samagon

probably just their fancy way of saying they're going to have a heat pump, which in Harris County, for the type of development that it is, it probably will be the first to have a heat pump.

I drove over this on Sunday, this needs to be the model for Houston at every intersection that is intended to be high pedestrian use. I'd even go so far as to say that the city needs to get rid of the random road bumps in residential areas and put these at every pedestrian street crossing in residential areas. it's simply terrific to slow down drivers when they need to be slower.

where the Harrisburg HHA consideration is a good location, this is a bad location. sure it's on a comfort bike lane, and there is bus service, but TXDoT is about to shut Polk down going into downtown, so what's the future of bus service on Polk going to look like? the location is half a mile from the closest LR station, and access to grocery stores is even more bleak. if they want to force affordable housing into this section of the east end, they need to go ahead and do it where housing already exists, and no one is occupying it. TXDoT should be working a deal with Houston to turn the 2 remaining apartment buildings next to the soccer stadium into affordable housing. the light rail stop is right outside the doors, and that light rail works for 2 different lines, green and purple. it is a food desert as well, but it's 10x better than this spot.

it is indeed. is it actually a space they own, or lease? it always seemed to me that whoever was in charge of that building was just letting it be used for this. considering the proximity to light rail, this is a good spot for HHA. for someone without a car though, this is a bit of a food desert, and hopefully that's addressed. it's a half mile walk from the Wayside light rail station to Fiesta on Wayside, or Sellers Brothers on Canal. I think those are the closest options that aren't overpriced convenience stores, or Walgreens or CVS (again, overpriced). it'd be cool if Aldi would drop a store at Harrisburg and Wayside.

they only allow it outdoors, at least that's the law.

the red line numbers are inflated by the Rodeo, looking at Jan '23 (most recent) the average weekday boardings for the red line are almost 32,900, green and purple are 3600 and 3800 respectively, average weekday boardings. I wish the previous year growth tables showed more than 5 years, everything is thrown off by covid, all of the lines are still down from pre-covid levels. the one thing that is true of the monthly 5 year is that all of the services are seeing growth, across the board. which is great. pretty handy to have the link for the ridership reports as well: https://metro.resourcespace.com/pages/collections_featured.php?parent=16661

., you should have told her your car was private property, and she can't take pictures.

I went to Eden Plant Co for some coffee yesterday morning. cool place. coffee is an ok price, plant prices are somewhat ridiculous, but the atmosphere is great. after, we took a drive around where this is all going to be. it'll be pretty big and cool if they can pull it off.

life on this forum is better, of course I still have to see matty when others quote him, but at least I don't have to see everything.

because you saw the field day that the stopi45 people had with the lofts by the light rail that were torn down for the i45 project. if TXDoT doesn't want the negative press associated (and it appears they've learned), they keep these things standing until the very last minute.

@Some one Matty36 has a MO of changing the subject when it's one he doesn't agree with, but can't really refute. there is no doubt that fixed right of way high volume transit options increase development and density. every freeway is high volume transit, albeit one of the most inefficient. so yeah, build a freeway, and developers build apartments, big box stores and other things with huge parking lots to service those transit corridors. in the suburbs, the freeways weren't built in such a manner as to service the higher density that already existed. they were built in pastures and the developers built single family homes on 10,000 sf of land, apartments and malls and big box stores next to the freeways because that freeways makes it a mass transit corridor. and there's proof right here in Houston that regardless of the mode of fixed mass transit you build (thereby creating a mass transit corridor), whether it is freeway, or light rail, with enough bake time, the higher density developments come. every freeway spurs higher development than was there previously that's without dispute, well, so does light rail, and the density it builds is even greater. look up and down the red line, which has had 20 years to mature, the transformation of density along that corridor is clear. and you can start to see the same transformation along the green and purple lines. and it's important to note you can't count just buses riding on a normal street as transit that creates density along that corridor. Metro can redraw the bus map tomorrow along whatever corridor it wants, but TXDoT can't just move a freeway overnight, nor can Metro move the red, green, purple, or silver line easily, where a bus stop on a street corner isn't permanent, freeways, LRT and BRT are a very permanent statement to developers of higher density. the irony of it all is you have people like Matty36 who are so quick to speak volumes about how one form of mass transit corridor (freeways) can create higher density and serve so many, but at the same time they decry every other form of mass transit as something that doesn't work. it's kind of silly, if you think about it. regarding converting BRT to LRT, I agree, it is very disappointing. I recall at some point during the process of the line in the Galleria area when it was switched from LRT to BRT it was stated that they were building it in such a way so that it could be converted to LRT in the future. I guess it's just easy to presume that if that is indeed how they built it, that any future BRT corridor would be the same. long term, I think it's a poor decision, but at the end of the day, the University line is going to be transformational, whether it is LRT, BRT that can later be LRT, or just BRT in perpetuity.

yep, check it out tomorrow morning, it's a shame the rain can't wait another day, with tomorrow being St. Patrick's day, we need green bayous!

more construction to come for i45 (north of BW8 up to loop 336). https://communityimpact.com/houston/conroe-montgomery/development/2023/03/15/txdot-to-transform-i-45-corridor-north-to-conroe/ this article links back to another with 3 proposals.

I would like to point out (and I can't edit that post any longer) that currently, traffic on Chartres cannot turn left on Polk (I think I had mentioned that in a previous reply) so as it sits now, traffic going into downtown from points south that are traveling on Chartres will turn on Pease or Leeland right now anyway, the difference there is that with Leeland at least, they get to go directly to Bell, which is very convenient (even for people already on Leeland from EE). so yeah, the point still stands, people on Polk who choose to turn right onto St. Emanuel are absolutely on St. Emanuel and not just Polk drivers trying to get back onto Polk, anyone on St. Emanuel will have a hard time accessing that u-turn lane. so that point is very valid.

the goalposts are exactly where you set them: inbound traffic on Polk turns onto St. Emanuel (thusly they are NB traffic on St. Emanuel). here's your statement: but yeah, ANY traffic on St. Emanuel (regardless whether they are coming immediately from Polk or not) trying to access that u-turn lane that isn't coming immediately off the freeway is not really going to be able to use it. thanks for pointing that fact out as well. I'll hold out hope that TXDoT has the exit lanes signaled in some way to allow local traffic access. as far as whether it's feigned or not, well, it's two logical fallacies in one post that you've done (you've accused me wrongly of moving the goalposts, and now the ad hominem). why would you need to try and insult me if your argument was able to stand without resorting to that? and yes, I live in the East End, and yes I travel on Polk when I have to go downtown. so this is hardly feigned.

yes, and that is a great example, there is a stoplight on Chartres/Polk that includes people exiting from 59. the difference here is that people on Chartres cannot even attempt to turn left, it is illegal to do so from those lanes. I mean, I guess the people on St. Emanuel will have a fighting chance to get into the u-turn lane, 300 ft of it, but again, with the amount of people who exit the freeway currently at Polk, this will be easier said than done. yes, I know they have 2 WB lanes, and it would be awesome to see at least 1 lane continue WB to Chenevert. you aren't expressly disagreeing with me, so I'll take that as something we both agree should happen, it's good to see we agree on one thing at least :)

this is 100% true, BRT is cheaper to build, but not cheaper to operate. I wonder what the break even time is? https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/introduction/why/designing-move-people/ so yeah, from that perspective, I guess it remains to be seen. BRT is proven to spur development and raise property values, but can it raise them as much as LRT, which has far higher capacities?

fair point, I got it from this article:https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2011/02/lrt-or-brt-it-depends-potential-corridor/ I confess, I didn't do a heap of research, and that article is from 2011. I changed some search criteria for my googling and it looks like some additional studies have been done and it's generally believed that BRT will also generate density and increase property values (taxes for the city), but whether it can create more density and higher property values that LRT, that study I can't find, but yeah, to the point... https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/01/12/new-evidence-that-bus-rapid-transit-done-right-spurs-development/ http://websites.umich.edu/~econdev/brt/index.html

I'd prefer light rail, vs BRT. there's a lot of good reasons for this, primary being that when developers see very permanent transit (and tracks in the ground vs curbs on the street are a bit more permanent), they are going to invest in high density that takes advantage of that permanent transit solution. anyway, BRT still gives a fixed guideway, hopefully with reliable short wait time transit, is cheaper to implement, and at some point in the future, perhaps the hardware can't be upgraded easily, but the ROW will be there for light rail once our future of single occupant BEV (vs ICE cars) cannot be realized with our current 'drive everywhere' mindset. and that's really the thing, if the future of our world is to move everyone into BEV, we cannot sustain the overall mileage we currently do as a country, there needs to be a disruptive technology change in batteries, and the grid needs a serious overhaul to carry the additional needed capacity to charge those batteries. either that, or we need to stop sprawling, start densifying, and building out serious mass transit solutions so we aren't forced to maintain such mileage needs.

I think a lot of people did what they could. saying that they did it the wrong way, or they didn't do enough, I don't think that's a fair statement. sure you saw what happened at the meetings you were at, but how many people contacted officials, or took other steps? time is the one constant, but everyone has different amounts of it to dedicate to things. some people literally cannot afford to spend the time being an activist, or even attend meetings. which means the best they can do is contact the people who were elected to represent them. it seems like the elected representatives made a stand when it became public and their jobs were threatened the people they represent weren't being heard, so they 'tried' to take it a step back so everyone could have a seat at the table to decide how our city moves forward. some call it kabuki theater, I call it a dog and pony show, but it achieves the same end, they look good to their constituents that real change was made, but the greater interests of the people paying for their campaign funds through donations aren't affected. but I'm a cynical person when it comes to politics.

benefit of the doubt, maybe you missed that there is a 2 lane freeway exit that dumps drivers 300ft in front of the u-turn that is supposedly for local traffic for the loss of the Polk freeway crossing? the part circled is a freeway exit that dumps 2 lanes of drivers 300ft before that u-turn lane. unless the stoplights are stopping people from exiting the freeway, you're going to need to explain to me how stoplights help people who are on St. Emanuel easily access that u-turn lane? it really doesn't matter. most people trying to get from the East End into downtown on Polk will need to jog over to Lamar before they get to St. Emanuel. I still hold out hope that TXDoT is able to work with the city to keep one lane on Leeland a WB lane all the way to Chenevert, that would allow people to cross the freeways at Leeland and then turn right on Chenevert to get over to Polk as another alternative.

this u-turn? traffic will be backed up onto the freeway at most times trying to exit here from the freeway. unless I'm missing an arrow somewhere this is a 2 lane exit from 59 to St. Emanuel, it looks like it narrows to 1 lane as it dumps less than 300ft from the u-turn intersection? considering the amount of traffic that currently exits the freeway at the Polk street exit from 59 right now it won't be easy to get into that u-turn lane even at the best of times, and considering how fast people will probably go on St. Emanuel, it won't be particularly safe being stopped in the middle lane with your blinker on to enter the freeway exit to access the u-turn. it's pretty clear that this u-turn isn't designed for the local traffic, it's designed for the people exiting the freeway who would have normally turned left on Polk. the 'easiest' path for local traffic is to turn right on Hutchins, left on Lamar, left again and then right onto Polk. as far as leaving downtown, people are going to be better off turning right on La Branch, then left on Leeland, and then left on St. Emanuel to get back over to Polk. anyway, the loss of Polk isn't the end of the world, we're just doing our part so that cross town commuters will have a quicker drive for the 5 to 10 years it takes until induced demand slows everything down again.

just 3 going up projects in one shot. but yeah, there is the light rail station challenging anyone who denies that permanent fixed guideway (whether light rail, or BRT) spurs dense development. you can also see some of the southern portions of the properties that will be developed into the 'concept neighborhood' near 201 Roberts street in the top left of the photo.

3 for 1 on this shot!

yup, there is one grade separated crossing into the beyond EADO area of East End from downtown, and that is on Polk. if you don't know though...