Ianbian

Hi everyone -- I thought the group might be interested in the mini novela of comments I sent to TxDOT (see attachment). My focus is on maintaining and improving local, inner-city connectivity options between the East End, Downtown, and neighborhoods west of Downtown. I don't feel like we can afford to lose any more of our existing east-west roadway options, because we already have so few of them. I would hate for our local east-west roadway connectivity to start looking like Austin's north-south connectivity!

Remember, comments are due by July 27, 2017. Feel free to use any of the figures/arguments I've put together if you agree with them -- no need to reinvent the wheel!

IH-45 Comments - FINAL (Sharing).pdf

You know now that I think of it... could this be some kind of scam?

Nope, not a scam. This is a petition put out by the Greater East End Management District (GEEMD) to support their Livable Centers plan.

Congestion won't really be an issue. Navigation traffic is about 7,500 cars per day -- which is almost nothing. By comparison, Montrose has about 35,000. (City of Houston traffic counts are here.) With 7,500 vehicles per day, you could easily do one lane in each direction without any noticeable congestion.

The GEEMD wants to reduce the traffic lanes to provide a wider sidewalk, bike lanes, and parking lanes. They will be starting up a major traffic study with H-GAC in the next couple of months to quantify the traffic impacts to justify the roadway changes. However, most of these changes require political will, because they will go against City standards that more-or-less outlaw urban development. Political will can be swayed by a loud group of voters, and that's where this petition comes in. It's just a component of the larger strategy to redefine development in the East End.

The GEEMD has a link to this petition on their homepage. Look underneath "New Navigation Boulevard."

Brady house at 3805 Wilmer no longer on HAR. . .also removed from the real estate agent's website. Shucks, I had just about convinced myself to pony up the dough and try my hand at restoring it. Hopefully the buyer has similar aims!

A big problem is that unless someone can find a viable commercial use for the building, it probably is doomed to the landfill. Who wants to live in between a warehouse and a vacant lot used for light industrial purposes?

That's easy: someone who wants to live in a cool old house a block or two from a light rail station. That's a pretty rare combination! Add in a dash of having been baptized at and having attended for years Blessed Sacrament church a couple blocks away, and you've got a potentially good fit. Potentially. But that potential candidate would also want to make sure that some of the charm on the outside remains on the inside. . .

I've walked around on the lot, and the house is really far gone. It'd be a complete money pit to try and restore, and is bordered on two sides by industrial properties. It's not that restoration couldn't be accomplished (if whole sections of the house were 100% rebuilt), but it certainly couldn't be done at a recoverable cost if the home were put back on the market for sale. And even if the GHPA had surplus funds, it just seems like they could be utilized to more effectively further GHPA's mission somewhere else.

Hey Niche, from the pictures on HAR the main house itself looks (perhaps superficially) sound, and the parts that really look shoddy are the wooden extensions that have been built out on the rear and the side. Does that seem about right in your estimation? Did you feel that it might be reasonable to restore at least the main part of the house? (I know you can't really answer that, just asking for your best guess!)

I know it's just a naive, overly optimistic pipe dream. . .but damn, is that one cool, unique house.

That smaller Brady house is still for sale on HAR, wow, what a history, it's from 1917. Looks very spooky, and what is that concrete thing around the base for? Does the house sit on an incline?

http://search.har.com/engine/dispSearch.cf...mp;backButton=Y

Man, I'd love to take a peak inside that house, but the owner and real estate agent, Susan Delgado, isn't showing it off. She's selling the house as investment property -- ie, for the land, and as such her target buyers don't have any need to see the house. What a shame! Such a magnificent, historic house targeted for a teardown. I wonder if she'd be willing to do an open house for a number of interested/curious people at once. . .

Tonight at the Eastwood Civic Association monthly meeting, METRO will be giving a presentation on the East End line, presumably focusing on the grade separation, and the East End Chamber of Commerce will be giving a presentation on recent developments on the underpass. The dueling presentations should make for an interesting spectacle -- and hopefully inspire some thoughtful debate. All are invited and encouraged to attend!

What: Eastwood Civic Assocation meeting

Where: Cape Center, 4501 Leeland (Leeland@Ernestine)

When: 6:30 PM

I suppose I don't need to add. . .GO UNDERPASS!

I see this as having little to do with commuting.

One of the main excuses for this thing is to improve traffic commutes on 290 -- even though there are far more cost effective (though not necessarily cheaper) way of doing just that. The worst thing about the Grand Parkway is that it will be taking away county resources from directly tackling the real, existing transportation problems we face. Planning for future growth is all well and fine, but you have to take care of the existing problems first. It's like stock investing -- you never start until you pay down your credit card debt. There are SO many other things that Judge Emmett and the gang should be worrying about before they try to tackle issues related to future growth.

As an example of what we SHOULD be doing instead of projects, like the Grand Parkway, take a look at the suburbs of Vancouver (wish I could provide a copy of the map itself instead of just linking to it -- anyone know how?):

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source...mp;t=h&z=14

Vancouver's suburbs look like suburbs. Nice houses, big yards, cul-de-sacs, the whole 9-yards. But the big difference is the amount of local transportation infrastucture that has been provided. Arterials are very regularly spaced every 1/2-mile. Major, expensive projects like the Grand Parkway are not needed, and traffic works better to boot.

This is about people who work in the energy corridor and the continued westward expansion of that area. There are currently 73,000 people that work there and it has a high growth rate that is likely to continue. Extension of Grand Parkway makes it viable to live in the Cypress area and commute to that region.

Yes, people will continue to live far out west, and yes, they need improved transportation options, but the Grand Parkway is a terrible way of doing that. Major highways like this need an adequate support network, and those just aren't being built. Traffic on I-10 has traditionally been poor and will be poor once again (if it's not already) not because it lacks capacity, but because the local roads around it lack capacity.

Building the Grand Parkway may open up more land (environmentally-sensitive land, at that) to affordable housing, but it's only going to be raising that one shoe further and further up -- and eventually the other one is gonna have to drop. A good friend of mine lives out in Katy, and Clay Road and I-10 are his main/only ways of getting around. His traffic situation is currently atrocious, but the Grand Parkway is just going to dump more vehicles on those already-congested roads. He needs more options, more local roads, so it doesn't take him 10 minutes to get to the grocery store, or 45 minutes to get to his relatively close job at the Beltway. That's only going to happen if we start focusing on building up infrastructure to serve existing residents and not on devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to projects that will only serve to further stress that infrastructure.

From the Harrisburg Merchant's Association:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Houston, February 4, 2009

The East End is about to lose its most important development. The "Paseo de las Americas". Since 2001 several Harrisburg Merchants started working on transforming historic Harrisburg Boulevard into a hot spot for Houston tourists. The inspiration came from seeing the huge appeal of San Antonio's Riverwalk and Mexican villages to tourists. The proposed master plan shows a development of retail, restaurants and museums from the railroad tracks to Macario Garcia Street that includes Gus Wortham Golf Course and Brays Bayou, an area that could be converted into a County Club and a Riverwalk. To date, over 20 million dollars were spent to develop this area which included.

Marbella Plaza and Banquet Hall, Web devices, Family Dollar Stores, Turimex Bus Station, Las Palmas Shopping Center, Value Village Complex, Citgo Gas Station, Washateria and Popeye's restaurant and others..

The Paseo de las Americas and approximately 40 stores will be lost if Metro builds an overpass on the railroad tracks at Hughes St. Every civic organization in the East End supports an underpass and not an overpass for this area. Councilmember James Rodriguez recently expressed to a local newspaper that he never heard of this development which was widely broadcasted by the local, national and international press. In 2005, then Chief of Staff James Rodriguez attended two of the group's meetings.

This week our organization will start posting banners in our businesses to oppose the construction of an ill-planned bridge that will destroy our proposed development and the character of the East End.

Should the overpass be approved, Houston will be deprived of the development opportunities in this area and businesses and families depending on their income will suffer.

Harrisburg Merchant Association

For additional information

Please Contact

Architect Julio del Carpio

Plaza Marbella

713-926-7265

On Monday, February 2nd, Congressman Gene Green and Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia will be meeting with senior staff at METRO to discuss the grade separation on Harrisburg. Gene Green, at the Eastwood Civic Association's November meeting, promised to secure federal funding for an underpass. If I've managed to convince anyone over the course of my postings on this subject that an underpass makes the most long-term sense for the community, then please call the Congressman and Commissioner and let them know that you think an underpass is best for this location and encourage them to work with METRO to make it happen!

Commissioner Sylvia Garcia: 713-755-6220, sylvia.garcia@pct2.hctx.net

Congressman Gene Green: 713-330-0761

Thanks!

this is not true. it's all about design. the bridges over 59 have separate paths.

Note that I specified "separately graded" path. The side paths on the 59 suspension bridges are at the same grade as the main lanes, ie, no grade.

Musicman, do you honestly feel that an overpass would be better for the East End?

The overpasses usually have an alternate route of travel that stays on the ground which is suitable for cyclists and pedestrians. The underpasses rarely do.

I thought your argument was that overpasses were more cyclist-friendly than underpasses, and if that's the case, why would an overpass require an alternate route of travel? You're really not arguing for or against an overpass or an underpass; what you're really arguing against is poorly-designed grade separation in general and nothing inherent to either particular type. Correct me if I'm wrong. Furthermore, your examples of poorly-designed underpasses are aeons old, back when the design standards for roads consisted of little more than "build a road." We're hopefully more enlightened nowadays, and I think more recently-designed grade separations would, in fact, suggest that we are.

My problem with underpasses is that they provide insufficient facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. Could they include walkways alongside? Yes, however they rarely do. In fact, Harrisburg already has at least one underpass that I can think of that does not provide decent passage for cyclists. Navigation as well. Overpasses are much more accommodating.

As a cyclist, I heartily disagree. In fact, considerations for cyclists and pedestrians was my initial impulse for pursuing this project. METRO's bridge is designed with a sidewalk, but it is minimal. Most cyclist will not choose to use it, because pedestrian traffic will probably be significant. And in any case, pedestrians and cyclists will have to go up/down the same slope as all the other vehicles. With an underpass, the sidewalk could be designed at a much shallower grade:

At the very least, we could potentially have something like this with an underpass. Having a separately graded path for cyclist/pedestrians is impossible with a bridge.

Even when having to use the main lanes, I still prefer underpasses to overpasses. With an underpass, you can build up speed to help you get up the impending incline. But with a bridge, the best you can do is have a fun ride down. . .before you have to stop at the light at the bottom.

Go try riding up the Navigation overpass sometime. Or the TC Jester bridge north of I-10. I HATE riding up those damned things -- UNLESS I'm training. But we're not designing this infrastructure primarily for athletes. This is more for the people trying to get to work and school, or maybe a restaurant or park. After trying riding those overpasses, go ride along Allen Parkway with its underpasses. Go ride under the Harrisburg underpass east of Dowling. And then you come back and tell me that 2000 foot long bridges are more accommodating to peds and cyclists than underpasses.

if you can confidently say that and underpass doesn't draw loiters that's great, but it's not true. they'll go where they can find shelter and not be bothered. check out the one on n main and the one on 75th. that urine smell isn't random.

Musicman, I don't believe either of those underpasses are comparable. First, neither are in very busy areas. The North Main underpass is surrounded by parking lots on one side, a warehouse on another, and a handfull of houses. The 75th Street underpass has a neighborhood on one side, and a couple of strip malls on the other. There's also a park, which will admittedly draw some pedestrian traffic. But neither can compare to the activity that everybody wants and expects to see on Harrisburg, and as Discovery Green has proven, activity discourages loiterers. With an underpass, there will lots of people walking down those sidewalks because that will be the only way to cross the tracks. With an overpass, there will be NOBODY down at street level, because you have to go OVER to cross the tracks. Which of those two scenarios do you think is more likely to attract people who don't necessarily like being noticed?

Second, both of those underpasses are ancient, with outdated accesibility and lighting. The North Main underpass is one of the scariest places in the world. It's a freaking cave. I don't even know if it has any lighting whatsoever. Furthermore, 500 feet of it are underground. For this Harrisburg underpass, no more than 200 feet would be covered. Likely, it would be far less, because the steel-girder railroad bridges themselves are not much wider than the trains that use them. Furthermore, we would insist that it be built with oustanding lighting and sufficient sidewalks. The lighting would be such an insignificant part of the overall cost that we could probably demand the sun down there without breaking the bank.

I can think of a ton of other underpasses where I've never seen any loiterers. On the other hand, I would have a hard time thinking of a single bridge that doesn't attract them.

it's hard to believe something that is still spreading misinformation. so who is the Harrisburg Merchants Association again?

Honestly, I don't really know. All I know about them is that Julio del Carpo seems to be at the helm, and he's the architect who built the Marbella banquet hall between 66th and Cesar Chavez. Julio -- and, allegedly, the Harrisburg Merchants Association -- have put together many renderings of what he wants Harrisburg to become, so I just took it that the group had the vision and the resources to transform Harrisburg. Julio hosted Rick Noriega's birthday last Thursday at Marbella, and the mayor was there, and he apparently listened very attentively to what Julio was saying about the bridge's impact on the community. James Rodriguez also seems to care what Julio and the Merchants Association think. Beyond that, I don't know much about them.

By the way, I take exception to your baseless accusations that anyone is spreading misinformation. I have spent months personally researching this grade separation, and I am through and through confident in what's on that flyer. If you'd be willing to get more specific, I would be more than happy to specifically address your concerns.

FYI (maybe FEI - for everyone's information?)

I updated the original posting with the revised flyer. I believe the original flyer is still available by clicking on the image, which links to my Google Picasa folder.

And that's the last update, for real. Now take it, be fruitful with it, and multiply it.

Since there is no at-grade crossing with the below grade crossing you suggest, what about the (overpass) critics that claim that having a design that would have no crossing feel that it would hurt the various businesses in the area.

Do you think this would silence those people as well?

I'm not sure I understand. Neither option - over or under - includes at-grade crossings, and as far as I know nobody is using the lack of at-grade crossings to argue against/for either option. Instead, both options would offer U-turn loops for access to adjacent properties. Neither grade crossing solution is going to be wonderful for those businesses, but an underpass would impact a whole heck of a lot less of them.

But you failed to mention if there is going to be an at grade crossing.

If there is an at grade crossing, the costs will jump significantly if the railroad doesn't chip in for the construction.

Sorry, I missed the question. No, there will be no at-grade crossing. That obviously creates concerns for a major flooding event, but that just necessitates proper attention to building an adequate pump station and related drainage infrastructure. The Fannin underpass at Holcombe does not have a major flooding problem (it has only flooded a handful of times since the construction of the Main Street line). There are many underpasses around Houston that don't have flooding problems; because we're designing this one from scratch, we can make sure this is one of them.

I'm very interested in seeing the cost data that everyone keeps referencing with regard to underpass vs. overpass.

The entire Harris County study is here: http://www.eng.hctx.net/pdf/freight_report.pdf. The detailed cost breakdown for the Harrisburg underpass is in the appendices. An important thing to note about this study is that out of all the grade crossings Harris County looked at (12, I think?), Harrisburg was only one of 3 or 4 that was recommended as an underpass. I asked the engineer in charge of the study why they made that recommendation, and he said that they didn't feel a bridge was appropriate for the level of development and activity in the area. It's the same reason you wouldn't stick a massive overpass in the Medical Center and instead go with an underpass along Fannin. The Medical Center just has louder and more powerful advocates standing up for it.

They also want to know if there have been any new developments in negotiations between Metro, the city, and UP.

Actually, yes. At the METRO CAB meeting at the East End Management District last Thursday, a representative with the Gulf Coast Freight Rail District claimed that UP had told him that they didn't care whether the grade crossing went over or under. They just care that their service is not disrupted. The Harris County estimate includes a shoo-fly bypass track, which is the standard way of maintaining freight service while building an underpass. METRO's reluctance to work with UP has been a major sticking point on this underpass issue; I'm hopeful UP's apparent willingness to play ball will ease METRO's discomfort.

not too confident if you made statements like this.

What? I said I was confident about the bullet points, and I am. The statement about cost refers back to the bullet point about cost, obviously, which talks about potential. There's nothing absolute about that. The best evidence we have suggests an underpass may cost less than what METRO is proposing for the bridge. We have a study from Harris County that looked at this exact same location, and they estimated an underpass at $16 million in 2004 -- half of the cost of METRO's bridge. In my opinion, that's enough evidence to have confidence about the potential of something!

Thanks for the feedback, everyone!

For the record, I am not employed by the Chamber of Commerce or Harrisburg Merchants Association. I am a resident of Eastwood who is excited about the possibilities for Harrisburg, and I am volunteering my time to help the neighborhood reach its potential. The East End has been awaiting a "Renaissance" for as long as I can remember, and I'm ready for it.

As for Harrisburg never becoming a Riverwalk, that's fine -- the Riverwalk is too artificial and Disneylike for my taste anyway. But I think there is a lot we can learn from it, such as the utility in creating a pedestrian zone with a lot of activity.

Harrisburg has more homeless than most other part of the East End. This is coming from the existing business owners along Harrisburg who complain about it a lot. This is also from my own experiences -- there are a lot of people who loiter along Harrisburg. I couldn't care less as they've always been nice to me. . .but developers do care. However, I'm going to change to flyer to say "criminal loiterers" (or something else? recommendations?) instead of "homeless people," because I don't want to turn this into a war against the homeless

Generally, underpasses have more upfront costs than overpasses, absolutely true. Whether that outweights the long-term benefits of an underpass is debatable. There are many particulars at this location, however, that could potential bring an underpass more in line with the cost of the bridge. The basic reason is that the bridge would have to be twice as long, requiring that many more materials and right of way takings. Musicman, the differences are drastic enough in this case that I feel confident bullet pointing them even before final designs are released.

Wouldn't it give your cause look a bit more legit to make sure these little issues are fixed BEFORE you bring them out in public?

Yes. I looked for feedback before I started distributing it, and nobody gave me any! I guess you guys are just a lot more critical. . .or maybe just more aware of how to make these kinds of things effective. I'm learning as I go.

We've got the time

Yeah, but do I?

A Harrisburg overpass will be over twice as long as an underpass because:

1. Overpass will have to go over freight trains. Freight trains can be very tall, somewhere in the neighborhood of 22-25 feet. A bridge has to completely clear that. The tallest thing an underpass will have to clear are the light-rail vehicles, which require about 15 feet.

2. East Belt rail line is at a higher grade than Harrisburg. The freight tracks are several feet higher than Harrisburg. IE -- there's a bump there as you drive over the tracks. Those extra feet add to the clearance a bridge needs. Conversely, they take away from the required depth of an underpass.

3. ADA Compliance. A bridge cannot go any steeper than a 5% grade because the accompanying sidewalk can't be too steep for people in wheelchairs. The sidewalk of an underpass, however, is not constrained to the same depth/grade as the main lanes. Therefore, the slope of the underpass is determined by the light rail vehicles, which require a slope of no more than 7%. Steeper slope = shorter incline for a given height.

4. Caylor Street must remain open. Houston Armature Works owns warehouses on either side of Harrisburg and uses Caylor as an access road. Because of the above three considerations, a bridge will not be able to descend before Caylor and thus must remain in the air over Caylor. An underpass, because of the above considerations, will be able to reach grade by Caylor, and its length is thus unaffected by the need to keep Caylor open.

Two comparable locations: the Navigation bridge over the same freight tracks (almost 2000 feet) and the Fannin underpass under Holcombe (a little over 1000 feet). The Harrisburg bridge will be longer than the Navigation bridge because of the Caylor requirement. There should be no substantial difference in length between the underpasses.

who supplied the information for the flyer? there appear to be a few misnomers in the text.

I put together the flyer with the help of the East End Chamber of Commerce. I'm working on a revised copy with more information -- I was just anxious to get something out there for people to start looking at. Let me know of any mistakes and I'll fix them.

Something else to consider: even if an underpass ends up costing more, I believe it would still be worth it. Along Harrisburg is where we have developers like Frank Liu and Julio del Carpo buying up property and trying to turn it into something that serves the community. I for one am dying to see more grocery and restaurant options in the neighborhood, and Harrisburg is the natural location for these projects. It's also where a rather expensive light rail line is going, which I think is a pretty good sign that Harrisburg is where METRO and the City expect development to happen too. But many of those same developers who want to build these things for the community and take advantage of the proximity to light rail are saying that a 2000-foot bridge will make it a LOT harder, if not impossible.

The East End subforum has a poll about what people would like to see in the East End. I strongly believe we are going to be seeing ALL of those things built (grocery, restaurant, bars, entertainment, etc) if we don't put obstacles in their way. And a bridge is just that kind of obstacle. And it's going to be an obstacle for 50-100+ years. How much would a good alternative to the Cullen Kroger be worth? How much would an alternative to Mexican food (the East End has some damn fine TexMex, but not much else) be worth?