004n063

8 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Why do you feel Yale is better than Shep/Durham for such a project? l drive Shep/Durham with relative frequency, and it's a major jump from what was. 

It's not that it isn't a major improvement for Shepherd/Durham, it's just that I think it's always going to be a high-speed route, and that I think if a major space-shakeup were in order there, a higher-order transit project would have been more valuable.

Yale, on the other hand, is not as critical of a high-speed car route and is more consistently (and less autocentrically) mixed-use, so prioritizing pedestrians (to the point of rebuilding to a design speed of 25mph, say) seems more feasible.

That said, maybe a better argument would be to run a hypothetical purple line extension up the center of Yale, rather than Shepherd. And that would, in the short term, probably limit the sidewalk widths. 

I have a few thoughts I'd like to throw into the mix, @JClark54 and @j.33.

I have three prefaces: 

1) I ride on the busted three-foot "sidewalks" on Dunvale every day (used to ride in one of the four car lanes, but the harrassers won), and I have many students and a few colleagues who walk or ride on the same, so I am totally sympathetic to an approach that centers equity and applies a six-foot standard everywhere.

2) I don't think that Shepherd/Durham was the best first choice in the Heights for such a major pedestrian improvement corridor, though I support the project overall (I felt the same way about Bagby downtown). In my opinion, Yale would have been the best starting point, as significantly reducing automotive throughput and speed would have made more sense there, followed by 19th and White Oak, then potentially Washington, and then potentially Shepherd Durham.

3) There are many streets in Northside, Fifth Ward, Second Ward, the East End, and Third Ward where I would support investment-level pedestrian realm projects similar to the Shepherd/Durham project, including North Main, Fulton, Irvington, Hogan/Lorraine, Burnett, Lyons, Cavalcade, Lockwood, Canal, Harrisburg Milby, Telephone, Lawndale, 75th, 76th, Broadway, MLK, Scott. Blodgett, Emancipation, St. Emmanuel, Elgin, and Almeda. Among those, Irvington, Lyons, Canal, 76th, and Emancipation would, to my mind, be the best places to start.

Now to the central argument.

When you consider the list in preface #3 in conjunction with the costs of the S/D project, it becomes clear that the city - however urbanist-motivated its administration were - would need both an internal prioritization schema and a plan to work with TIRZs so as not to fall into a multibillion-dollar hole.

So how should they prioritize?

One axis could be need, which you've done a good job of articulating. Whatever my priors, I won't pretend that the people of the Heights have as much need for ten-foot sidewalks as the people of Fifth Ward do for adequately safe sidewalks.

But another important axis is demand. The reality is that the area surrounding the SD project (particularly phase 1) is considerably denser, both in terms of residents and in businesses big and small, than that around any of the other streets mentioned, and that it is unlikely that, at any time in the nearish (one generation of street infrastructure, say) future, any of the other streets mentioned feel overcrowded with a six-foot sidewalk. I'm not sure Shepherd/Durham would have reached that level (the car traffic would remain a deterrent), but I can definitely see it with Yale and 19th already, so at least the neighborhood has demand for it.

So to me, the key is this: the two axes mentioned above (need and demand) should not be in direct competition with one another. A street improvement project in the Fifth Ward featuring six-foot sidewalks should not compete for funds from the same bucket as those which fund a ten-foot sidewalk in the Heights or anywhere else. 

How can this noncompetition be achieved? To me, the answer lies in TIRZs and an expanded city sidewalk program. We need to take responsibility, as a city, for providing and maintaining minimum-standard sidewalks, which in my opinion includes six-foot pavements and shade trees. Such improvements should not require TIRZ funding (and I actually don't think that developers should be responsible for the sidewalks by default either), though obviously the city should work to obtain state and federal funds whenever possible. The city would still need to set up a prioritizing schematic, but it could do so solely on the basis of assessed need, rather than considering present and potential economic demand.

The TIRZs, on the other hand, could (and would be wise to) treat their streetscapes and pedestrian realms as investment-worthy platforms for building community wealth, and proceed accordingly with capital improvements including wider sidewalks, pedestrian streets, sidewalk patio space, etc.

Of course (and this is the real pie-in-the-sky bit), the ultimate efficacy of such an idea would require that TIRZs have the power to reduce automotive traffic flow on certain streets that presently serve as thoroughfares, and to allow commercial development (without presently requisite offstreet parking or lane widths) on certain streets that are presently classified as minor collectors and neighborhood streets. This could mean, for instance, narrowing the car space on Lyons, Canal, or 76th to one ten-foot lane in each direction (with bus lanes and pedestrian realm occupying the remaining space), or it could mean incentivizng pedestrian-centered commercial development on streets like (to use a currently relevant and visible example) Roberts, Sherman, and Garrow.

Or it could mean both - in the same sense that an optimized bayou park system would have small "fingers" (feeder bayous, esplanades, neighborhood greenways) at regular intervals, an optimized main street system could have semi-pedestrianized mixed-use "fingers" jutting off the Shepherdesque commercial thoroughfares at regular intervals. (An obvious starting point here would be Winbern at Main, but I could see it working at 19th St)

But all of this would require COH and TXDoT to consider the possibility of streets having "place" value that exceeds the value of the speed at which a large number of cars can pass through them, so I'm not holding my breath.

13 hours ago, rechlin said:

For what little it's worth (and I know this is waaaay off-topic), Samsung Pay has always worked just fine for me at HEB.

Which HEBs have tap pay? I haven't seen one at either the Montrose one or the MacGregor one

11 hours ago, Highrise Tower said:

The new 5th page doesn't have a rendering of this proposed Kirby Crossing development.

See attached:

I am confused by the wording. Are you saying that the renderings above are no longer there, or that the renderings above have replaced what was previously there?

13 hours ago, mkultra25 said:

Really tired of HEB being the only place I ever go that doesn't take ApplePay.

This might be my bikebrain talking, but I feel like it's part of a very suburban/car-centric notion of grocery shopping. That is, it is assumed that grocery shopping is a big trip for which people would obviously have to bring their driver's license anyway, so no harm done.

In reality (mine, at least), it's often just a pop-over thing. Need to grab some basil and a bottle of wine, picking up a steak for dinner, just really feel like an apple right now. That sort of thing. When I lived in Midtown and the Midtown Whole Foods was still open, that was how I shopped 90% of the time, and I never bothered bringing anything more than a phone and the always-on pannier bag.

Since it closed, though, I've switched over to HEB, and have had to turn around and bike back home to grab a wallet several times. It's not a big deal, but it's annoying and feels vaguely anti-urban to have to specifically remember something that I literally only otherwise use for airport security, just to grab some food. 

4 hours ago, EllenOlenska said:

I much prefer the building that's already there to the renderings of the croque monsieur 

Interesting! I very much don't. I feel like the current building doesn't really engage the street at all.

3 hours ago, j.33 said:

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 agree with your overall point, but I actually think the 5th Ward segment is more of a long-term investment (and equitability) segment than a present or short-term projected demand segment.

If the project isn't axed, I would expect the highest ridership stretches to be between Edloe and Wheeler TC and between Renwick/Fountain View and Westpark TC.

3 hours ago, hbg.50 said:

Equitability among neighborhoods.  By all accounts he will not prioritize bike lanes over other types of infrastructure, and pedestrian sidewalks will be max six-feet wide. Just being honest…

Even that is a phony cover, as far as I can tell.

For the rest of his term, let's see how many times he uses equity to justify denying something ("how can we justify X project when Y neighborhood doesn't have Z?"), and compare that to how many times he uses it to justify providing something ("they already have this in neighborhood A, so we should make sure neighborhood B has it as well").

I hope I'm wrong, but I won't be.

4 hours ago, editor said:

While I don't disagree with what you wrote, let's keep the invectives in the Politics section, not in the general development threads. 

I agree. I think policy discussion is often relevant in non-Politics threads, but I don't think personal insults do much to drive the conversation forward, and more likely turn off the people for whom these issues are not or have not been priorities - which people comprise a majority of Houstonians and whose open ears we need.

19 minutes ago, shasta said:

I'm hoping they take over the Kroger's site on West Gray and build a urban mixed use HEB on that lot like the one on Washington.

 

 

I just hope they get tap pay sometime this century

2 hours ago, j.33 said:

I hope there is an HEB planned still - the Washington Heights one and the Alabama (Montrose) one are both overwhelmed with customers. Thanks for the update @hindesky

Isn't the site across from a Whole Foods?

4 hours ago, s3mh said:

Whitmire's beef with the TIRZ has been that they are run by out of touch residents of River Oaks who know nothing about the area they are responsible for and are not responsive to what the community really wants.  But the process for the Shep improvements was very open to the public with detailed designs posted online and lots of chances for community input.  Then, when Whitmire decided that it would be a good idea to completely screw up a shovel ready project, changes were made behind closed doors with no chance for the community to see what is going on.  

Whitmire is good at making it sound like he's here for equitability, but until I see his administration put out a proposal that prioritizes something other than car speed and throughput, I'll remain skeptical.

3 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

More people voted for the MetroNext bond than they did in this mayoral election. You're right, the mayor will likely not be recalled but the point of the recall threat is to let the mayor know we're watching and listening. If advocates hadn't taken to the time to speak up for the Shepherd/Durham project, I can almost guarantee more changes would have been made or Phase 2 would have been cancelled completely. 

I'm 100% with you, but tbh I think the Shepherd/Durham decision was driven by the fact that the public can plainly see that a 4-3 merge will be worse for traffic flow than 3 lanes the whole way. 

FWIW - I went to the meeting today and asked about the #25. I was assured that no changes were planned for that route. 

Peter Eccles from Link Houston shared their alternate proposal for the 32 route, which I thought was compelling. Hopefully METRO gives it serious consideration.

5 hours ago, j.33 said:

Maybe the residents can get the city to remove the parking restrictions on Elgin. That would open a lot more street parking for the area. 

I would assume that the fire station has something to do with that.

5 hours ago, j.33 said:

The rest of the routes listed will have minor schedule changes or some trips added but those aren't defined just yet.

I'm just a little personally nervous about this. If the 25 gets downgraded, that'll be a serious pain for me. It's heavily used in the afternoons/evenings, but having 15min service before 6AM (and 10min after) is a godsend for me. But those early buses don't have a ton of riders.

10 hours ago, IWantTransit555 said:

Can inside the loop east of downtown get some love in this thread too?

On the Lower Westheimer thread?

Just now, 004n063 said:

On the Lower Westheimer thread?

Aaaand I just realized that I very much participated in fantasy musings about Washington, so 

3 hours ago, IntheKnowHouston said:

A residential sidewalk, driveway permit was purchased Thursday for 3401 1/2 Harrisburg Blvd.


Details from the permit:

• Use: Commercial sitework improvements '15 IBC
• FCC Group: Non-residential alteration
   

The Plant is located at 3401 Harrisburg Blvd. It is part of Concept Neighborhood's multi-block development named The Plant / Second Ward.
 

Sounds like that might be Neighbors (fomerly How to Survive), which definitely needs a sidewalk/pedestrian realm upgrade.

11 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

82 is not on the proposed service change list. 25 is, though, which is upsetting.

That said, it is on the pdf list. However, I'm not sure this means reduced service, since it says "address overloads, improve on time service" - I'd like to attend this meeting to find out what they plan to do.

5 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Apologies if this is the wrong locale, but saw this announcement earlier today: https://www.instagram.com/p/C7pT3WPtDY2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

if ridership numbers are the driver, as was stated for the Silver Line, route 82 is surprising. It's one of the highest ridden lines. 

EDIT: Debated between the general transportation and red line threads as well, but saw this was the most frequently used. 

82 is not on the proposed service change list. 25 is, though, which is upsetting.

3 minutes ago, shasta said:

I placed a call to one of the contacts listed on Regent Square's website asking about renderings for the future blocks and I was told:

There are none, but they will be similar to what is constructed on the finished block, and not the 2009 renderings,  and that there are NO IMMEDIATE PLANS to start construction on the new phase.

I also cleaned up the development map, for that area, for projects that are 'Under Construction' or 'On The Boards'.

I'm anticipating, that at some point (when- nobody, knows) the Post Office site and he Kroger's site will be in play.

Imagine HEB building a large mixed use grocery + residential building on the Kroger's site similar to the one on Washington.

and YES! the market can support it, both the HEB, on West Alabama and Washington, are always packed and this one would capture the Kroger's customers. 

 

Keep in mind that there is also a Whole Foods in the area. But if the Kroger can survive, an HEB definitely could. And then maybe that'd put that Kroger out of its misery and provide a nice redevelopment opportunity for something to actually front West Gray there.

I haven't seen any design plans for NHHIP that remove existing bike trails, and I don't think that's what this means (though I assume there could be temporary impacts like with Brays at the Spur 5 extension).

Would this include Super Happy Fun Land?

edit: No, it wouldn't

12 hours ago, Ross said:

What potential? All of the bars and such will disappear, just like they did on Richmond and other strips in Houston. What is your suggestion for people who need to drive along Washington to get to doctor's offices and living spaces? I could not care less about the people going to the bars, there are far better things to do with your time than drink.

Bars and restaurants are part of it, but also housing, groceries, doctors' offices, etc.

The per-acre tax revenue could be considerably higher than it is, and higher-order, fixed transit would accelerate that.

Drivers have, as you mentioned, both I-10 and Memorial if they're trying to get to other places east/west. I am not suggesting the street be fully pedestrianized or off-limits to drivers, just that it no longer be a high-speed option.

23 hours ago, Ross said:

Washington is too useful as a vehicle street, and is the only East/West thoroughfare between I-10 and Memorial.

I would counter that Washington has too much productivity potential as a pedestrian-friendly and transit-friendly street to be degraded by private vehicle prioritization.

7 hours ago, editor said:

My suggestion is that one line goes down Washington, and one goes up Houston.  

If a Houston line went up N.Main and Airline, I could see it. But even so, I'm not sure the demand is ever going to be there. Washington corridor has lots of residential density plus lots of businesses plus a logical Memorial Park terminus. It just makes too much sense. Houston Ave feels more fantasy to me. I can think of a bunch of routes I'd do before Houston Ave.