I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[JClark54]

Where are you getting information about Leeland and Polk traffic volumes and patterns? 

 

19 minutes ago, Big E said:

This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

Thanks for the laugh @Big E. Specifically, "the city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it." 

[004n063]

I'll say it again: for anybody on a bike (which is an ever-increasing number), losing Polk is significant. Fixable with proper lanes or paths along Leeland and Rusk, but right now the only safe crossings are Gray and Polk (and kindasorta Runnels). 

[Big E]

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I'll say it again: for anybody on a bike (which is an ever-increasing number), losing Polk is significant. Fixable with proper lanes or paths along Leeland and Rusk, but right now the only safe crossings are Gray and Polk (and kindasorta Runnels). 

All that will probably come down to what the city and state are planning to do regarding extending bike paths and what the sidewalks look like on the bridges. Seems like all the roads are getting new bridges, even the ones with existing bridges, so it will ultimately come down to what the sidewalks look like. In any case, TxDOT have made Bike and pedestrian mobility a major part of their design work, so take solace in that.

 

5 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Thanks for the laugh @Big E. Specifically, "the city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it." 

I mean, at the end of the day, that is what it's going to come down to. Either the city takes the railroads to task for excessive idling, or the city gets around to burying the crossing roads, maybe go after the railroads to make them foot the bill for it, and both of those options are, by your admission, what Chicago is looking at doing. Either way, its an issue that is beyond the scope of the NHHIP to actually address.

 

5 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Where are you getting information about Leeland and Polk traffic volumes and patterns? 

Its just a matter of looking at the existing road network as its currently designed, particularly directions and capacity. Then taking into account the changes brought upon by the NHHIP and comparing. Its rough estimating, but I'm assuming that TxDOT and the City of Houston have both looked at actual more concrete numbers regarding usage, and since both have ultimately signed off on this design and neither made a big deal about Polk (the recent presentations regarding potential changes to the design didn't even mention Polk), they clearly believe that the network won't be severely impacted by losing this one connection.

[JClark54]

7 hours ago, Big E said:

I mean, at the end of the day, that is what it's going to come down to. Either the city takes the railroads to task for excessive idling, or the city gets around to burying the crossing roads, maybe go after the railroads to make them foot the bill for it, and both of those options are, by your admission, what Chicago is looking at doing. Either way, its an issue that is beyond the scope of the NHHIP to actually address.

 

@Big EThis is amazing stuff. Keep it coming.

I never wrote both options are what Chicago is doing. One of the two options you listed literally can't be done at current.

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by JClark54

[samagon]

18 hours ago, Big E said:

Third, I doubt you are more "in tune" with the effects of this project anymore than anyone else here, regardless of whether or not you even live close to the area. Anyone can look at what's added, what's lost, and come to their own conclusions about this project.

you clearly didn't understand what I wrote, so I'll state it again, in another way. hopefully, it'll sink in.

you're absolutely right. there are people in here that have far greater knowledge than I ever will on the effects of this project.

however, I know that based on your responses that I absolutely have more understanding of how this project is going to affect my daily commute and local traffic in the east end than you do. 

and I don't want you to misunderstand, there are other areas within this project that you probably have more understanding than me regarding the effects it will have than I do, and certainly in other topics you make a lot of insightful posts.

no matter, as I stated, this project is happening, it'll suck, I'm moving on.

Edited December 19, 2023 by samagon

[samagon]

14 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I'll say it again: for anybody on a bike (which is an ever-increasing number), losing Polk is significant. Fixable with proper lanes or paths along Leeland and Rusk, but right now the only safe crossings are Gray and Polk (and kindasorta Runnels). 

my hope is that the Columbia tap trail is extended on Walker and that a 2 way bike path is installed on the southbound feeder road (the roadway that is between the freeway and GRB that turns into Hamilton) to get you either to Polk, or to points north of Walker.

Walker is a good option for something like this because like Preston, it's a road that doesn't go anywhere thanks to civic projects, it is 4 blocks long between GRB and Emancipation.

[Houston19514]

17 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I'll say it again: for anybody on a bike (which is an ever-increasing number), losing Polk is significant. Fixable with proper lanes or paths along Leeland and Rusk, but right now the only safe crossings are Gray and Polk (and kindasorta Runnels). 

Bikers will probably end up better off.  While you won't be able to go straight across at Polk, there will likely be better bikepaths over the cap, just to the north, and will definitely be better crossing paths on the bridges across the freeway to the south. The new bridges in the area to the south of Polk are all going to have very nice wide bike/pedestrian spaces on them.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Houston19514

[Big E]

6 hours ago, JClark54 said:

I never wrote both options are what Chicago is doing.

  Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension dude. I said what Chicago is LOOKING at doing, not what they ARE doing. And, yes, that is what you wrote. To quote YOU:

Quote

Representatives from Chicago, an oft-discussed city on this forum, recently testified before the FRA that stopped miles-long freight trains have caused what they deemed as untenable transit harm. The remedy proposed was regulating freight train traffic in the city or compelling railroads to fund separations to alleviate those issues, if they planned to continue parking on public streets.

So yes, Chicago is proposing at potentially either regulating freight traffic or having the railroads fund grad separations.

 

6 hours ago, JClark54 said:

One of the two options you listed literally can't be done at current.

Which one? Be specific, then explain why it can't be done.

 

3 hours ago, samagon said:

however, I know that based on your responses that I absolutely have more understanding of how this project is going to affect my daily commute and local traffic in the east end than you do.

The point is that you've been so hyperbolic about this project and its perceived negative effects, and so obviously dead set against it from the beginning, that it's nearly impossible to take anything you say about the project seriously, since your personal animus towards it is so apparent. When your bias is this obvious, it weighs against considering your viewpoint.

[JClark54]

1 hour ago, Big E said:

  Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension dude. I said what Chicago is LOOKING at doing, not what they ARE doing. And, yes, that is what you wrote. To quote YOU:

So yes, Chicago is proposing at potentially either regulating freight traffic or having the railroads fund grad separations.

 

Please re-read what I wrote: "Representatives from Chicago, an oft-discussed city on this forum, recently testified before the FRA that stopped miles-long freight trains have caused what they deemed as untenable transit harm. The remedy proposed was regulating freight train traffic in the city or compelling railroads to fund separations to alleviate those issues, if they planned to continue parking on public streets."

Chicago reps requested that a federal agency tighten oversight of the industry it regulates during the public comment portion of its regular meeting. So "Chicago is proposing at potentially either regulating freight traffic or having the railroads fund grad separations" is not a new or novel move but rather one that happens regularly on the hill between interested parties like local governments and their federal partners. 

Houston reps were at the same meeting and requested identical relief. Fire Cheif Sam Pena spoke by zoom, and Council member Robert Gallegos spoke in person. Chicago and Houston offered the same proposals, since Chicago proposing something is your focus. 

 

1 hour ago, Big E said:

Which one? Be specific, then explain why it can't be done.

Why are you telling me to be specific and explain why things can't be done when you don't bother to do basic research? You also call me a genius in a cut-down-style manner and question my comprehension when clearly you had trouble with the above.

You wrote the following:

21 hours ago, Big E said:

This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

Local entities have no authority over the railroads.

Edited December 19, 2023 by JClark54

[Houston19514]

 Mods, can we (again) move the discussion about East End railroad crossings to the appropriate thread?

[JClark54]

21 hours ago, Big E said:

This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

Mods, I would politely request for the portions where the Polk crossing was discussed to remain in this thread. The comments were spurred by claims about its status (closure or not), which is pertinent to the project. 

Edited December 19, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 Mods, can we (again) move the discussion about East End railroad crossings to the appropriate thread?

Everyone who has spent decent time here knows why Polk mentions ultimately turn into railroad debates. It happens every time. 

The Polk discussion is brought back from the dead in some fashion -- in this case a remark about all streets connecting. Those familiar with east end traffic write in support of keeping it. Questions are raised as to why? Its status as one of three downtown-connecting streets with a separation is mentioned as an invaluable asset. Then it turns into why can't you just go around it? Later, the ask to move/citation/fine/regulation position.  

If people here don't want to end up reading about trains, simply don't stur the Polk nest. It's clearly a connection many people are opinionated about. Houston has three train trap triangles, as the FRA identifies them. Two are in the east end. One is impacted by the Polk closure.

Edited December 19, 2023 by JClark54

[Big E]

1 hour ago, JClark54 said:

Houston reps were at the same meeting and requested identical relief. Fire Cheif Sam Pena spoke by zoom, and Council member Robert Gallegos spoke in person. Chicago and Houston offered the same proposals, since Chicago proposing something is your focus. 

So then Houston is already trying to do what I proposed it should try to be doing? Then why are we discussing this here then? Houston is already trying to handle the issue. Its a completely separate issue from the NHHIP.

 

2 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Why are you telling me to be specific and explain why things can't be done when you don't bother to do basic research?

So, what your telling me is that you don't actually know which one Houston can't do, so your trying to deflect? You brought it up, you should be able to elaborate. If you can't elaborate on something you brought up, that's not on me. 

 

2 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Local entities have no authority over the railroads.

But the FRA does. So Houston is trying to take the railroads to task over the issues by going to the federal agency that has the authority to mandate they do something about it. They are still holding the railroads accountable, they just have to go through the proper channels to do it.

[JClark54]

8 minutes ago, Big E said:

So, what your telling me is that you don't actually know which one Houston can't do, so your trying to deflect? You brought it up, you should be able to elaborate. If you can't elaborate on something you brought up, that's not on me. 

I know what they can and can't do, and I answered in the graf following. Local governments have no authority over the railroads. So no, I was not deflecting. 

9 minutes ago, Big E said:

But the FRA does. So Houston is trying to take the railroads to task over the issues by going to the federal agency that has the authority to mandate they do something about it. They are still holding the railroads accountable, they just have to go through the proper channels to do it.

Please re-read what you wrote that spurred my local governments have no authority response: The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

If you'd asked what remedies are available, I'd have written requesting help from the FRA. You stated the city will have to take the railroads to task themselves over it. What can the city do to the railroads themselves? Nothing. 

[Big E]

4 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

Please re-read what you wrote that spurred my local governments have no authority response: The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

If you'd asked what remedies are available, I'd have written requesting help from the FRA. You stated the city will have to take the railroads to task themselves over it. What can the city do to the railroads themselves? Nothing.

The cities are taking the railroads to task through the FRA. That's the process they need to go through. As far as I'm concerned, that is taking them to task. 

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, JClark54 said:

Everyone who has spent decent time here knows why Polk mentions ultimately turn into railroad debates. It happens every time. 

The Polk discussion is brought back from the dead in some fashion -- in this case a remark about all streets connecting. Those familiar with east end traffic write in support of keeping it. Questions are raised as to why? Its status as one of three downtown-connecting streets with a separation is mentioned as an invaluable asset. Then it turns into why can't you just go around it? Later, the ask to move/citation/fine/regulation position.  

If people here don't want to end up reading about trains, simply don't stur the Polk nest. It's clearly a connection many people are opinionated about. Houston has three train trap triangles, as the FRA identifies them. Two are in the east end. One is impacted by the Polk closure.

Yes, the Polk Street crossing is going away.  Time to let it go.  OR, as Samagon put it (before his most recent 3 posts on the topic), no need to get in and rehash all of that now. 

Any additional amelioration of the impacts of the Polk closure, whether they be real or imagined, will have to be addressed at the railroad crossings (where the actual issue seems to be).

Mods, please move the railroad posts to the appropriate thread. https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/50164-west-belt-project-underpasses-in-district-h-i-railroads/page/2/

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Houston19514

[JClark54]

 

13 minutes ago, Big E said:

The cities are taking the railroads to task through the FRA. That's the process they need to go through. As far as I'm concerned, that is taking them to task. 

So not themselves. We agree. 

Edited December 19, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Yes, the Polk Street crossing is going away.  Time to let it go.  OR, as Samagon put it (before his most recent 3 posts on the topic), no need to get in and rehash all of that now. 

Any additional amelioration of the impacts of the Polk closure, whether they be real or imagined, will have to be addressed at the railroad crossings (where the actual issue seems to be).

Mods, please move the railroad posts to the appropriate thread. https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/50164-west-belt-project-underpasses-in-district-h-i-railroads/page/2/

 

@Houston19514You're someone who relies on facts to make sound commentary. Would you mind sharing your evidence that the Polk closure won't negatively impact train-vehicular transit interactions? The last two times I made the request, you did not comment. 

If the evidence exists, I am more than happy to drop the topic altogether anytime someone brings up Polk. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by JClark54

[Big E]

14 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

@Houston19514You're someone who relies on facts to make sound commentary. Would you mind sharing your evidence that the Polk closure won't negatively impact train-vehicular transit interactions? The last two times I made the request, you did not comment. 

If the evidence exists, I am more than happy to drop the topic altogether anytime someone brings up Polk. 

We don't even know how much traffic carries all the way from downtown to the rail crossing, and vice versa. As I said before, the rail crossing is over a mile away from where Polk crosses the interstate. Traffic could disperse into any number of directions between those two points. And, as I already pointed out, Polk is a one way going Eastbound, away from the crossing, beyond Avenida, so its not carrying traffic all the way from downtown. Avenida never appears to be particularly busy outside of major events, and isn't designed to carry much traffic, so doubtful Polk's getting much traffic from there. 

You are the one who made the initial claim that removing Polk would negatively effect traffic vis-à-vis the rail line. So demonstrate how that's possible using real traffic analysis. First, you have to demonstrate how much traffic carries through on Polk from one side of the highway to the other in either direction. Then, we would have to determine how much traffic actually goes all the way to the crossing after crossing over from downtown, and vice versa. That's a lot of information and variables that you have failed to provide. Then, we would have to analyze how difficult it would be for traffic using Polk going into downtown to get to Polk on the other side post NHHIP and how difficult it would be for traffic to move from Leland to Polk going the opposite direction. Are you really prepared to analyze all this?

In either case, what is material to the discussion is that Polk won't change beyond removing the crossing. Any problems with traffic taking Leland and running into a train are problems that already exist, because traffic can already default to Leland over Polk in either direction. Removing the highway crossing at Polk doesn't really effect this in any way.

[JClark54]

11 minutes ago, Big E said:

We don't even know how much traffic carries all the way from downtown to the rail crossing, and vice versa. As I said before, the rail crossing is over a mile away from where Polk crosses the interstate. Traffic could disperse into any number of directions between those two points. And, as I already pointed out, Polk is a one way going Eastbound, away from the crossing, beyond Avenida, so its not carrying traffic all the way from downtown. Avenida never appears to be particularly busy outside of major events, and isn't designed to carry much traffic, so doubtful Polk's getting much traffic from there. 

You are the one who made the initial claim that removing Polk would negatively effect traffic vis-à-vis the rail line. So demonstrate how that's possible using real traffic analysis. First, you have to demonstrate how much traffic carries through on Polk from one side of the highway to the other in either direction. Then, we would have to determine how much traffic actually goes all the way to the crossing after crossing over from downtown, and vice versa. That's a lot of information and variables that you have failed to provide. Then, we would have to analyze how difficult it would be for traffic using Polk going into downtown to get to Polk on the other side post NHHIP and how difficult it would be for traffic to move from Leland to Polk going the opposite direction. Are you really prepared to analyze all this?

In either case, what is material to the discussion is that Polk won't change beyond removing the crossing. Any problems with traffic taking Leland and running into a train are problems that already exist, because traffic can already default to Leland over Polk in either direction. Removing the highway crossing at Polk doesn't really affect this in any way.

With all due respect, @Big E, I am not the first person write that removing Polk would negatively affect traffic vis-a-vis the rail line. I joined this site a few years ago, many years after this discussion topic was started. Polk’s importance was discussed long before I came around. 
 

Yes, I am prepared to analyze the data presented and discuss its outcomes with people here. Debating the merits of urban design decisions is essentially the foundation of HAIF. 
 

Posters have written that Polk’s closure won’t impact train-vehicular traffic interactions. I feel it’s more than fair to ask what evidence they used to come to that conclusion. I have asked before, and nobody has responded. Yet, those who support keeping Polk are told to explain their reasoning in great detail.

If this disappoints you in some way, why not let the answer — whatever it is — be presented? I am happy to never bring it up again if the evidence exists. 
 

Politely, @Big E, I have done my best to answer every question you’ve posed. You’ve also called me genius in a possibly mocking manner, claimed I wrote things that I did not, and questioned my comprehension. 
 

If you have a legit question, I will happily answer. If you want to argue, that’s not something I am interested in. 

[Big E]

24 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

With all due respect, @Big E, I am not the first person write that removing Polk would negatively affect traffic vis-a-vis the rail line. I joined this site a few years ago, many years after this discussion topic was started. Polk’s importance was discussed long before I came around.

The only two people who I've seen harping on it are you and Samagon, and you are the only two people who have been harping on it lately besides that one other guy, but he complained about how much its removal would effect bikes specifically, and that had nothing to do with you and Samagon's complaining about how it would effect the rail road crossing.

27 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

Posters have written that Polk’s closure won’t impact train-vehicular traffic interactions. I feel it’s more than fair to ask what evidence they used to come to that conclusion.

You can't prove a negative. If you have some impact study hidden around proving that it will, in fact, negatively effect traffic as far it effects the train crossing, then produce it. Otherwise, you're complaining about something you don't even know will be an issue yet, and that you have no proof will be an issue.

28 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

If you have a legit question, I will happily answer.

I already posited questions to you in my last comment which you have not deigned to answer. You offered no real evidence to back up your initial assertion that getting rid of the Polk crossing at the interstate will effect the crossing at the rail line. I'm giving you the chance to backup that assertion. If you can't actually back it up, I've got no other recourse but to dismiss it, barring some other evidence being presented.

[JClark54]

@Big E you have made your views on this topic and what you used to reach that assessment very clear. I appreciate your opinion on the matter as well as facts, which is why I re-entered this forum to clear the air on which streets will close or stay open. Had it not been brought up, I would never have responded. 

If you don’t mind, I’d love to learn what evidence others have used to conclude Polk’s closure will not impact train-vehicular interactions rather than continue this cyclical discourse of you demanding I provide evidence before attempting to poke holes in it, calling me names in the process. 

Yes, data has helped shape my view on this topic. People whose position is Polk‘s closure won’t do harm may have different information than me, however. If presented with it, I will read it and possibly reform my opinion.

I have asked before and not yet received a response. If they can’t actually back it up, I most certainty won’t dismiss it, as I feel that offers no value and builds barriers, not bridges. It just won’t change my view that Polk’s closure will negatively impact traffic in the neighborhood when there’s a stopped train. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by JClark54

[Big E]

8 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

If you don’t mind, I’d love to learn what evidence others have used to conclude Polk’s closure will not impact train-vehicular interactions rather than continue this cyclical discourse of you demanding I provide evidence before attempting to poke holes in it, calling me names in the process. 

I don't recall calling you names. I merely asked for evidence. Usually people who don't have evidence, try some form of deflection from this fact, like claiming "Well, if I give you evidence, you'll just poke holes into it". Of course that's the point of any debate or discussion; to weigh the evidence presented. You were the one who made the claim regarding Polk's closure and its effect on the train situation. I'm merely asking you to back it up. If you can't do that, just say so.

[JClark54]

Can you back up that it won’t? Of course that's the point of any debate or discussion; to weigh the evidence presented.

Edited December 20, 2023 by JClark54

[Big E]

1 hour ago, JClark54 said:

Can you back up that it won’t? Of course that's the point of any debate or discussion; to weigh the evidence presented.

Once again, you can't prove a negative, or the absence of something. Just like you can't walk into an empty spotless, room, and prove that a murder never took place there at any point in its history. You haven't even established traffic patterns on Polk between Houston and EaDo. You've offered no information to back up your claim. The onus is on one making a claim to prove it. The baseline assumption is that the removal of Polk's crossover will have no effect on the rail crossing, and both Houston and TxDOT have not shown that they are operating outside this baseline idea. I've already given reasons for why that would be, looking at the design of the streets, street directions, distance, etc. If you've got cards to play, now's the time to play it partner. The ball is in your court.

[samagon]

20 hours ago, Big E said:

The point is that you've been so hyperbolic about this project and its perceived negative effects, and so obviously dead set against it from the beginning, that it's nearly impossible to take anything you say about the project seriously, since your personal animus towards it is so apparent. When your bias is this obvious, it weighs against considering your viewpoint.

there's no doubt that you're right. I have allowed myself to easily be sucked into arguments with people like Matty36, who take the discussion down completely irrelevant tangents, and so I have gotten completely off track at times. I take responsibility for my part.

I think though, if you go back and find my initial thoughts towards this project, it's always been local connectivity, and the local people who are being negatively impacted that I think this project is hurting. I am not against doing what needs to be done, I have and will always maintain there is a better way to do it.

anyway, I'm actually glad for the project, it has helped to create a very active group of people who are organized to ensure the local people are heard better, in fact this group is who did a lot of the leg work for Prop B that recently passed, which will forever change how HGAC operates. I only wish the formation of that group were about 5 years earlier than it was, perhaps we'd have a much better solution for freeway expansion that takes better care.

Edited December 20, 2023 by samagon

[Houston19514]

15 hours ago, JClark54 said:

@Houston19514You're someone who relies on facts to make sound commentary. Would you mind sharing your evidence that the Polk closure won't negatively impact train-vehicular transit interactions? The last two times I made the request, you did not comment. 

If the evidence exists, I am more than happy to drop the topic altogether anytime someone brings up Polk. 

The fact is, Polk Street carries very little traffic outbound from downtown.  I am in that area somewhat frequently and I happened by it yesterday evening on my walk.  I stopped at Polk at the southeast corner of the GRB, and stood there counting outbound vehicles for 15 minutes, from 5:20 pm to 5:35 pm, surely one of the busier times of the day for outbound traffic.  Results:

In 15 minutes, again, pretty close to the peak of rush hour, 11 cars took Polk Street outbound under the freeway.  And 6 of them turned left on the frontage road, so were not proceeding on Polk to the East End railroad crossing.  It seems reasonable to presume that some of the remaining 5 cars also took other turns or stopped somewhere in the 1.2 miles before getting to the railroad tracks.  Meanwhile, Leeland, Jefferson and Pierce were all MUCH busier with outbound traffic. Really no comparison to Polk; Many multiples of the number of cars. With outbound traffic already heavily concentrated on Leeland, Jefferson and Pierce, the addition of the few vehicles currently taking Polk will be inconsequential

The railroad crossing situation is much better addressed at the railroad crossings

Edited December 20, 2023 by Houston19514

[samagon]

do you think the holidays have impacted your traffic counts?

[Houston19514]

11 minutes ago, samagon said:

do you think the holidays have impacted your traffic counts?

Not significantly.  This count comports with my casual observations in the past.  Polk just does not carry much traffic, especially eastbound.  And to the extent the holidays might have impacted my traffic count, I cannot imagine any reason Polk would be more impacted by the holidays than any of the other streets leading east out of downtown.

[Big E]

14 minutes ago, samagon said:

do you think the holidays have impacted your traffic counts?

I mean, its the 20th, not the 25th. Its not like everything is closed today. If it was Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, yeah, that would make sense. But its just a normal weekday.