I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[004n063]

On 3/10/2023 at 4:44 PM, JClark54 said:

The above plan to move traffic off Polk is the exact opposite of what you preach.

Sorry as I'm sure somebody's explained it before, but can you elaborate on this? What exactly is happening to Polk?

[Triton]

On 3/10/2023 at 4:44 PM, JClark54 said:

I'm not saying stop the project. But to say activists weren't engaged until the end is not based in reality in any measurable way. We can disagree on topics, and I accept that, but the above comment is horrible and beneath a moderator. 

Beneath a moderator?

I attended every single TXDOT meeting on this project. I can't even count how many times I ran into Dug Begley from the Chron and if they hosted the same information but at different locations, I still attended them all because nobody was listening to the arguments the Northside neighborhoods were trying to present. I wasn't an activist. I was just a regular person who had my concerns. 

There was barely anyone talking about the serious flaws (except for perhaps us on HAIF and I believe MaxConcrete?) until, I remember quite vividly, a heated exchange happened between TXDOT officials and activists at the Irvington Blvd meet up at Harris County Department of Education building. Mattress Mac was there and he spoke out against it too. But at this point, we were nearing the final decision. The last schematics had been out there for months. 

And boy, was I excited when the city presented their own designs. I went over those schematics for hours because I was impressed by the major changes they wanted to incorporate. They showed all these beautiful concepts of rerouting roads and connecting communities. But by then, yet again, we were only so far away from TXDOT making a final decision. 

I was and still am a part of the Stop 45 Coalition on Facebook in order to hear their thoughts and engage on common ground (though obviously, none of them wanted this project, hence the name). But in all that time I joined them and attended the meetings, there was barely anyone from that team engaging TXDOT from the first designs they released and it didn't start growing, again, until closer to the time that the final decision was about to be made. See a pattern? 

A few random politicians would show up at these TXDOT meetings like Karla Cisneros but they would talk for two minutes and then be out of there.

Look, you can hate that I'm saying this and say it's not based in reality, whatever, but either way, this has to be a learning experience for all. 

They need to be going to the media as soon as the very first schematics are released and presenting alternative plans. 

[JClark54]

17 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Sorry as I'm sure somebody's explained it before, but can you elaborate on this? What exactly is happening to Polk?

Vehicular access to downtown on Polk is not included in the project's current scope. Connections will occur at Leeland, Lamar, McKinney, Walker and Rusk for the half of the east end west of the Galveston subdivision, but another project supported by TxDOT since 2012 will cut off access to those streets except Leeland if it gets the green light. 

Leeland will be the primary connector to neighborhoods beyond EaDo on one side of the Galv sub, such as Eastwood, Lawndale/Wayside, etc. It is a well-known West Belt blocked crossing, however. So traffic coming down those streets will hit the dead end or a train, or both, and cut through the neighborhood streets looking for a way around. 

Despite what Triton says, the neighborhoods were engaged the moment the downtown letter requesting Polk's closure was made public. Quite a few made the flaws known. I know because I was there. Not in the Stop 45 manner, but to save Polk, the only crossing of the West Belt on that side of the Galveston Sub.

Edited March 13, 2023 by JClark54

[004n063]

5 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

Vehicular access to downtown on Polk is not included in the project's current scope. Connections will occur at Leeland, Lamar, McKinney, Walker and Rusk for the half of the east end west of the Galveston subdivision, but another project supported by TxDOT since 2012 will cut off access to those streets except Leeland if it gets the green light. 

Leeland will be the primary connector to neighborhoods beyond EaDo on one side of the Galv sub, such as Eastwood, Lawndale/Wayside, etc. It is a well-known West Belt blocked crossing, however. So traffic coming down those streets will hit the dead end or a train, or both, and cut through the neighborhood streets looking for a way around. 

Despite what Triton says, the neighborhoods were engaged the moment the downtown letter requesting Polk's closure was made public. Quite a few made the flaws known. I know because I was there. Not in the Stop 45 manner, but to save Polk, the only crossing of the West Belt on that side of the Galveston Sub. 

Some here argued with Samagon many moons ago that drivers can just take Harrisburg. That's true to the extent there is access, but the data from the cameras and sensors placed on that line have shown it is blocked -- either by a moving train or a parked one -- some 40-50 percent of the day on average.  

Dang. Is Polk being shut down for bikes and pedestrians as well? Or just cars?

Also, unrelated, but aren't McKinney and Lamar already blocked by GRB? And Harrisburg has underpasses and overpasses at all railroad crossings, no?

[JClark54]

Harrisburg has an underpass, yes. Using it to access the neighborhoods west/south of Harrisburg means taking your chances with the Galveston Subdivision. It's blocked by moving or parked trains for 40 to 50 percent of the day, which has been proven by resident cameras and city sensors installed as part of a grant program. 

A train had an 11-hour sit from York to Hughes last week. 

There's also the East Belt, which is entirely at grade on that side of Harrisburg, too. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by JClark54

[004n063]

4 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

Harrisburg has an underpass, yes. Using it to access the neighborhoods west of Harrisburg means taking your chances with the Galveston Subdivision. It's blocked by moving or parked trains for 40 to 50 percent of the day, which has been proven by resident cameras and city sensors installed as part of a grant program. 

A train had an 11-hour sit from York to Hughes last week. 

There's also the East Belt, which is entirely at grade on that side of Harrisburg, too. 

But isn't all of that well east of the NHHIP? Like, if you cross at Leeland, couldn't you just take Emancipation or any other n-s street up to Polk once you'd crossed?

[JClark54]

The other TxDOT-supported project that will dead end all those connector streets is further east, so it's more than just the NHHIP. The neighborhood concerns stem not from closing Polk in a singular instance, but closing Polk coupled with the upcoming project designed by TxDOT to improve access to 45 at Scott.  

Yes, you most certainly can make the jag to Polk from Leeland at Scott/Sampson/York, and locals will. Those who don't live there and are driving through likely don't know the crossing exists, though. When they hit the train, they already drive like crazy through the hoods looking for ways around. Funneling all traffic onto Leeland will only exasperate it, and TxDOT said those concerns will likely be realized.

Wayfinding signage similar to that of downtown may alleviate the issue, but TxDOT and the city have not been receptive to this request at current. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by JClark54

[samagon]

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...

[Houston19514]

To be clear, drivers using Polk Street will still be able to access downtown pretty easily, with a short detour around the depressed freeway.  Inbound - take right on St Emmanuel, use the U-Turn lane to get on to Hamilton and then a right back on to Polk. Outbound, take a right on Hamilton, left on Leland, left on St Emmanuel back to Polk (or just continue on Leeland for a while).

3 hours ago, JClark54 said:

The other TxDOT-supported project that will dead end all those connector streets is further east, so it's more than just the NHHIP. The neighborhood concerns stem not from closing Polk in a singular instance, but closing Polk coupled with the upcoming project designed by TxDOT to improve access to 45 at Scott.  

Yes, you most certainly can make the jag to Polk from Leeland at Scott/Sampson/York, and locals will. Those who don't live there and are driving through likely don't know the crossing exists, though. When they hit the train, they already drive like crazy through the hoods looking for ways around. Funneling all traffic onto Leeland will only exasperate it, and TxDOT said those concerns will likely be realized.

Wayfinding signage similar to that of downtown may alleviate the issue, but TxDOT and the city have not been receptive to this request at current. 

What is the other TxDOT project being referenced?  Can someone provide a link?

[004n063]

29 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

To be clear, drivers using Polk Street will still be able to access downtown pretty easily, with a short detour around the depressed freeway.  Inbound - take right on St Emmanuel, use the U-Turn lane to get on to Hamilton and then a right back on to Polk. Outbound, take a right on Hamilton, left on Leland, left on St Emmanuel back to Polk (or just continue on Leeland for a while).

What is the other TxDOT project being referenced?  Can someone provide a link?

I am also confused. It's very hard to picture what JClark is describing, and I've heard nothing about dead-ending a bunch of streets further east. If anybody has or can find more information about this second project, sharing it would be greatly appreciated.

[Houston19514]

Just now, 004n063 said:

I am also confused. It's very hard to picture what JClark is describing, and I've heard nothing about dead-ending a bunch of streets further east. If anybody has or can find more information about this second project, sharing it would be greatly appreciated.

FWIW, I can't find it on TxDOT's website or in the HGAC Regional Transportation Plan.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

To be clear, drivers using Polk Street will still be able to access downtown pretty easily, with a short detour around the depressed freeway.  Inbound - take right on St Emmanuel, use the U-Turn lane to get on to Hamilton and then a right back on to Polk. Outbound, take a right on Hamilton, left on Leland, left on St Emmanuel back to Polk (or just continue on Leeland for a while).

What is the other TxDOT project being referenced?  Can someone provide a link?

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.

[Houston19514]

27 minutes ago, samagon said:

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.

One imagines there will be stop lights at the intersections of St. Emmanuel and Polk (just last there is now at Chartres & Polk), and at St. Emmanuel and Lamar as well.  "Problem" solved.

[samagon]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

One imagines there will be stop lights at the intersections of St. Emmanuel and Polk (just last there is now at Chartres & Polk), and at St. Emmanuel and Lamar as well.  "Problem" solved.

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.

[JClark54]

5 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

To be clear, drivers using Polk Street will still be able to access downtown pretty easily, with a short detour around the depressed freeway.  Inbound - take right on St Emmanuel, use the U-Turn lane to get on to Hamilton and then a right back on to Polk. Outbound, take a right on Hamilton, left on Leland, left on St Emmanuel back to Polk (or just continue on Leeland for a while).

What is the other TxDOT project being referenced?  Can someone provide a link?

Yes, there is a way around it -- a fact I never refuted. The above actions you referenced would occur in a perfect world. They will not be followed by the casual driver through the area nor the freight-hauling 18-wheeler driver. 

Drivers already hit Leeland or other non-separated corridors and fly through residential streets looking for a way around. Funneling traffic to Leeland or others will only exasperate it, as TxDOT stated at many a meeting in the east end.

That being said, I didn't come here to discuss these two projects that, in combination, will funnel traffic onto non-separated streets. I felt obligated to respond to the claim about activism. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

My reference to the long-planned West Belt grade separation should not be interpreted as opposition. I am stating -- as Samagon has tried many times only to be shouted down -- that when combined with the 45 realignment, mobility for the Eastwood and Lawndale/Wayside half of the east end will be severely hamstrung. 

TxDOT has stated the key corridor will be Leeland, a fine street but one without a crossing. There is a hefty amount of freight truck traffic to and from downtown, obviously. Those who know Polk use it, while others re-route through the neighborhood only to realize it's a triangle of rail traffic that may or may not be moving. Happens daily now, just to a lesser degree with Polk as a viable direct connection. 

The York drop is a major win for mobility across the Galveston Sub, yes. It's a must, really. Data shows the line is blocked at least 20 minutes per hour on good days, and more on worse ones. The Class Is have also stated they predict freight rail traffic to increase 50 percent or more over the next 10 years. If that's the case, the line will be blocked at least half the day, every day, in a best-case scenario. But a byproduct of the drop is streets are being dead-ended. The Galv sub and west belt are too close together, so the proposed drop is continuous. Maybe one day those streets will be carried under like York, but until then traffic in both directions will hit dead ends and funnel to the designated through street.

An optimal solution would keeping Polk or adding a crossing at Leeland. TxDOT has indicated there is zero traction for either one.  

Edited March 13, 2023 by JClark54

[Triton]

16 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Despite what Triton says, the neighborhoods were engaged the moment the downtown letter requesting Polk's closure was made public. Quite a few made the flaws known. I know because I was there. Not in the Stop 45 manner, but to save Polk, the only crossing of the West Belt on that side of the Galveston Sub.

Let me rephrase what I am saying because now I am unsure if we are saying the samething or not. I draw a distinction between activists who wanted considerable change thus got politicians to block this project and the nearby neighborhoods affected by this project.

Let's start off, the neighborhoods were active from the start. There's no question there and my earlier comment even said I was active from the start (should have made clear I was representing a Northside neighborhood). These neighborhoods became especially active once the first real schematics were made available to the general public. Our area, the Woodlands Heights and Near Northside, were notified that TXDOT planned to demolish the North St bridge and not replace it with a newer one. So much for trying to build connectivity!

So as soon as we were made aware of this, the neighborhoods tried working with TXDOT in more of a guidance sort of role. We knew these were preliminary designs so we didn't go to the media... It was nothing too pushy but we made it very clear that we were concerned about TXDOT's plan to remove the bridge and we wanted to know how they would mitigate it since Travis Elementary's school zone goes from the Woodland Heights over I-45 to Near Northside. After much discussion, TXDOT and the city said they would expedite a hike and bike trail running along Little White Oak Bayou once the newer bridge for I-45 is in place. Now, this still didn't make many families happy so we pushed more to Super Neighborhood 51 to get them active. We began pushing hard for some sort of elevated bridge that would still allow vehicular traffic, especially for parents who need to get in a car and drop their kids off at school.

After much back and forth, the best we got was that they were going to try to improve N Main's connectivity (bike lanes and wider sidewalks) to keep some sort of connectivity. TXDOT said that the newer I-45 design prevented the North St bridge from ever being there. So that's where we ended up landing. Not sure I can call it compromise but it was better than nothing.

Now, in all that time... in all that back and forth... this being a couple of years, there was no yelling about how this disproportionately affected minorities. I barely even heard anyone talk about mass transit in the early schematics... no BRT nor light rail, again except for people on this forum. If grand visionaries were attending any of these TXDOT meetings in the beginning, they must have kept quiet because most of the discussions centered around people concerned for their own blocks. I think if anyone wanted substantial change to this project, they should have been vocal loudly from the very start. I don't mean a street connection missing here or a bike lane missing there.... I mean, substantial change. You know, the reason this project was blocked in the first place. I'm talking groups like the Stop 45 Coalition. But that never happened. Those voices came too late to the show and by then it was clear that the city already liked what they saw because most of their own utopia designs built around what TXDOT planned to do (edit: with a few exceptions like reconnecting Runnels St.!)

My whole point was, I just hope this is a learning experience for when the next major highway project is incoming. Unfortunately, loudness is now key from the start.

[samagon]

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.

Edited March 14, 2023 by samagon

[Triton]

16 hours ago, samagon said:

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.

I can agree with you there. 

[Houston19514]

On 3/13/2023 at 4:13 PM, samagon said:

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.

Just as there is a stoplight at Polk now, at the end of the current 900-foot-long freeway exit ramp, there will be a stoplight at the end of the new, 1800-foot long freeway exit ramp, also at Polk.  It should be quite easy for inbound Polk traffic to transition to the left side of St. Emmanuel to access the U-turn lane, given the stopped cross traffic and the 600+ feet they have in which to do it (not 300 ft as you claimed).

TXDoT plans two westbound lanes on Leeland to Hamilton.  I imagine extending the westbound lane beyond to Chenevert is up to the City of Houston.

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

Just as there is a stoplight at Polk now, at the end of the current 900-foot-long freeway exit ramp, there will be a stoplight at the end of the new, 1800-foot long freeway exit ramp, also at Polk.  It should be quite easy for inbound Polk traffic to transition to the left side of St. Emmanuel to access the U-turn lane, given the stopped cross traffic and the 600+ feet they have in which to do it (not 300 ft as you claimed).

TXDoT plans two westbound lanes on Leeland to Hamilton.  I imagine extending the westbound lane beyond to Chenevert is up to the City of Houston.

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 :)

[Houston19514]

30 minutes ago, samagon said:

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.

As is your habit, you seem to now be moving the goalposts. So now you are feigning concern about the northbound St. Emmanuel traffic getting to the u-turn lane?  (Any such traffic heading in to downtown would more likely take Leeland or Pease, so doesn't seem like a big issue).

Edited March 15, 2023 by Houston19514

[cspwal]

I’m interested in how the 4 year time line will affect development in east downtown - I would think knowing you have 4 years would attract a bunch of short term concepts to make a buck

[samagon]

18 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

As is your habit, you seem to now be moving the goalposts. So now you are feigning concern about the northbound St. Emmanuel traffic getting to the u-turn lane?  (Any such traffic heading in to downtown would more likely take Leeland or Pease, so doesn't seem like a big issue).

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:

On 3/13/2023 at 11:17 AM, Houston19514 said:

To be clear, drivers using Polk Street will still be able to access downtown pretty easily, with a short detour around the depressed freeway.  Inbound - take right on St Emmanuel, use the U-Turn lane to get on to Hamilton and then a right back on to Polk. Outbound, take a right on Hamilton, left on Leland, left on St Emmanuel back to Polk (or just continue on Leeland for a while).

What is the other TxDOT project being referenced?  Can someone provide a link?

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.

Edited March 16, 2023 by samagon

[JClark54]

18 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

As is your habit, you seem to now be moving the goalposts. So now you are feigning concern about the northbound St. Emmanuel traffic getting to the u-turn lane?  (Any such traffic heading in to downtown would more likely take Leeland or Pease, so doesn't seem like a big issue).

Thanks for confirming any such traffic heading to downtown would more likely take Leeland. It most certainly is a major issue. 

The TxDOT-backed project is the West Belt separation, which they first released a study in 2012. Houston city council voted in February to seek a grant to cover a percentage of the local obligation. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

[samagon]

4 hours ago, samagon said:

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 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.

[deb bonario-martin]

On 3/10/2023 at 8:15 AM, samagon said:

"I think this is not a very good take.

look at it from the perspective of someone living in poverty who is working more than 1 job to pay rent, or afford food for their kid. maybe they have time to see an article on this, or hear about it on the news? but who are they going to engage? 

I have to believe that every one of the people who saw way back when that this was going to be a thing wanted to be a part of the process, but due to financial constraints, being a responsible parent, or other things that life throws at you when you are living paycheck to paycheck (as many of the affected people do), that doesn't leave you a lot of time for activism."

 

Spot on. 

37 of Houston's 88 designated super neighborhood groups are defunct, with only about half of the 51 with active bylaws participating- so a couple dozen of Htown's best-informed and represented zip codes in the room where it happens. Our Northtown/Northline Civic Assoc began rebuilding SN#45 Northline after Harvey- a territory with 60k resident stakeholders in 4 zip codes where civic clubs are relics of the past, failing to materialize and/or are infeasible. Metro's #96 Route skips the only park in our parks desert (Northline Park) and despite being prioritized for greenspace in HPARD's 2015 report, District H is currently siphoning off Northline Park to luxury developers at Parker Rd

Our area in Segment #1 (Northtown Plaza) remains a food, medical, park, art, resource desert but we're seeing more new small condo developments touting HOAs around the many low-income apartments and trailer parks. We've petitioned the Dept of neighborhood to add in resident groups from apartments and trailer communities but will see what happens. A digital desert without sidewalks, bus covers, benches or shelters- looks like I-45 at Tidwell isn't even scheduled for a BRT station.

 

[hindesky]

Reddit houston u/henrey713 posted a pic of a fire, comments said it was at Clayton homes. Every time I've gone by lately the gate is wide open. Vagrants + empty buildings x cold weather=fires.

[hindesky]

https://abc13.com/2-alarm-fire-in-houstons-east-end-runnels-street-apartment-complex-near-navigation/12975302/

1919 Runnels St.