I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Big E]

4 hours ago, samagon said:

I know I've seen more people with signs marching against this project than I have seen people with signs marching for this project. which at the end of the day is about as scientific to show public opinion of the project as is a letter from the President of a super neighborhood to show that the constituents of that super neighborhood are for the project. all we have is anecdotal evidence.

We also have to keep in mind the issue of the vocal minority. The majority of citizens may very well support the project, but they are the silent majority. They have better things to do than sit on a street corner and wave a sign. The people opposed to the project will be the most vocal because they are the most emotionally invested, thus they scream the loudest and get the most visibility.

[samagon]

3 hours ago, Big E said:

We also have to keep in mind the issue of the vocal minority. The majority of citizens may very well support the project, but they are the silent majority. They have better things to do than sit on a street corner and wave a sign. The people opposed to the project will be the most vocal because they are the most emotionally invested, thus they scream the loudest and get the most visibility.

a wise man once said...

"Statements made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

😉

[mattyt36]

13 hours ago, samagon said:

a wise man once said...

"Statements made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

😉

I'd still rank it ahead of making repeated blanket statements on the project having no support.  Or singlehandedly deciding whose support counts.

But, seriously, if you need some assistance gauging the prevalence this concept, you can always Google "vocal minority."

[j_cuevas713]

When you start getting support from guys like Mattress Mack and articles on the front page of the Chronicle then it's becoming much more than a vocal minority. I mean Mattress Mack had his sign lit up off I-45 with the words PEOPLE > CARS. 

[kennyc05]

43 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

When you start getting support from guys like Mattress Mack and articles on the front page of the Chronicle then it's becoming much more than a vocal minority. I mean Mattress Mack had his sign lit up off I-45 with the words PEOPLE > CARS. 

He was against the Post Oak redo as well but it ended up getting rebuilt.

 

[sapo2367]

8 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

When you start getting support from guys like Mattress Mack and articles on the front page of the Chronicle then it's becoming much more than a vocal minority. I mean Mattress Mack had his sign lit up off I-45 with the words PEOPLE > CARS. 

To be fair though, he has a direct financial incentive to oppose this as it would impact his store off of the highway. Not to say he couldn't be genuine in his concern for the community, but the skeptic in me sees the $$$ lining up behind this decision. 

[samagon]

I don't know about that, any appreciable rain in the area causes the feeder road to flood in front of his store making access pretty hard. sure there's pain involved short term with a rebuild making it harder for clients to access, but better flood control, newer, wider roads, he stands to gain a lot more than he stands to lose short term.

Edited August 11, 2021 by samagon

[mattyt36]

33 minutes ago, samagon said:

I don't know about that, any appreciable rain in the area causes the feeder road to flood in front of his store making access pretty hard. sure there's pain involved short term with a rebuild making it harder for clients to access, but better flood control, newer, wider roads, he stands to gain a lot more than he stands to lose short term.

He doesn't want the construction because he thinks the resulting vehicular traffic will reduce foot traffic in his store . . . and he's probably right!

It's the EXACT SAME reason he was opposed to the Post Oak reconstruction.

Standard NIMBYism, and there are plenty of examples of NIMBYism exploiting other "anti" arguments in bad faith.  It's how it usually works!

None of this is a mystery . . . 

Edited August 11, 2021 by mattyt36

[samagon]

perusing some local news, a TM article from July popped onto my feed, probably because I was recently searching the commercial vacancy rates. lol.

anyway:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/remote-work-killing-houston-tunnels/

this in particular caught my eye:

Quote

Vacancy rates now sit right above pre-pandemic levels, and only around 30 percent of all workers are back in the office full-time, according to Angie Bertinot, director of marketing and communications for the Houston Downtown Management District.

Quote

...JPMorgan Chase plan to keep certain positions entirely remote. A majority of downtown businesses expect to transition portions of their workforces to hybrid in-person and remote work, according to a recent survey. 

the article's only from a month ago, so it's recent data.

regarding any statements about MM and the purity of his reasoning, he's stated his reasons:

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2021/08/09/405332/i-45-expansion-survey-set-to-close-as-local-activists-continue-to-push-against-txdot-project/

Quote

While McIngvale said he was concerned about impacts on his business, he was more worried about the hundreds of community members who may lose their homes.

“We think the all-or-nothing offer from TxDOT is not good for anybody,” he said. “It’s gonna affect all the neighborhoods and the people who don’t have the financial resources we do. It’s gonna be devastating.”

speculate all you want on whether that is actually how he feels, or how he postures, but it's what he says, and well, that's worth more than speculation.

Edited August 11, 2021 by samagon

[j_cuevas713]

The city has already given TxDOT legit alternatives to their existing plan. The fact TxDOT doesn’t want to entertain anything else should make us all mad. Regardless of the positives or negatives the project brings, this shouldn’t be ok with us and we can’t just sit back and let them bulldoze over us. TxDOT has held the entitlement card way too long. They spent billions on 290 and I-10 and nobody batted an eye. Not to mention how much they went over budget. I could care less about the positives of this project. It’s clear Houstonians want more options plain and simple. Everyone in this forum knew at some point both sides would eventually clash. And most of that is because of the natural trajectory the city has made at becoming more pedestrian friendly and denser. We still have a long way to go but I really believe this is a turning point for the city. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by j_cuevas713

[mattyt36]

2 hours ago, samagon said:

speculate all you want on whether that is actually how he feels, or how he postures, but it's what he says, and well, that's worth more than speculation.

Is it now?  Are you really that naive, or should we file this under Sam's Laws of Convenience/Willful Ignorance?  If Joel Osteen comes out for it, how should we weigh that opinion?  If only I thought you actually believed half of what you write, but it's clear that your rhetorical technique is of the "just asking questions" variety.  

Recently, you claimed the project shouldn't proceed because "no one supported it," citing Turner, Hidalgo, etc.  It's now clear Turner, and by extension the City, supports Segment 3, (see Texan post above).  So I guess score one for at least part of the NHHIP.  Or is there another "Law" that we should be aware of?  It doesn't count if Harris County doesn't say the exact same thing?

Edited August 11, 2021 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

30 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Not to mention how much they went over budget.

 

I find it difficult to believe you sincerely care about "going over budget" when you want to build a heavy rail connection to IAH that it is abundantly clear people will not use because, well, "London and New York have one" and "gotta do it for the tourists."

30 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

 I could care less about the positives of this project.

True!  Not sure if that was meant to be the self-own it so obviously is.

30 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

It’s clear Houstonians want more options plain and simple.

How is it "clear," nevermind "plain and simple"?  And what new "options" does not building anything provide?

Edited August 11, 2021 by mattyt36

[j_cuevas713]

3 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

I find it difficult to believe you sincerely care about "going over budget" when you want to build a heavy rail connection to IAH that it is abundantly clear people will not use because, well, "London and New York have one" and "gotta do it for the tourists."

True!  Not sure if that was meant to be the self-own it so obviously is.

How is it "clear," nevermind "plain and simple"?  And what new "options" does not building anything provide?

So now you're speaking for me and what I think? Actually I do care it went over budget. Especially when nobody seems to care when it's a highway that displaces a countless amount of businesses, homes, religious buildings, etc. but God forbid it's a damn commuter train. Ridership would be through the roof had Culberson not killed the University Line the first go around. So that whole argument of "Nobody will use it" is old news. It's clear people will use it. And it's not just London and NY that have access to their airports via rail. I mean it just makes sense logistically to do that whether you like it or not. I took commuter rail in Seattle, SF, and Philly because after landing in each of those cities, the last thing I wanted to do was spend $60 just to get to town. It was fast, efficient, and you know what? I ended up spending more money in each of those cities because on the walk to my hotel, I grabbed food, stopped by a store or two, etc. Limiting options in the 4th largest city is just plain dumb. So yeah, the city approving this last Metro referendum tells me people want more transit options, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. 

[mattyt36]

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So now you're speaking for me and what I think?

J, you've made it very clear what you think in this and prior posts.  Actually, "think" is probably not the best word . . . "feel" is probably more appropriate.  We had plenty of back and forth on transit ridership for U.S. airports.  You have not supplied your theory as to why IAH would be any different.  You've just said you like having the option at other airports because you drop a couple more bucks at the 7-11 in Rittenhouse Square, as if that somehow balances a structural transit operating deficit.  That's fine!  But that's not "thinking"--it's "feeling."

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Especially when nobody seems to care when it's a highway that displaces a countless amount of businesses, homes, religious buildings, etc.

More "feeling."  There is a very detailed technical report that very specifically COUNTS who/what will be displaced.  It's been referenced in this very thread.  But "feel" away . . . it's COUNTLESS!  

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

but God forbid it's a damn commuter train. 

Well nice to know "COUNTLESS" relocations are OK if it's for a train.  Have you noticed none of these arguments are internally consistent?  

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Ridership would be through the roof had Culberson not killed the University Line the first go around. 

Please, please, please explain your theory behind this one.  Especially in the context of why no other airports but SFO, JFK, and DCA have airport mode shares above 10% with much better developed transit systems?

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So that whole argument of "Nobody will use it" is old news. 

How?  Because the University Line that wasn't built would feed passengers into an airport commuter rail that hasn't been built?  More "feeling!"  You can't just write something and it be true.

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Limiting options in the 4th largest city is just plain dumb.

It's limiting options in the context of a limited funding environment and the existing funding system.  And, remember, you care deeply about budgets!

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So yeah, the city approving this last Metro referendum tells me people want more transit options

If the NHHIP were put to a referendum and won (which I think would be a pretty safe bet), what would that tell you?

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

PLAIN AND SIMPLE. 

(Note use of CAPS above for emphasis . . . I'm adapting my writing style to the reader's.)

Edited August 11, 2021 by mattyt36

[j_cuevas713]

17 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

J, you've made it very clear what you think in this and prior posts.  Actually, "think" is probably not the best word . . . "feel" is probably more appropriate.  We had plenty of back and forth on transit ridership for U.S. airports.  You have not supplied your theory as to why IAH would be any different.  You've just said you like having the option at other airports because you drop a couple more bucks at the 7-11 in Rittenhouse Square, as if that somehow balances a structural transit operating deficit.  That's fine!  But that's not "thinking"--it's "feeling."

More "feeling."  There is a very detailed technical report that very specifically COUNTS who/what will be displaced.  It's been referenced in this very thread.  But "feel" away . . . it's COUNTLESS!  

Well nice to know "COUNTLESS" relocations are OK if it's for a train.  Have you noticed none of these arguments are internally consistent?  

Please, please, please explain your theory behind this one.  Especially in the context of why no other airports but SFO, JFK, and DCA have airport mode shares above 10% with much better developed transit systems?

How?  Because the University Line that wasn't built would feed passengers into an airport commuter rail that hasn't been built?  More "feeling!"  You can't just write something and it be true.

It's limiting options in the context of a limited funding environment and the existing funding system.  And, remember, you care deeply about budgets!

If the NHHIP were put to a referendum and won (which I think would be a pretty safe bet), what would that tell you?

(Note use of CAPS above for emphasis . . . I'm adapting my writing style to the reader's.)

Good job breaking down every single statement I made and still not understanding anything I said. VERY WEIRD 

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

The city has already given TxDOT legit alternatives to their existing plan. The fact TxDOT doesn’t want to entertain anything else should make us all mad. Regardless of the positives or negatives the project brings, this shouldn’t be ok with us and we can’t just sit back and let them bulldoze over us. TxDOT has held the entitlement card way too long. They spent billions on 290 and I-10 and nobody batted an eye. Not to mention how much they went over budget. I could care less about the positives of this project. It’s clear Houstonians want more options plain and simple. Everyone in this forum knew at some point both sides would eventually clash. And most of that is because of the natural trajectory the city has made at becoming more pedestrian friendly and denser. We still have a long way to go but I really believe this is a turning point for the city. 

The problem is that you are employing a false premise.  i have it on good authority that there are productive conversations ongoing between the City and TxDOT and a lot of confidence that it will be worked out.

[mattyt36]

14 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Good job breaking down every single statement I made and still not understanding anything I said. VERY WEIRD 

I'm all ears if you want to help me understand!

[j_cuevas713]

2 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

The problem is that you are employing a false premise.  i have it on good authority that there are productive conversations ongoing between the City and TxDOT and a lot of confidence that it will be worked out.

Didn't the Mayor and County Judge Hidalgo just say the other day that the city presented other options to TxDOT initially and TxDOT took none of it in to consideration? Even TxDOT said it's their plan or no plan or this money will go somewhere else. They even continued to tell property owners they were acquiring their land even after the Feds told them to stop all progress on the project. So what confidence am I missing here?

[j_cuevas713]

Just now, mattyt36 said:

I'm all ears if you want to help me understand!

Fair enough. I get that some of my observations on things are very anecdotal. But you can't dismiss anecdotal evidence as inaccurate or meaningless. I guarantee you there are lots of people in this city without a car that wish they had the ability to get around more easily. I'm def passionate about making sure something sustainable is built here, and I firmly believe this isn't it. I say all of that not to argue with you, but I can't say my experience riding transit has been bad. If anything I left many of those cities wanting more transit here in Houston. 

[mattyt36]

5 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

The problem is that you are employing a false premise.  i have it on good authority that there are productive conversations ongoing between the City and TxDOT and a lot of confidence that it will be worked out.

This makes sense.  I can't think of a politician saying no to $10 billion in what really can be thought of as free money to appease a very small constituency that won't be material in an election, especially given the support from Central Houston and downtown business interests.

I'd really like to hear the "real story" of how we got here.  And, while the City may be proposing alternatives now, what was it doing 5 years ago?  I can understand TxDOT frustration with an about-face.  I also don't understand why TxDOT would take a "take-it-or-leave-it" approach for any reason other than posturing.  I feel like I follow it closely enough, but the Chronicle articles haven't been particularly enlightening.

As a former State Rep, Turner has a history of working well with the State (which I feel is a tremendous asset).  Can't say the same about Hidalgo, though, and with Abbott going full DeSantis, who knows, maybe his next move will be to pick a stupid fight with someone the GOP recognizes is a rising Democratic star over a highway project just to try to torpedo her in 2022.

[Houston19514]

13 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Didn't the Mayor and County Judge Hidalgo just say the other day that the city presented other options to TxDOT initially and TxDOT took none of it in to consideration? Even TxDOT said it's their plan or no plan or this money will go somewhere else. They even continued to tell property owners they were acquiring their land even after the Feds told them to stop all progress on the project. So what confidence am I missing here?

I didn't see any statements in the last few days... surely you could provide a link if you saw such.

No.  TXDot has not said it's their plan or no plan.  They have said all along that the plan is not final, especially segments 1 and 2.  Hence the productive ongoing discussions with the City.  

The initial letter from the Feds did NOT tell them to stop "all progress."  I would have read it in exactly the same way that TXDoT read it.

 

Fo anyone interested in gaining some context and a little reality check, go to 55:30 in the linked meeting recording (Downtown TIRZ meeting) and listen.

[mattyt36]

15 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Fair enough. I get that some of my observations on things are very anecdotal. But you can't dismiss anecdotal evidence as inaccurate or meaningless. I guarantee you there are lots of people in this city without a car that wish they had the ability to get around more easily. I'm def passionate about making sure something sustainable is built here, and I firmly believe this isn't it. I say all of that not to argue with you, but I can't say my experience riding transit has been bad. If anything I left many of those cities wanting more transit here in Houston. 

I agree with you 100% in re transit (although I'm not as wedded to rail as I was 20 years ago).  My car is 5 years old and doesn't even have 25K miles on it.  I hardly use it during the week because I generally walk to what I need.  People talk about "inside the loop," and I may go west of Shepherd once a month. 

Christof Spieler helped me understand that the City actually does have a pretty good transit system.  And that, when it comes to people without cars, they almost always would prefer a more reliable bus route closer to their origin and destination than a rail route serving a slice (often a privileged slice) of the population.  The commuter bus system is actually very impressive when you think about it--even better than commuter rail for many commuters.  The NHHIP does include meaningful transit improvements.  And I've come to have a better sense of what is within reach and what is a more of a pipe dream.  (This is mostly my opinion, but it is reinforced by my understanding of how existing funding systems work, transportation demand patterns, and just a general sense that Houston, just like Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Seattle will never be Chicago or New York . . . and I think, on the whole, that's probably a good thing.)

Several pages of posts ago, someone literally wrote that he didn't care if people were forcefully moved from the suburbs to the City because he felt the suburbs were not sustainable.  That, to me, is a transparent and genuine argument although obviously to implement it would require a completely new and authoritarian governmental system, and I'm pretty sure I don't want what comes with that.  Arguments made about many people getting relocated, there being "no support" for the project, etc. are just so flimsy, even though they "feel right" IMO.  That's why I try to dissect them.

Edited August 11, 2021 by mattyt36

[samagon]

13 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

The initial letter from the Feds did NOT tell them to stop "all progress."  I would have read it in exactly the same way that TXDoT read it.

"we request that TxDOT pause before initiating any further contract solicitation efforts for the project, including issuance of any Requests for Proposals, until FHWA has completed its review"

while it is true they didn't tell them to stop, the request was for them to pause.

but that is still pretty clear that it means all contracts, buying land, RFP, whatever, if they intended for them to exclude segment 3 from this contract solicitation they would have stated as much.

the subsequent letter they sent reinforces exactly that.

[Houston19514]

7 minutes ago, samagon said:

"we request that TxDOT pause before initiating any further contract solicitation efforts for the project, including issuance of any Requests for Proposals, until FHWA has completed its review"

while it is true they didn't tell them to stop, the request was for them to pause.

but that is still pretty clear that it means all contracts, buying land, RFP, whatever, if they intended for them to exclude segment 3 from this contract solicitation they would have stated as much.

the subsequent letter they sent reinforces exactly that.

 I read "contact solicitation" to mean something quite different (and apart) from land acquisition.  To me, and probably to any attorney with any experience in highway projects, contract solicitation has to do with soliciting contracts for design, construction etc.  Land acquisition is a completely different process and does not really involve "contract solicitation" or Requests for Proposals.  If they intended to stop (or pause) ALL activities related to the project, they should have stated as much.  It would have been quite easy to do; like this:  "we request that TxDOT pause before initiating any further activities for the project . . . "

By the way, it's also noteworthy that by its own terms it was a "request".

Edited August 11, 2021 by Houston19514

[j_cuevas713]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 I read "contact solicitation" to mean something quite different (and apart) from land acquisition.  To me, and probably to any attorney with any experience in highway projects, contract solicitation has to do with soliciting contracts for design, construction etc.  Land acquisition is a completely different process and does not really involve "contract solicitation" or Requests for Proposals.  If they intended to stop (or pause) ALL activities related to the project, they should have stated as much.  It would have been quite easy to do; like this:  "we request that TxDOT pause before initiating any further activities for the project . . . "

By the way, it's also noteworthy that by its own terms it was a "request".

I take the word "request" as the Feds politely saying to stop. Now if the smart people at TxDOT wanted to use the verbiage to their benefit, then they continued on the project knowingly overstepping what they had been voluntold to do. 

[samagon]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 I read "contact solicitation" to mean something quite different (and apart) from land acquisition.  To me, and probably to any attorney with any experience in highway projects, contract solicitation has to do with soliciting contracts for design, construction etc.  Land acquisition is a completely different process and does not really involve "contract solicitation" or Requests for Proposals.  If they intended to stop (or pause) ALL activities related to the project, they should have stated as much.  It would have been quite easy to do; like this:  "we request that TxDOT pause before initiating any further activities for the project . . . "

By the way, it's also noteworthy that by its own terms it was a "request".

I agree request vs stop. but in the context it is the same.

I am not an attorney at all, but contract solicitation to me would include buying land, since part of that process is signing a contract. especially when they specifically reference "including RFP" why would they say (essentially) "no RFP, and that includes no RFP"?

TxDOT clearly interpreted (or chose to read it in that context, or just flat out ignored) it the same as you, however, federal clearly intended for it to mean any contract, of any type, since they came back and said exactly that.

Edited August 11, 2021 by samagon

[Houston19514]

1 minute ago, samagon said:

I agree request vs stop. but in the context it is the same.

I am not an attorney at all, but contract solicitation to me would include buying land, since part of that process is signing a contract. especially when they specifically reference "including RFP" why would they say (essentially) "no RFP, and that includes no RFP"?

TxDOT clearly interpreted it the same as you, however, federal clearly intended for it to mean any contract, of any type, since as I said, they came back and said exactly that.

Yeah, and what, really, is your point?  That a Federal bureaucrat sent out an ambiguously worded letter that required clarification?  Whoah!  Stop the presses!  LOL  

[samagon]

1 minute ago, Houston19514 said:

Yeah, and what, really, is your point?  That a Federal bureaucrat sent out an ambiguously worded letter that required clarification?  Whoah!  Stop the presses!  LOL  

pretty sure @j_cuevas713 made the point above. 

[j_cuevas713]

4 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Yeah, and what, really, is your point?  That a Federal bureaucrat sent out an ambiguously worded letter that required clarification?  Whoah!  Stop the presses!  LOL  

If the Feds sent you a personal letter requesting you to stop doing something, I bet you anything you wouldn't sit there and question what they mean by the word "request" 

Edited August 11, 2021 by j_cuevas713

[Houston19514]

20 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

If the Feds sent you a personal letter requesting you to stop doing something, I bet you anything you wouldn't sit there and question what they mean by the word 'request" 

First of all, I absolutely would.  Words have meanings.  

Second, and more to the point, even if they demanded something, I would follow their words closely.  If they demanded I " pause before initiating any further contract solicitation efforts for the project, including issuance of any Requests for Proposals", I would not issue any contract solicitations or RFPs, but I would NOT read it expansively to include things their language does not include. 

And again, what is the hangup about this?  TXDoT gave the letter a very reasonable interpretation.  The Feds followed up with clarification (and the Feds referred to it as a clarification).  Done deal.  I doubt there are two people in either TXDoT or the Federal government who have given this particular "controversy" another thought.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Houston19514