 was a bit too "curvy" to facilitate trains that ran at 165 m/h, but a slightly slower Amtrak Acela trainset could work there. Because the Amtrak plan includes this and a number of other advantages (like significantly better "last-mile" connectivity at the railheads) to the Texas Central plan, it looks like the Amtrak/TexDOT proposal has a very good shot at receiving approval from the Feds!

The big question is whether Amtrak is going to promote this plan as a full-blown "high speed rail" proposal, or just as a "higher speed" rail system, utilizing one of the new Acela Liberty dual-powered train sets. While it wouldn't be technically considered HSR, having a "faster" train that topped out at around 160 m/h on some sections would still be a big deal. Having a sleeker, faster, "cooler looking" train that could make any of the three legs in a little over two hours, as opposed to the eight hours a current Amtrak train takes to make the Fort Worth to San Antonio run. The Texas Central proposal called for a transit time of an hour and a half.

Can any one confirm this? If what this comment says is true, this sounds less like a partnership between Amtrak and Texas Central and more a traditional "higher speed" train like the Acela Line in the Northeast that is controlled entirely by Amtrak, maybe in addition to Texas Central line. Apparently, this line is supposed to be called the "Texas Triangle". Being that this is Amtrak, and calling the Acela a "high speed train" is a joke on the best of days, I hold out little hope of it succeeding.

Also, supposedly Brightline is in fact looking to open a line in the same Dallas to Houston corridor, using the exact same building process they are doing for Brightline West, but they haven't made any public announcements yet. 

At this point, I wonder if all of these projects could actually coexist in a single corridor, especially with driving, long distance bus service, and air travel still being options. Seems like they would be actively competing for ridership and potentially cannibalizing a market.

Somebody should move this out of "Going Up" and into the Downtown section. This tower has been "up" for a awhile now.

On 8/17/2023 at 7:37 AM, mfastx said:

Too bad this isn't at that empty lot next to Best Buy instead! 

I'd want something taller and grander at that lot, since it affronts a major road.

7 hours ago, kennyc05 said:

Give it time something great will be built here!

Or, it will become another strip mall. Don't needlessly get your hopes up.

On 8/11/2023 at 4:32 PM, BEES?! said:

I’m far from a train expert, but it sounds like they still want to use the Shinkansen stock, at least from their press release. I’m betting that they won’t be track sharing with UP or anyone if that’s still the case.

The Shinkansen literally never use the same lines as slower freight traffic (with the exception of a single tunnel) in Japan. If they use bullet trains, they will have to run on their own dedicated lines, just like it does in Japan. Conversely, this also means that Amtrak won't be able to track share either, unless they are investing in their own Shinkansen trains (fat chance). Their rail lines also lack any and all at-grade crossings (which is why every road crossing has the trains on viaducts in the original plans.

On 8/9/2023 at 1:47 PM, wilcal said:

Amtrak and Texas Central exploring partnership to bring high-speed rail to Texas

https://media.amtrak.com/2023/08/texas-central-and-amtrak-seek-to-explore-high-speed-rail-service-opportunities-between-dallas-and-houston/

Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, this is the first remotely positive news we've heard about this in a while. On the other hand, its Amtrak. 

23 minutes ago, BEES?! said:

I’m sure it was mentioned but I probably missed it, did TxDot ever say what kind of load/capacity they’re planning for when they cap the roads? Or is that still TBD? I wanna say there were options for low-impact, like parks only, med-impact for stuff like some low-rise buildings, and high for taller structures. I don’t remember ever seeing if they settled on what kind of structural support they were going to build into it. I think it was in talks with COH and other stakeholders…

The caps were specifically being designed to support large buildings, last I checked.

16 hours ago, freundb said:

Have you ever looked at the climate of Minneapolis? They hosted a Super Bowl after the New York game.

Minneapolis, like New York, had a brand new stadium, and, unlike New York, it was enclosed. Also unlike New York, it was in downtown Minneapolis, with plenty of transit and car access. It was only the sixth Super Bowl to ever be held in a cold weather city, and the new stadium was the only reason it happened.

16 hours ago, freundb said:

If Soldier field had more than 12 seats they'd have hosted one too.

Soldier Field? Are you kidding me? One of the oldest stadiums in the NFL (or professional sports, for that matter)? Aside from all the numerous problems with Soldier Field itself, its an open air, cold weather stadium, located right next to one of the Great Lakes, so lake effect would be in full swing, in the middle of one of the most crime ridden cities in America. Come on man, be serious.

Once the Bears build their new stadium, then they will probably get a Super Bowl (edit: maybe: the Bills aren't getting a Super Bowl, even after they get their new stadium, because its Buffalo, but their stadium is also not fully enclosed), but they are under no serious consideration for one now. At the very least, the league seems to want to give every new stadium at least one shot at hosting a Super Bowl.

2 hours ago, Montrose1100 said:

This is the building the anti-Ashby High-rise folks envisioned. 

The Ashby doesn't look so bad now, does it?

On 7/24/2023 at 4:53 PM, hindesky said:

Well its about gosh darn time!

2 hours ago, cougarpad said:

I am surprised UH has not been in talks with the TXDOT and the city to find way connect the the Ernergy Park to UH Main via University Dr. Under or over the Spur 

My guess: its too cost prohibitive and isn't really a priority, especially since you just need to travel an extra mile or so to find a crossing.

On 7/24/2023 at 8:17 PM, freundb said:

The only reason it can't host a Super Bowl is because the city/metro is quite small and cannot support the circus that comes with the Super Bowl

Lambeau Field doesn't host Super Bowls because its a cold weather region and the stadium doesn't even have a roof on it. The league has hosted one cold weather Super Bowl in modern times, the one they held in New York a few years back, and not only was it one of the worst Super Bowls ever in terms of on the field product, it was terrible in any number of other ways as well. They barely missed getting snowed out by literally only a few hours, and many people who traveled to see the game found themselves stranded after the fact due to the weather. MetLife Stadium is probably the worst "new" stadium in the NFL, being in a remote location with no real mass transportation access (they even discourage walking to the stadium), so the local transportation networks were overburdened and broke down just trying to deal with all the people trying to get to the game, and it also doesn't have a roof despite the ludicrous amounts of money they spent on it, so anyone who saw that game sat in the cold.

The League will never hold another cold weather Super Bowl again after that fiasco, so even if Lambeau Field was located a few hours away in Milwaukee and had a dome on it, it wouldn't get a Super Bowl.

On 7/21/2023 at 3:36 PM, shasta said:

Hopefully they will build the new one in Ea-Do so we can have a true sports district.

There is no way they can build an NFL stadium in EaDo. They'd have to take out half the neighborhood for the stadium alone, not even getting into the issue of parking.

On 7/21/2023 at 4:30 PM, shasta said:

Th McNairs, who literally run a real estate development company, can develop all of that park lot land around NRG a mixed- use destination but they choose not to. 

NRG Park is owned by the Harris County Sports and Convention Corporation. No redevelopment is happening to the area without their approval. And both the Houston Rodeo and the Rockets would veto any redevelopment as it would cut into their event parking.

3 hours ago, Brooklyn173 said:

Not to get too off topic, but what is it with the term "sky bridge". I notice it a lot more in Texas. Unless you're trying to differentiate from an underground bridge, aren't all bridges in the sky?

Sky bridges are specifically bridges between buildings, generally carrying pedestrians. They are "sky" bridges because they technically never touch the ground.

On 7/17/2023 at 2:02 PM, hindesky said:

North of IH 10 near downtown.

Land looks cleared and ready to go. I'm ready for this to gone ahead and start.

5 hours ago, IWantTransit555 said:

Imagine not widening freeways in 2023...

They're not even widening the freeway...

They are just moving the other existing freeway to the opposite side of downtown, necessitating the large amount of acquired land.