JClark54

The Texas Transportation Commission is set to consider the 2022 Unified Transportation Program, of which the proposed IH 45 project is a part of, at their meeting Tuesday. Commissioners have indicated in statements that they may vote to accept the 10-year plan as is with the project included or remove it. The full UTP is found here: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/tpp/utp/utp-2022.pdf.

I apologize, you didn't write a decade. You wrote: "Ten years or so ago, it was indeed used for some parking." "That being said, he might have a stronger case if he was actually currently using it as a parking lot." Glad to see you acknowledge he's impacted, regardless of whether or not it's a parking lot. "We shall see. I would expect that TxDot will happily allow his driveway to exist within the right of way (or make negligible adjustments to the right of way to allow for his driveway)." I'm sure he'd love to know your insight that TxDOT may be willing to accommodate him.

If you zoom in, they are seeking a small, negligable corner of the lot, quotations or not aside. What's he's upset about is the loss of most of the driveway accessing the lot. Per the letter he received from TxDOT and presented at neighborhood meetings with TxDOT, the agency is seeking enough of the driveway as part of ROW to make vehicular access challenging, unless he carves out the corner to accommodate a new driveway. So multiple spots would be hard to access otherwise. I don't really care to continually debate whether the space merits parking lot status or not. You feel it's not based on your quotation usage and claim that it hasn't been used in more than a decade. I and others have parked there on occasion so I feel it qualifies as one. These apparent differing views on its usage do not offer further value to the discussion. It just wastes my time and yours as well as those on the forum. My initial post wasn't an attempt to refute the merits of a project over the lot. It was to provide insight that he was losing a small amount of land despite what you claimed.

They parked there just every business day, especially when the ticket resale place was in business, prior to COVID. Obviously now, parking demand is less. Basing perceived long-term parking lot usage off what one sees (or street views) during COVID would be suboptimal, though, as many businesses have seen decreased parking demand during this time. I know the lot is in use because I've parked in it every year to get eyeglasses and many times for tickets. Each instance, my car was not the only one there. Regardless of our differing views on "regular," or whether we're for or against for the project, a business owner can still dislike the taking of property he owns. Especially as Wheeler evolves with the possible BRT line, parking will be a premium and he owns the whole strip center, so he has to think of prospective tenant needs. That being said, I am for the segment. My initial comment was not in opposition to the segment, but just to correct the erroneous claim above that none of his land is in the right of way. A portion of the rear parking lot is. The 10 years or so claim also mentioned in response is also inaccurate, as I have parked there many times in the last decade.

I never said I am opposed to Section 3. Just thought I'd offer context on why a business along the proposed dropped section might not like it. There was a lot of speculation above.

I'll take my daily view of the area as neighborhood resident over a January 2020 street view any day. The fence was erected to stop defecation and vandalism from the encampment that developed under the highway. Using a street view nearly two years old to justify your point is lazy.

The owner of Smith's has stated a portion of the lot behind the structure itself will be taken. It's currently used as parking for employees of his business and those of the other establishments in the strip center.