j.33

Looks like the first courtyard style development is being proposed after the Ch. 42 Livable Changes Ordinance was passed in 2023. Livable Places encourages this type of development! This is on the northeast corner of Amber Street and Wallace Street in the Northline Neighborhood. The proposed development calls for 5 single-family homes surrounding a courtyard with a parking lot to the east. Very cool to see this development happen. Planning Commission will host a public hearing on July 25th.

I'd say there were around 15-25 trees that totally fell over, but they were quickly removed. As you drive, you can see the stumps sticking out. The buses are running in main lane traffic at the moment and you might have missed them because they are now smaller buses in the regular METRO livery. Photo from Monday night:

What it came down to was that staff's (City of Houston Planning Dept) recommendation was to deny (which is weird because I am pretty sure they're recommendation two weeks ago was to approve and it was switched to defer for two weeks to give residents time to review the parking study). The planning commission has to basically agree with "staff's decision" unless they can find an unnecessary hardship that the applicant will experience. The commission went back and forth trying to figure out what the hardship could potentially be if they were to vote to approve the variance (going against staff's recommendation). Commissioner Baldwin talked about economic hardship for the developer already getting 80% the way through permitting...state laws doesnt allow you to use financial hardship as one of the hardships so that was struck down. Commissioner Baldwin also stated that there will be a hardship on pedestrians if this gets denied because the development does meet a lot of walkable places guidelines and makes it safer for pedestrians by providing wider sidewalks, less curb cuts, and pedestrian scale lighting and that could potentially go away if the parking variance is denied. Ultimately, they couldn't find the hardship, thus they had to agree with staff's recommendation.

Wow, a shocking turn of events, the commission ended up denying the variance. I’m a bit shocked by the decision. The previous meeting, most seemed on board with it. Definitely felt a tone shift with it during yesterday’s meeting. Not sure what’s up. Anyways, it was denied and will most likely end up at 35 units, and valued engineered (no interior walkways, no trash chute, no weight/workout room, and no ground floor lobby - all from what the applicant said would happen if they don’t get the variance).

I think the Emnora Hike and Bike Trail/Spring Branch Trail is a perfect example of it being done. It is just a matter of getting the right people/entities at the table to make it happen. https://maps.app.goo.gl/hjSFpekGH1gfRtN69

Yes, it is a utility easement corridor, but it is in the Houston Bike Plan and HCTRA's Tollways to Trailways Plan identified that corridor as a potential trail as well. 22-2873 - Tollways to Trailways Draft Plan 4.25 (houston.org)

On-street parking is allowed on this stretch of W Gray, though no one ever uses it.

Not sure if these count, but here are a few more I could think of: - La Maison River Oaks Apartments at 2800 Revere Street has a fountain in the center of its driveway entrance. - Decorative Center of Houston at 5120 Woodway Dr along its walkway entrance - The Tradition–Woodway at 6336 Woodway Dr at its drop off entrance

I just think someone doesn't like red...first the red lanes, now this...

So we have our answer, METRO is removing the red and blue paint to increase safety??? They said it would allow officers better visibility inside the train. The stickers do not block any windows....again, these were installed to make the train more visible to all road users and increase safety. I don't buy their reason for removing it. Why Houston light rail trains have a new (old) look - Axios Houston

So are they wanting the historical designation so they can get some tax incentives, which will allow them to rehab the building?

It was a Mobil until around 2012, then a Chevron from 2012-2022

deleted

I dont think so as in the flyover video the stations are in the center and the bus would use left side boarding. The flyover video mentions that park and ride buses can pass the BRT buses as they stop in the stations, so I'm guessing vehicles would be able to do the same thing. I would love to see the two uses be separated in their own elevated viaducts.

My guess is that TxDOT and METRO will compromise and make the viaduct BRT AND HOV instead of bus only.

And keep in mind, all of the METRONext projects (University Corridor BRT, Inner Katy BRT, and Gulfton BRT) had monthly updates every month for the METRO Board for the past 2-3 years up until March or April 2024, which is right after Chair Brock was appointed. METRO had been working very hard on all three of these projects up until then...

I watched the meeting. In METRO's eyes, they viewed University Line as all or nothing. In reality, they definitely could and should have thought about breaking it up if there is such a big concern for their finances. They could build segment 1 (which is Westchase to Lower Uptown TC) running along unused land next to Westpark Toll Road and a components of Segment 2 to connect with Greenway Plaza and then run on 59 to Midtown terminating at Wheeler TC. This would provide a great East/West transit corridor that we so desperately need. METRO also said Inner Katy BRT is still under review and they have not made a decision on that. They did make a decision on Gulfton BRT, which they gave the go-ahead for it and they'll will bring back monthly updates for that project.

I watched the committee briefing back in February. This was the update back then. Fare Collection Update: Q Card data is stored on the card, so it is really hard to get real time information/data (like checking balance online). The new card will be open system meaning you can manage it all online real time. Finalizing retail network (like who will sell the card) Finalizing media press release (which I am guessing is completed now with the Chronicle's article being posted) all bus validators are installed 1,180 total. they will accept ONE Card, credit/debit card, apple and google pay, and ONE Mobile App experimenting with VENMO and Cashapp but will not be anytime soon rail platform installation is underway New TVMs will still dispense paper tickers Rapid and Rail Stations will all have the same TVMs user can purchase ONE Cards, reload ONE cards, and manage their ONE account at these kiosks paper tickets will be bar code based which means people can transfer to local bus with a paper rail ticket (something they cannot do today) New Cash Fare Boxes on all buses will be installed Q3 2024v on all buses 20% of riders are still cash based Will expand retail outlets to over 1,000 stores (all current retailers are going through on boarding) retailers include (just naming a few, there are WAYYYY more): KROGER, Circle K, Walgreens, CVS, 7/11, etc Fare Inspectors All fare inspectors will receive a new device. This device will validate and verify an active fare. It will also print out a citation right on the spot (similar to the device ParkHouston uses for parking tickets) Overall, testing is ongoing, so final schedule is unclear. July 1st was the initial goal, they are looking more towards an August rollout (All of this was back in February, the Chronicle is saying 2025). they continued to emphasize the issue of supply shortages, especially for the TVMs (ticket vending machines) on the light rail and rapid platforms.

You can see what would be proposed here: 6d6e984bf6cb2ac426073a8573941449_NAE_Narrative_updated.pdf (ehq-production-us-california.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com) A lot of it is just sidewalks, but the big one is Renwick Drive in Gulfton, which would be pretty big street reconstruction project.

Oh thats right! This is a TXDOT HSIP project so they will use TXDOT equipment...but yeah, TXDOT def has all black signals that they couldve used to be consistent. I guess someone overlooked something haha.

I’m not either. I guess ultimately all I was trying to say was there is a difference between equity planning and equality planning. There were comments above that were saying it was an equity approach, and all I was doing was saying that what Whitmire says we should only be building 6’ sidewalks and nothing more is more of an equality standpoint and that we really shouldn’t plan our cities based on that. I really wasn’t trying to create an argument. I was just trying to point out the flaw with the rationale about only building 6’ sidewalks and nothing more. This is the quote I was referring to: “We've offered a new plan that does not include road diets, does not include 10-foot sidewalks," he said. "I've got Denver Harbor that wants their first sidewalk. They'd love to have a three-foot sidewalk; we're going by the manual, the six-foot sidewalk." https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/shows/houston-matters/2024/05/02/485398/houston-mayor-john-whitmire-says-paused-mobility-projects-need-more-review-before-moving-forward/?amp=1 Sounds to me that he was comparing the shepherd/durham project with a local street in Denver Harbor (Fifth Ward) that has no sidewalks.

@JClark54 yes, of course I agree that our entire city is plagued with roads that are unsafe and mini-highways. But that wasn’t the initial argument. The initial argument is that the local neighborhood streets (you know the 24’ wide open ditch streets) in fifth ward have no sidewalks, while Shepherd/Durham gets 10-12’. That’s what I’m comparing it to because that is what the new administration has said. If we were comparing Lockwood to Shepherd/Durham, of course both deserve wide pedestrian infrastructure - and that’s why the university corridor and so important. In no sentence did I say that fifth ward does not deserve 10-12’ sidewalks. In no sentence did I say the dangerous roads in other parts of town only should get 6’ sidewalks. What I did say is that a local neighborhood street in fifth ward that currently has no pedestrian infrastructure should get 6’ sidewalks because it accomplishes the goal of enhancing pedestrian safety and mobility on that specific corridor which helps pedestrian safety and mobility for the area - just like the shepherd/Durham project enhances the safety and mobility on that corridor and ultimately the neighborhood. Again, if the ultimate goal is to enhance pedestrian safety and mobility, then of course corridors like Waco, Hirsch, and Lockwood deserve to be viewed the same way as Shepherd/Durham. I never said they shouldn’t be viewed differently. My whole point is that an equity goal would create solutions that fit that specific corridor and neighborhood. The mayors comments were comparing the Shepherd/Durham project against local neighborhood streets with no sidewalks in fifth ward and that is what I am talking about.

Yeah. Like I said, the equal outcome is enhanced pedestrian safety and mobility for the citizens. Although it is a broader outcome, we can agree that both projects would enhance safety and mobility for pedestrians. Now flip it, and think of what outcome would occur if we provided 6' sidewalks on Shepherd/Durham and 6' sidewalks on....let's say...the neighborhood street Nichols St in Fifth Ward. Under the equal mindset, this is what is right. All new projects get 6' sidewalks. Fifth Ward neighborhood would definitely have an increase in safe pedestrian infrastructure for their one neighborhood street, but would Shepherd/Durham have the same result? Or, would Shepherd/Durham still feel like really fast mini highway that you wouldn't feel safe on nor want to walk on? Keep in mind, in order to make Shepherd/Durham a safe pedestrian and bike corridor, they had to right size it. In order to right size it, they took a lane of traffic and dedicated that space to pedestrians and bikes. Of course they could have built a 6' sidewalk and used the rest of the space for landscaping or grass, but that is not what the Whitmire administration wanted to see - they wanted it to not eliminate any lanes and they made that very clear. I totally understand where you are coming from, and absolutely agree that corridors like Lockwood in the Fifth Ward and Navigation in the East End should deserve to have 10-12' side paths. And I will say that if the University Line gets built, corridors along the line, like Lockwood, would get a 10-12 side path similar to Shepherd/Durham, and intersecting corridors, like Nichols St would get 5' sidewalks (but this administration has already made it clear their views on the project). But back to the question. As I stated, if the equal goal is to make our roads safer for pedestrians and enhance their mobility, both projects (10-12' sidepath on Shepherd/Durham and sidewalks in Fifth Ward) would do that. If the Shepherd/Durham project would have just redone the sidewalk, and left it a 4-lane high speed arterial roadway, would that really achieve the goal of increasing safety and mobility for pedestrians? No, it would still be an extremely unsafe roadway for people beyond the car.

So what Whitmire and this new administration is actually doing is focused on equality (not equity). Basically, every neighborhood should get 6' sidewalks because that is what the current administration believes is equal and fair. In theory, sounds great, but there is a huge issue that arises when you treat local infrastructure with an equal mindset, which is very different than an equitable mindset. Under the equality mindset equal = same. This means that each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. In Whitmire's case, when he says everyone will get 6' sidewalks, he is approaching the issue from an equality standpoint. This works fine, if (big emphasis here) everyone starts from the same place. With infrastructure and neighborhoods, unless you're building a brand-new city, that is impossible. A city is different across the board and each neighborhood has their own particular needs and wants. This is why we should approach infrastructure ideas on an equitable approach. With an equitable approach, it makes sure that a neighborhood gets access to the opportunities that are the best fit for that one neighborhood with the overall goal to reach an equal outcome. A neighborhood in fifth ward has very different infrastructure and travel needs than the Heights. An equitable approach would acknowledge that there are different needs for these communities and that fifth ward would benefit from 6' sidewalks on a road that might have no sidewalks, and the heights would benefit from a shared use path that is 10-12' wide because there is a need for that specific infrastructure for that specific neighborhood. Ultimately, 6' sidewalks in fifth ward and the Shepherd/Durham roadway improvement would both result in enhanced pedestrian safety and mobility for the citizens (the equal outcome) while also addressing the certain mobility challenges to those two separate communities. And it is not only sidewalks or roads that you can see this play out under this new administration. Comments have been made about METRONext the same way. The equality approach is saying "well, the Uptown BRT line is not working so that means it wont work anywhere in Houston". Totally missing the idea that the Uptown area has very different travel needs than fifth ward, which would actually benefit from the University BRT on Lockwood.

I'm surprised they didnt go for all black signals to match the rest of Midtown and Downtown.