I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[texan]

44 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

I didn't get that vibe 🤣

In fairness, 8,170 comments out of an MSA with 7 million people.

Out of curiosity, did anyone on here submit a comment?  I didn't . . . other than here, of course.

Looks like there was a real opportunity to mobilize people on both sides and, at the end of the day, neither side really did.  Maybe most of the 5K "pro" comments were mobilized by the GHP and local chambers of commerce.  Still way lower than I would have expected.

While 8,170 comments out of the 7 million people in the metro is not a lot, Commissioner Bugg did say this was a record for public engagement for TxDOT. So this project will have the most representation by the community it's in of any TxDOT project.

Edited August 31, 2021 by texan

[mattyt36]

2 hours ago, texan said:

While 8,170 comments out of the 7 million people in the metro is not a lot, Commissioner Bugg did say this was a record for public engagement for TxDOT. So this project will have the most representation by the community it's in of any TxDOT project.

Just shows how disengaged everyone is, which was the point many of us were making all along in the face of blanket statements implying there was some burgeoning lack of support.  

I wish someone could explain the next step in the County lawsuit.  I doubt the Chronicle will write anything of substance other than that the lawsuit is still pending.  I personally haven't seen a summary of (and the legal basis for) the complaint, but, then again, I haven't done much digging.  One article mentioned the County suing under the Civil Rights Act.  So far no press release on the County Attorney's website.  (Nothing from the Mayor's Office, either.) 

[Triton]

I commented in favor, since I live very close to the highway. I am a firm believer we need more mass transit in this city and I am hoping the city works closely with TXDOT to build BRT along the center. That being said, I-45 is incredibly dangerous here on the Northside and the old designs just don't work anymore here, like the 610 and I-45 intersection.... that needs to be rebuilt to match more modern patterns.

[samagon]

according to this article they have approved this contingent upon FHA coming to a decision in the next 90 days.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/I-45-project-still-on-the-table-with-90-day-16425828.php

they also have a breakdown of the money spent so far. of the $500 million spent, nearly $400 million has been land acquisition. 

regarding the 8,000 comments out of 7,000,000 people, there's more than enough people to consider it a representative sample. if 2,500 people out of the 7,000,000 had been chosen at random, that would be a representative sample with a 95% confidence level. increase that to 4,200 and you can have a 99% confidence level. the problem is that this isn't a representative sample, it's a call for comment, to have a representative sample, you need to choose the respondents at random, considering demographics. this didn't do anything of that sort. so we can't really come to any conclusions about what these 8,000 comments mean for the opinion of the greater Houston area.

it's interesting to note the article didn't mention the lawsuit at all.

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

according to this article they have approved this contingent upon FHA coming to a decision in the next 90 days.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/I-45-project-still-on-the-table-with-90-day-16425828.php

As suspected, nothing much of substance as to the procedure in the Chronicle article.  Why has the FHWA put the project on hold?  Because of "concerns related to its impacts on minority and low-income communities."  A bit general, there.  Concerns related to what exactly?  Under what legislative or regulatory authority? 

The March 8 cease and desist letter (available Federal Highway Administration Asks Texas To Halt I-45 Expansion, As Harris County Sues TxDOT – Houston Public Media) references 3 letters sent to TxDOT citing concerns under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act--one by Sheila Jackson Lee (in December 2020), one by the Air Alliance Houston (January 2021), and one by Texas Housers (also January 2021), a low-income housing group.  Title VI states:

§2000d Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color or national origin

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Needless to say, it's pretty broad.

The letter states that FHWA needs additional time to evaluate the concerns raised and to "[determine] whether any further actions may be necessary to address these concerns" and states that it will "expedite its efforts to resolve any issues as quickly as possible."

So, as of yesterday, it appears TxDOT is giving FHWA 90 days to complete this process, which I guess means December 1.  And it appears that the FHWA's concerns are wholly related to the nondiscrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

Harris County then sued TxDOT shortly thereafter, citing NEPA and the agency's failure to give proper "environmental consideration for all projects requiring federal action."  Title VI also applies to environmental determinations, so I'd guess that's the main thrust of the Harris County lawsuit as well:

Title VI and Environmental Justice | US EPA

The record of decision (RoD) was issued by TxDOT under a memorandum of understanding with the FHWA in February 2021.  (This is normal, the sponsor agency completes the NEPA process.)

Record of Decision - North Houston Highway Improvement Project (txdot.gov)

So going forward I guess the universe of outcomes is:

1) The FHWA could complete its review of the Title VI concerns without any findings

2) The FHWA could complete its review of the Title VI concerns with findings for TxDOT to remedy

3) The FHWA (or EPA?) could take action (sue?) to invalidate the RoD, which would make the project ineligible for federal funding

Independent of those scenarios, however, the Harris County lawsuit could proceed until it was dropped, dismissed, or determined.  

Seems like the most likely scenario of the above is (2), which results in some compromise of allowing some initial work (perhaps Segment 3) to proceed while the concerns are remedied such that FHWA and the County can save face.  Then the County would drop its lawsuit.

It seems like all of this may have started in October 2020, when TxDOT specified the minimum 30-day comment period for the RoD.

Critics: 30-day window to comment on I-45 project far too short for generation-lasting rebuild (houstonchronicle.com)

So maybe this most recent comment period for the State transportation plan was a way to sort of address that (although admittedly it is not the same formal process).

I don't understand why a reporter whose sole job is to report on Houston transportation can't spell those things out and help connect the dots.

1 hour ago, samagon said:

regarding the 8,000 comments out of 7,000,000 people, there's more than enough people to consider it a representative sample. if 2,500 people out of the 7,000,000 had been chosen at random, that would be a representative sample with a 95% confidence level. increase that to 4,200 and you can have a 99% confidence level. the problem is that this isn't a representative sample, it's a call for comment, to have a representative sample, you need to choose the respondents at random, considering demographics. this didn't do anything of that sort. so we can't really come to any conclusions about what these 8,000 comments mean for the opinion of the greater Houston area.

True, but above you stated you weren't surprised with the response.  What exactly are you insinuating here, and what course of action would you propose?

1 hour ago, samagon said:

it's interesting to note the article didn't mention the lawsuit at all.

As the French say, quelle surprise.

[samagon]

I think you missed a part of the universe of outcomes

4) FHWA is unable to complete their review in 90 days, and TxDOT removes the project.

and I think you're reading into my words too much, I'm not insinuating anything, or suggesting a course of action. I'm just saying that I'm not surprised by the results of the comment feedback, and that we shouldn't treat the comments as a proper representative sample of support for/against.

[mkultra25]

20 hours ago, samagon said:

as @JClark54 mentions, still gotta get past the FHA issues with the project, and they have to get through the lawsuit from the county as well.

I was very much expecting the people being for this project to be in the majority, and I have to look to Star Trek for guidance, as this is tough moral ground upon which we walk.

clearly, logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, which we learned in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

but then, we learn in the beginning of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, that while the logical answer is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, that the human thing to do is to put the needs of the few ahead of the needs of the many and that these two concepts are at odds.

anyway, using character development arcs from science fiction movies probably won't do much here other than to get a sensible chuckle from a few, or draw ire from others, but whatever, it's how my brain works.

"I'm a doctor, not a highway engineer!" said Bones, as he pondered the body of a redshirt who'd dared to venture onto I-45. 

 

[Luminare]

3 hours ago, samagon said:

according to this article they have approved this contingent upon FHA coming to a decision in the next 90 days.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/I-45-project-still-on-the-table-with-90-day-16425828.php

they also have a breakdown of the money spent so far. of the $500 million spent, nearly $400 million has been land acquisition. 

regarding the 8,000 comments out of 7,000,000 people, there's more than enough people to consider it a representative sample. if 2,500 people out of the 7,000,000 had been chosen at random, that would be a representative sample with a 95% confidence level. increase that to 4,200 and you can have a 99% confidence level. the problem is that this isn't a representative sample, it's a call for comment, to have a representative sample, you need to choose the respondents at random, considering demographics. this didn't do anything of that sort. so we can't really come to any conclusions about what these 8,000 comments mean for the opinion of the greater Houston area.

it's interesting to note the article didn't mention the lawsuit at all.

This is a very worthy critique. I was actually surprised that they were able to breakdown the comments by region, out of region and unknown. Wasn't expecting any sort of transparency with that. If I were running things I would certainly have hired one who does polling on the daily, to not only construct a survey, but also could reveal with precision certain specifics. Right off the bat we should know neighborhood, distance from the highway, time spent on the highway daily, where do they typically get on and where they typically get off, and which option do they prefer. Even if people prefer the funding and project as is, that doesn't really say which option they prefer.

You are absolutely right. This could be a lot more thorough, but as you said yourself this was historic turnout for a comment round, and any pollster regardless of precision of who is who would love to get 8000 comments for anything.

I think it would have been nice to also highlight typical complaints, or typical mentions for why they support. That would have been nice to see.

All this means though is that there is room for improvement in the future, and at the vary least while one may not like what TXDOT is doing or does at the very least its clear they are following a process, and are trying to be as transparent as they think they can or should be. Whether it should be more or less, or what can be improved can be adjusted for the next big project.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Luminare

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

I think you missed a part of the universe of outcomes

4) FHWA is unable to complete their review in 90 days, and TxDOT removes the project.

That's, as "they" say, patently absurd.  We're back to being unserious, I see.

The FHWA "unable to complete" and takes no action?  And TxDOT says on Day 91, "Oh well, guys, thanks for trying.  We said 90 days and you couldn't complete it.  We understand.  Oh well, $500MM down the drain--que será, será."  Nevermind the implications for all future highway projects in the state.

1 hour ago, samagon said:

and I think you're reading into my words too much, I'm not insinuating anything, or suggesting a course of action. I'm just saying that I'm not surprised by the results of the comment feedback, and that we shouldn't treat the comments as a proper representative sample of support for/against.

I know, you're "just asking questions," right?

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

This is a very worthy critique. I was actually surprised that they were able to breakdown the comments by region, out of region and unknown. Wasn't expecting any sort of transparency with that. If I were running things I would certainly have hired one who does polling on the daily, to not only construct a survey, but also could reveal with precision certain specifics. Right off the bat we should know neighborhood, distance from the highway, time spent on the highway daily, where do they typically get on and where they typically get off, and which option do they prefer. Even if people prefer the funding and project as is, that doesn't really say which option they prefer.

Yikes if you are suggesting that polls should factor into any of these decisions.  Who would be allowed to vote (certainly a propos these days)?  How would you weigh the responses?    

[samagon]

37 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

That's, as "they" say, patently absurd.  We're back to being unserious, I see.

The FHWA "unable to complete" and takes no action?  And TxDOT says on Day 91, "Oh well, guys, thanks for trying.  We said 90 days and you couldn't complete it.  We understand.  Oh well, $500MM down the drain--que será, será."  Nevermind the implications for all future highway projects in the state.

I know, you're "just asking questions," right?

come on now, seriously? I presume you didn't read the article because of paywall, but I still have to say, Seriously?

from the chron article I linked:

Quote

“It is not the local support that's the problem. It's Washington, D.C., (that) is the problem, impeding our ability to go forward with this project,” Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Bruce Bugg said.

“We will give FHWA 90 days and we will come back and revisit this,” Bugg said. “After the 90 days have expired we will discuss what to do with the project.”

He said if the issues have not made progress, the commission could start the process of removing the project from the long-term plan. TxDOT Executive Director Marc Williams said removing the project would require another 60-day public comment process.

is there some other interpretation of this string of words than how I read it? 

all that FHWA says in response is that they have resources to complete in a timely manner, not that they're trying to meet TxDOT timeline.

Quote

In a statement, federal officials said FHWA “is providing the resources to complete the reviews in a timely manner and will communicate the results upon completion.” Officials did not specify whether that would be within the deadline set by the transportation commission, or acknowledge any of the state’s conditions.

so yeah, I fully expect that TxDOT will sit down on day 91 and revisit this, as they have said they would.

if you didn't read it because of a paywall, maybe next time don't engage in the discussion when you don't have all the facts of the story, or at least ask for a citation?

Edited September 1, 2021 by samagon

[mattyt36]

58 minutes ago, samagon said:

come on now, seriously? I presume you didn't read the article because of paywall, but I still have to say, Seriously?

Sammy, dear, I have subscribed to the Chronicle in print for long before it ever had a paywall.  Can't say I've ever gotten (or am getting) my money's worth, but there's only one shop in town.  So don't you worry.

58 minutes ago, samagon said:

is there some other interpretation of this string of words than how I read it? 

Um, yeah.

If you think:

“We will give FHWA 90 days and we will come back and revisit this,” Bugg said. “After the 90 days have expired we will discuss what to do with the project."

Translates into 

"FHWA is unable to complete their review in 90 days, and TxDOT removes the project."

Well, I'd say you'd have some serious reading comprehension issues.  Maybe I've been wrong all along and "unserious" is the wrong word to use.

But, in any case, keep on with the wishcasting . . . 

Edited September 1, 2021 by mattyt36

[samagon]

28 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

Sammy, dear, I have subscribed to the Chronicle in print for long before it ever had a paywall.  Can't say I've ever gotten (or am getting) my money's worth, but there's only one shop in town.  So don't you worry.

Um, yeah.

If you think:

“We will give FHWA 90 days and we will come back and revisit this,” Bugg said. “After the 90 days have expired we will discuss what to do with the project."

Translates into 

"FHWA is unable to complete their review in 90 days, and TxDOT removes the project."

Well, I'd say you'd have some serious reading comprehension issues.  Maybe I've been wrong all along and "unserious" is the wrong word to use.

But, in any case, keep on with the wishcasting . . . 

I was adding that 4th option to the 3 you already stated. it is by far not the only option. if you don't think that is a possible outcome then YOU are wishing.

I re-engaged in good faith, but you are showing that's not a thing.

Edited September 1, 2021 by samagon

[mattyt36]

33 minutes ago, samagon said:

I was adding that 4th option to the 3 you already stated. it is by far not the only option. if you don't think that is a possible outcome then YOU are wishing.

I re-engaged in good faith, but you are showing that's not a thing.

Sam, your option is possible only in the sense that it can be written into a sentence and can therefore be read. 

There is zero logic behind TxDOT as currently constituted letting a rogue and uncooperative FHWA effectively cancel a project a decade in the making without "fighting back," be it through a lawsuit, reengaging with FHWA on potential redesign, etc.  After all, it's not just NHHIP we're talking about here . . . it'd set a precedent for the FHWA to cancel every future highway project in the state on a whim.  And, as you have acknowledged, TxDOT is highway-oriented, run by a lot of extremely highway-centric people, and the administration isn't changing anytime in the next 90 days to say, "Oh well, we gave it our best, let's just remove it and move on."

Ergo I stand by my description of your option as absurd, but if you want me to re-label it as "not very likely," fine.  These days the best case scenario for NHHIP to be canceled is probably someone sues the State for I-45 abetting people getting to Planned Parenthood faster.

2 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

That's, as "they" say, patently absurd. not very likely.

Edited September 1, 2021 by mattyt36

[samagon]

17 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Sam, your option is possible only in the sense that it can be written into a sentence and can therefore be read. 

There is zero logic behind TxDOT as currently constituted letting a rogue and uncooperative FHWA effectively cancel a project a decade in the making without "fighting back," be it through a lawsuit, reengaging with FHWA on potential redesign, etc.  After all, it's not just NHHIP we're talking about here . . . it'd set a precedent for the FHWA to cancel every future highway project in the state on a whim.  And, as you have acknowledged, TxDOT is highway-oriented, run by a lot of extremely highway-centric people, and the administration isn't changing anytime in the next 90 days to say, "Oh well, we gave it our best, let's just remove it and move on."

Ergo I stand by my description of your option as absurd, but if you want me to re-label it as "not very likely," fine.  These days the best case scenario for NHHIP to be canceled is probably someone sues the State for I-45 abetting people getting to Planned Parenthood faster.

I am curious then, if TxDOT didn't mean what they said, then why do you think they said it?

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

I am curious then, if TxDOT didn't mean what they said, then why do you think they said it?

Sam, if you think "We will give FHWA 90 days and we will come back and revisit this,” Bugg said. “After the 90 days have expired we will discuss what to do with the project" means, "Hey, FHWA, if you don't come to a decision within 90 days, we will just drop it," well, then, I'm not sure what to tell you.  It either means you have never involved in a negotiation of this kind, or you're being deliberately obtuse or disingenuous.  Or, hell, both.  TxDOT might as well cancel it now.  Wink, wink. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by mattyt36

[samagon]

willful ignorance?

Quote

He said if the issues have not made progress, the commission could start the process of removing the project from the long-term plan.

so again. I am curious, if TxDOT didn't mean what they said, then why do you think they said it?

[mattyt36]

58 minutes ago, samagon said:

willful ignorance?

so again. I am curious, if TxDOT didn't mean what they said, then why do you think they said it?

What is the conditional tense? - Conditional tense - GCSE German Revision - BBC Bitesize

What is the conditional tense?

The conditional tense is used to say what might happen under certain conditions.

TxDOT could do a lot of things, of which this is one.  In another world, they could build a commuter rail system.  But that'd require a hell of a lot of very unlikely things to happen first, as we have discussed.

Let me suggest a likely scenario:

DUG BEGLEY: "What is TxDOT's next step in the process?"

TXDOT: "We will give FHWA 90 days and we will come back and revisit this.  After the 90 days have expired we will discuss what to do with the project.”

DUG BEGLEY: "Does that include the possibility that the project is removed?"

TXDOT: "Yes, we could do that."

DUG BEGLEY: "What would that entail?"

TXDOT: "Another 60-day comment process."

Sam, let's try again with some holistic thinking.

I have presented plenty of obvious arguments as to why this scenario makes zero sense.  You have conveniently ignored engaging with any of them.  I'm not surprised--it's how you roll.  You're scrupulously literal when you need to be and fantastically figurative whenever it suits.

I'll ask you yet again, what is your theory as to exactly why would TxDOT remove the project wholesale if FHWA sits on its review?  

In the spirit of holistic thinking . . . note that from a political perspective, ending the project is not a winner in any way for the Biden Administration, in the same way it's not a winner for the Abbott administration to withdraw its request with its tail between its legs.  Why?  Because it is a gift to the Texas Republican Party in that it is a great, (on the surface) non-culture war issue to appeal to the suburban voters they have lost in droves to say, "Look what the elitist liberals in the City of Houston and Harris County are doing to the suburbs.  They want you to sit in traffic because they think it will force you to move into a city with real estate you can't afford, with much higher taxes, where you will be forced to send your kids to poor performing schools.  They don't want us to be able to use the gas taxes that you have paid into the system to make your lives a little easier.  Not only that . . . they want to waste half a billion dollars that was already spent."  These ads write themselves.

Hell, they can point to posts in this very thread that say that very thing unabashedly.

Edited September 2, 2021 by mattyt36

[samagon]

you keep going on about plausibility, we're not having the same conversation. I fully understand both the denotative and connotative definition of the word "could", and I understand what it means in the context of what the spokesperson for TxDOT stated.

I will rephrase the question, maybe you'll get it this time and answer the question asked, rather than go on about something else entirely?

why would TxDOT go on record and say:

Quote

“We will give FHWA 90 days and we will come back and revisit this,” Bugg said. “After the 90 days have expired we will discuss what to do with the project.”

and then provide this as a possible outcome of the revisitation?

Quote

He said if the issues have not made progress, the commission could start the process of removing the project from the long-term plan. 

 

Edited September 2, 2021 by samagon

[mattyt36]

7 minutes ago, samagon said:

you keep going on about plausibility, we're not having the same conversation. I fully understand both the denotative and connotative definition of the word "could", and I understand what it means in the context of what the spokesperson for TxDOT stated.

I will rephrase the question, maybe you'll get it this time and answer the question asked, rather than go on about something else entirely?

why would TxDOT go on record and say:

and then provide this as a possible outcome of the revisitation?

 

Sammy, this question has been thoughtfully answered multiple times above. If you can’t connect the dots, well, then, that’s on you.

[sapo2367]

https://www.accurateautoadvice.com/buying/car-buying-negotiation-tips-patience-and-walking-away/

[mattyt36]

New article in today's Chronicle, with Turner stating that the TTC chairman misrepresented his position by saying on 8/31 that Turner supported the project.  Turner referred to a MoU between the City and TxDOT proposed by the City on 8/30.

Turner: TxDOT leader misrepresented my position on I-45 project (houstonchronicle.com)

The actual MoU is available at https://www.scribd.com/document/525534277/Agreement-on-I-45#download&from_embed

From a quick reading of the MoU (which originated from the City . . . the article doesn't mention if the text was based on any formal or informal negotiations . . . if it purely reflects the City's position, then I'd say it's more of a term sheet), the major provisions are:

-Increased support for dislocated residents

-Design changes to mitigate floods

-Reducing the footprint of the expansion where possible (but rather soft language if you ask me) 

-Collaboration language re transit, neighborhood connectivity, and parks that I'd characterize as "soft" and serving simply to memorialize what is already in the plan

In terms of likely outcomes, it seems like the best chance for the project proceeding is some agreement in this form between the City and TxDOT, which would be used as a vehicle to satisfy the USDOT review as the preferred "local solution."  Not sure how Harris County fits into Segment 3, if at all, due to it being entirely within the city limits.  I'm not sure why TxDOT wouldn't agree to the spirit of the MoU, but there may be a long list of reasons.  The biggest may be so as not to create a new precedent as to how to deal with relocations.

Edited September 16, 2021 by mattyt36

[j_cuevas713]

21 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

New article in today's Chronicle, with Turner stating that the TTC chairman misrepresented his position by saying on 8/31 that Turner supported the project.  Turner referred to a MoU between the City and TxDOT proposed by the City on 8/30.

Turner: TxDOT leader misrepresented my position on I-45 project (houstonchronicle.com)

The actual MoU is available at https://www.scribd.com/document/525534277/Agreement-on-I-45#download&from_embed

From a quick reading of the MoU (which originated from the City . . . the article doesn't mention if the text was based on any formal or informal negotiations . . . if it purely reflects the City's position, then I'd say it's more of a term sheet), the major provisions are:

-Increased support for dislocated residents

-Design changes to mitigate floods

-Reducing the footprint of the expansion where possible (but rather soft language if you ask me) 

-Collaboration language re transit, neighborhood connectivity, and parks that I'd characterize as "soft" and serving simply to memorialize what is already in the plan

In terms of likely outcomes, it seems like the best chance for the project proceeding is some agreement in this form between the City and TxDOT, which would be used as a vehicle to satisfy the USDOT review as the preferred "local solution."  Not sure how Harris County fits into Segment 3, if at all, due to it being entirely within the city limits.  I'm not sure why TxDOT wouldn't agree to the spirit of the MoU, but there may be a long list of reasons.  The biggest may be so as not to create a new precedent as to how to deal with relocations.

All the issues we've already been talking about. They didn't agree because they don't care. 

[mattyt36]

40 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

All the issues we've already been talking about. They didn't agree because they don't care. 

Yes, one would expect a proposed MoU between two opposing parties to address the issues that have been raised.  That checks out.

How you get from 1 to 2, I'm not sure.  But I suppose that's a possibility.

Edited September 17, 2021 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

From the "It Could Be Worse" department . . . Twitter series on "Pictures of Highways in China."  I guess the only good thing you can say is at least most don't have feeders?

Noah Smith 🐇 on Twitter: "Pictures of highways in China https://t.co/d8yMYCUlRu" / Twitter

 

[samagon]

txdot is back in the news.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/highway-protest-state-of-txdot-stop-i45-16544935.php

not a great look.

[mattyt36]

Ridiculous.  The event is being run by TAG, not TxDOT.  That's like expecting any other NGO with a policy platform to pay to rent space and feed people from an NGO with the complete opposite policy position.  It'd be no different than the DNC being forced to admit Republicans to an official event for free when all of their members paid a nominal admission.  Or Planned Parenthood hosting a fundraiser and being required to admit anti-abortion activists for free.  It may not be a "good look," as noted in the article (although that's quite the stretch for anyone but an entirely unserious person), but one would be entirely disingenuous if they said this was anything other than a routine annual event.

From the article:

"I think people are just now paying attention to the fact that we've done these things for the last 10 years," French said. "We cannot host a free event at the Omni, that's just not something we are able to do with our budget, certainly not several events a year. We have to charge something to cover the sheer cost of hosting a luncheon. I think there is a perception that we are bigger and wealthier than we are, and that's just not true.

"I get it," French said. "I understand how the optics look."

Spoiler alert: Anyone can buy tickets here, for the same price as everyone else.

State of TxDOT 2021 | Oct. 21 - TAG Houston

Edited October 21, 2021 by mattyt36

[j_cuevas713]

On 10/21/2021 at 10:45 AM, mattyt36 said:

Ridiculous.  The event is being run by TAG, not TxDOT.  That's like expecting any other NGO with a policy platform to pay to rent space and feed people from an NGO with the complete opposite policy position.  It'd be no different than the DNC being forced to admit Republicans to an official event for free when all of their members paid a nominal admission.  Or Planned Parenthood hosting a fundraiser and being required to admit anti-abortion activists for free.  It may not be a "good look," as noted in the article (although that's quite the stretch for anyone but an entirely unserious person), but one would be entirely disingenuous if they said this was anything other than a routine annual event.

From the article:

"I think people are just now paying attention to the fact that we've done these things for the last 10 years," French said. "We cannot host a free event at the Omni, that's just not something we are able to do with our budget, certainly not several events a year. We have to charge something to cover the sheer cost of hosting a luncheon. I think there is a perception that we are bigger and wealthier than we are, and that's just not true.

"I get it," French said. "I understand how the optics look."

Spoiler alert: Anyone can buy tickets here, for the same price as everyone else.

State of TxDOT 2021 | Oct. 21 - TAG Houston

Then why not host it in a place where everyone has a voice? lame excuse

[mattyt36]

40 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Then why not host it in a place where everyone has a voice? lame excuse

It's a private event, put on by a private organization that asked a government agency to present.

Should Mayor Turner not address the Greater Houston Partnership every year with his State of the City address?

If UH asks Lina Hidalgo to come make a presentation on education, is she supposed to say, "Oh, no can do, have to open it up to everyone?"

How about if the HAS Director is asked to address United Airlines employees on the expansion of IAH?

If Joe Biden gets a tour of an auto factory and addresses its employees on a potential change to trade policy?

HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.  The article as written is irresponsible in not noting this basic truth if you ask me.  Get Stop IH-45 Now to invite the TxDOT guy (in good faith, of course, which is probably a bridge too far at this point).

People aren't thinking clearly YET AGAIN.  You guys don't like NHHIP, I get it.  But there is no there there.  Just stick with "I really just don't like NHHIP," because, at the end of the day, it is the explanation for 90% of the comments on here.  It's not about presentations by TxDOT at the Marriott, it's not about demolishing low income housing, it's not about pollution.  You want some Euro Disney dreamland with trains everywhere, no matter how financially unfeasible or operationally nonsensical it is.   

Edited October 30, 2021 by mattyt36

[ADCS]

I want trains everywhere too, but stopping the NHHIP isn't going to get us anywhere closer to that.