JLWM8609

15 hours ago, august948 said:

Isn't that the area they were calling "Kush Corner" a few years back?

Yep, that's it.

On 2/12/2021 at 1:02 PM, Triton said:

Latest detail from the City of Houston. So it looks like San Jacinto will be a tunnel with some sort of ramps that traverse to the west side of the road and go to I-10.

Is that a typo or will they really rename Rothwell/Nance between N. Main and McKee to Lyons Ave.? Why not call it Nance all the way to N. Main for consistency? I don't think Lyons ever historically ran to N. Main in that location if at all in the pre-freeway days. 

5 hours ago, mkultra25 said:

That's got to be a rarity. Can't imagine too many of them survived in decent shape given their target market of people wanting a new car at a used-car price. 

 

Tony Gullo has one in his personal collection in Magnolia. I was afraid to look at it the wrong way lest it fall apart!

26 minutes ago, Ross said:

Isn't Allegiant famous for crappy maintenance and engine failures?

That was back when their fleet was comprised of a lot of older MD-80s. They've all been replaced with newer Airbus A319 and A320 aircraft.

On 2/6/2021 at 11:53 AM, zaphod said:

I don't know if that intersection even really needs that much improvement since it just dumps into West Airport anyways with another light. What might be more interesting is if they finally had West Airport and regular Airport connect, with a bridge over the tracks/freeway then curve around and buy out/eminent domain a couple small properties to join up. They already shamelessly carved up that subdivision east of Buffalo Speedway to create a seemingly redundant east-west linkage to Hiram Clarke. Maybe it could go all the way?

There are plans for an eventual W. Airport overpass. It was seen here in the schematics for the US90A freeway in the early 2000s: http://www.texasfreeway.com/Houston/schematics/90a/images/90a_7_west_airport.jpg

You can see the stubouts for the eventual connection on the EB feeder

https://goo.gl/maps/f4NH56ebsgQg58Fy8

It sounds like they're completing the gaps in the feeders between S. Main and W. Orem going by the description, but those gaps are less than 1/2 mi, and should be WAY less than $350m.

4 hours ago, Big E said:

My guess: nothing is being done on that because that is specifically part of the Hardy Toll Road extension, which would make it Harris County's issue (they maintain the toll road). The viaduct replacement is probably being done by the city of Houston.

That's correct about the toll road extension, but the viaduct replacement is a TxDOT project. 

On 1/24/2021 at 6:32 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I noticed they are digging deeper on either side of 610. Are they planning to run the rail below the freeway? 

It already runs below the freeway. But, if you mean trenching it below the feeder roads, that would be neat. That whole intersection can become a mess even outside of rush hour.

HCFCD is hosting a virtual Almeda Bridge Community Engagement Meeting on Wednesday, January 27, 2021 from 6:30pm to 7:30pm. https://www.projectbrays.org/all-segments/segment-2/about-almeda-rd-bridge/

Is there a diagram showing how this will be incorporated into the big I-45 relocation project? It dips into part of it.

4 hours ago, Triton said:

Does anyone know how this is supposed to look (schematics) ?

There's a post earlier in the thread by MaxConcrete that had links to the schematics, but the website that hosts the images is down.

On 12/16/2020 at 11:51 AM, Triton said:

Yup. Way too close.

 

For those that don't know, to get to the Chenevert exit you essentially have to cut across two lanes immediately and hope there are no cars there when you do it. I am hoping TXDOT quickly realizes how dangerous this is and adds some traffic delineators to prevent people from trying to make that exit.

 

Those would help even though Houston drivers like to seem to take them out, but what they really need to do is add Chenevert to the I-69/US 59 exit sign from the toll lane as well. Signage clarity is lacking in some aspects of this project.

Here's a few problems I've noticed from this project.

1. They placed a brand new I-610/Hurricane Evacuation Route sign on 288 NB at Bellfort, but the arrow on the sign points to the right toward the old exit location even though the exits to 610 have been moved to the left. Link showing the sign not present during construction: https://goo.gl/maps/vALTD5Ex7FLwY5PQA

2. The highway sign pavement markers at 288NB and I-69/US 59 say TX-59 instead of US 59.

3. At the same interchange, the pavement markings and the overhead signs don't match. The pavement and a sign shows the 2 left lanes will take you to I-45. In actuality, the #1 left lane turns into a lane that allows you to either go to I-45 or exit at Chenevert, while the #2 left lane is an exit only lane for Chenevert.

Pavement says this lane will take you to I-45, but the overhead sign says otherwise.

Driving along, you enter the #2 lane to access I-45 based upon this sign and the pavement marking in the previous photo.

The next sign shows your lane is going to Chenevert instead of I-45.

Exit only? You'd better get over now if you want to get on I-45. Forget what that sign said 1/2 mile ago!

5 hours ago, X.R. said:

That was fast, holy shit. It takes them forever to pave a road, but putting in beams and such take a few months. The power of local business interests, lol. 

Just hope they didn't pick the same contractors that did the Ardmore St. bridge for Harris County Flood Control District. Opening was pushed back almost 2 months because they had to redo the deck. 

34 minutes ago, thedistrict84 said:

They managed to use the controversial "HTX" in their handle AND got the name of the neighborhood very wrong (this is not and should never be EaDo, that's on the other side of the tracks). I'm almost impressed. 

I'm not challenging you, but why is HTX considered controversial? Is it the same reason why EaDo makes people cringe? 

https://www.facebook.com/CommissionerPrecinctOne/posts/1778261569010117 

I guess I'm late, but you can't embed FB posts here?

In a pleasant surprise, the Ardmore St. bridge opened to traffic up this morning.

On 1/2/2021 at 5:28 PM, hindesky said:

Ok, so this is S. MacGregor lanes eastbound at Ardmore bridge. The way I see it the far left lane is for those who want to u-turn on to the west bound lanes of N.MacGregor. The middle and outside lanes are supposed to be for those continuing eastbound on S. MacGregor. The northbound lanes of Ardmore St. can drive over the bridge and the left lane can turn westbound on N.McGregor and the right lane can turn right on N. MacGregor. The thing I see being a big problem is the lanes heading westbound on the east side of the Ardmore bridge on S. MacGregor will cause many head-on collisions unless they have some kind of solid barrier to stop people from driving westbound on S. MacGregor. I'm confused by all the possibilities idiot/drunk drivers could possibly make while trying to negotiate this intersection, seems like setting people up to fail, especially if they don't drive here often.

That's my parents' front yard on the right. People did frequently go the wrong way on S. MacGregor before the bridge project started. People would turn into their driveway to u-turn or do a crude 3-point turn in the middle of the street, blocking traffic and go the right way, or they sometimes even get as far as the curve in the bend between Ardmore and W. Leland Anderson St. before hitting someone head-on or turning around. My mom remembers when they restriped the streets. She left home one morning in 1980 or 1981 and came back that evening and found out she couldn't get back in the driveway because the street was now one way. They had to take a a circuitous route using the 288 feeder roads or go through those back streets where the psychiatric center is now if they were coming from east of Ardmore. 

Plans in the 1970s called for N. and S. MacGregor to be one way between Almeda and Calhoun with bridges built between Ardmore and Scott and between Scott and Calhoun to allow for u-turns. Some say it was part of an even larger long term plan to eventually turn the area into a giant research campus between the Medical Center and UH. Under then District D Councilman Anthony Hall, a compromise was reached and the one way terminated at Ardmore. 

But back to the bridge. It's still not open. The contractors appear to be doing work on the sewer lines again. There's a hole dug in my parents' yard now as well as on the bank of the bayou. I guess they messed up on that, too. The Buffalo Speedway Bridge is closing on January 18th, and last time I checked, the same contractor for the Ardmore and Stella Link bridges won the bid on that project, too. At this rate, I guess we can hope for a February opening maybe?

I also think this Ardmore delay is delaying the start of the Almeda and Calhoun bridge projects. You can see workers starting to stage at Almeda.

Turns out I've known @Specwriterfrom another organization since before I joined HAIF. It wasn't until a few years ago that we put two and two together and realized it and met up for lunch.

On 11/22/2020 at 2:32 PM, hindesky said:

The twin hypodermic needles are probably getting sharpened and new paint.

They swapped out the distinctive white strobe aircraft warning lights at the end of the needles with red LED lights that flash alternatively. 

2 hours ago, samagon said:

anyway, the best solution (and hopefully on the long term list) is an underpass for the path both here, and at Scott street.

I asked HCFCD about an underpass at Ardmore before they started construction and they said no. I can't remember if their excuse was based on engineering or they pulled the "we're not in the business of transportation" card. 

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

It's a u-turn lane

7 hours ago, hindesky said:

Looks finished but not open yet. Weird configuration of the lanes, to the right you have a northbound lane and just left of that is a southbound lane. Then over to the far left side there is another lane, I wonder what that lane is for? The only things I can think of is a u-turn lane or a bus only lane but the northbound lane traffic can go left too.

Considering that they got rid of the slip turn lane at N. MacGregor and 288 to eliminate a conflict point between cars and pedestrians going to the new HEB, it puzzled me that they included this U-turn lane in the plans for the Ardmore bridge. I've lived near that corner 30+ years and there's always pedestrian and bicycle traffic there. The u-turn lane is unfortunately adding another conflict point between cars and pedestrians/cyclists. I made it known that I was against the u-turn lane for that reason, but Harris County wouldn't budge on changing the plans. In fact, Harris County didn't ask our neighborhood for input when the bridge was in the planning process, and initially only gave us a few weeks advance notice of the bridge closure, which led to a 6 month delay of the start of project. Considering the contractor screwup, this new bridge has been a clusterf from square one. I'll be glad when it opens so I won't have to take a neighborhood tour every time I need to get to 288.

On 12/3/2020 at 8:34 AM, mfastx said:

 

I mean, everyone was apparently fine with building highways to no end that take up way more property/homes than a rail line ever would (and continue to take up more even after they are built!), so I see it as a bit hypocritical to be staunchly opposed to a rail line for these reasons. 

To be fair, there were a lot of rural landowners who were opposed to the failed, quarter mile wide Trans Texas Corridor that included two separate highways within its ROW (one for cars and one for trucks).

8 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

What was SW's reason for leaving IAH in the first place?

From 2005...

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=309083

3 hours ago, rechlin said:

Seen on reddit, courtesy of u/HouseAtomic:

 

Oof! I hope nobody got hurt.

19 hours ago, MaxConcrete said:

I seem to recall that the original plan was to have the toll lanes connect into MacGregor, but there was substantial opposition so the MacGregor connection was nixed. The Holcombe exit was then proposed and was acceptable to the community.

 

Good point about an exit to the main lanes where you suggest.

I remembered that the original plans from the 60s called for the inside express lanes to have no exits from 610 to Downtown, so despite the Holcombe exit, maybe that's keeping in the spirit of the original intent?