Bridge Over Brazos St. At Spur 527

[HOU_huckster]

Unless synchronized, peds/bikers will still find themselves marooned on a narrow strip of land between signal cycles. 

[trymahjong]

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

[dbigtex56]

37 minutes ago, trymahjong said:

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

Cheer up. We can always try to eliminate the Spur again in another sixty years.
(oh, wait....no, we can't.)

[bulldog]

Funny that this thread just woke up again. I was about to post on it myself. I found out how the sneaky tear-down project came about in the first place.

Public Works lied publicly about the origins of the tear-down project, which covered up the fact that the whole thing was initiated by one person in the Mayor's Office. Public Works was completely blindsided with the tear-down initiative by the Mayor's Office. The Brazos Street bridge tear-down proposal was just the start and Public Works threw in the Bagby Street closure as a bonus after the project landed in its lap.

 

There was an orchestrated effort by people in the Mayor's Office to manufacture "public support" for tearing down the bridge, by leveraging influence over the various Management Districts, TIRZs, and other local advocacy entities (Rice Kinder Institute, Bike Houston, etc.). All of the initial community support (Kinder Institute, Public Works' proposal, endorsement by the TIRZs and management districts, endorsement by Westmoreland and Annise Parker, etc.) all came AFTER it had already been decided by people in the Mayor's Office that they wanted to tear down the bridge and BEFORE any attempt was made to have a public announcement or meeting.

 

Regardless of your opinion on the bridge tear-down itself, you have to understand that this whole attempted project was a product of our corrupt local government.

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, trymahjong said:

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

 

Can you give us any details?  What safety measures had been proposed and which are not going to be incorporated?  Did the council member share the reasons for not incorporating the safety measures?

[ADCS]

2 hours ago, bulldog said:

Funny that this thread just woke up again. I was about to post on it myself. I found out how the sneaky tear-down project came about in the first place.

Public Works lied publicly about the origins of the tear-down project, which covered up the fact that the whole thing was initiated by one person in the Mayor's Office. Public Works was completely blindsided with the tear-down initiative by the Mayor's Office. The Brazos Street bridge tear-down proposal was just the start and Public Works threw in the Bagby Street closure as a bonus after the project landed in its lap.

 

There was an orchestrated effort by people in the Mayor's Office to manufacture "public support" for tearing down the bridge, by leveraging influence over the various Management Districts, TIRZs, and other local advocacy entities (Rice Kinder Institute, Bike Houston, etc.). All of the initial community support (Kinder Institute, Public Works' proposal, endorsement by the TIRZs and management districts, endorsement by Westmoreland and Annise Parker, etc.) all came AFTER it had already been decided by people in the Mayor's Office that they wanted to tear down the bridge and BEFORE any attempt was made to have a public announcement or meeting.

 

Regardless of your opinion on the bridge tear-down itself, you have to understand that this whole attempted project was a product of our corrupt local government.

 

One of the most frustrating things about the Turner Administration has been the lack of transparency and the dishonest way it has been attempting to pursue initiatives.

[Texasota]

*rolls eyes* the fact that this stupid overpass is being rebuilt kind of rebuts your whole "corruption" argument. I do think the alternate plan was somewhat half-cocked and rushed, but that's not the same as corruption or dishonesty. 

[bulldog]

30 minutes ago, Texasota said:

*rolls eyes* the fact that this stupid overpass is being rebuilt kind of rebuts your whole "corruption" argument. I do think the alternate plan was somewhat half-cocked and rushed, but that's not the same as corruption or dishonesty. 

The only reason it's being rebuilt is because of all the people that objected to it once it was widely known what they were trying to do. The government was deliberately keeping it off public's radar to slip it through. If it weren't for the uproar stirred up on social media, etc. I think the outcome may have been very different. Ultimately it seems the mayor couldn't justify the project in light of the public response, otherwise why would they have proceeded with the rebuild?

Edited October 1, 2020 by bulldog

[bulldog]

Also bear in mind that Public Works was tricked into thinking the tear-down was a slam dunk from the beginning. They were not even anticipating any objections, let alone seeking any other opinions at the outset.

[wilcal]

7 hours ago, trymahjong said:

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

 

If this is true, then this is truly outthousand dollarsingrageous. 

 

5 hours ago, bulldog said:

Funny that this thread just woke up again. I was about to post on it myself. I found out how the sneaky tear-down project came about in the first place.

Public Works lied publicly about the origins of the tear-down project, which covered up the fact that the whole thing was initiated by one person in the Mayor's Office. Public Works was completely blindsided with the tear-down initiative by the Mayor's Office. The Brazos Street bridge tear-down proposal was just the start and Public Works threw in the Bagby Street closure as a bonus after the project landed in its lap.

 

Your timeline is messed up unless you want to elaborate further. BikeHouston identified the intersection as needing improvements well before the bridge was even closed for repairs. I'm one of the ones that suggested it as I lived in Westmoreland at the time (BH offices are in Westmoreland as well). The mayor's office was not pushing that upon us. The whole reasoning for closing the bridge was that it needed to be repaired and the money that it would cost could be better utilized and to change the intersection.

 

Turner approved of scheduled improvements a full year before the bridge even closed for emergency repairs. 

 

 

Source: https://www.h-gac.com/transportation-advisory-committee/pedestrian-bicyclist-subcommittee/documents/COH Safer Streets Initiative PBSC 20190124.pdf

I was also told, not in a specific way, but a member of HPW that I approached about how poor the lighting was underneath the spur and how dangerous it was. They hinted that significant improvements and a reconfiguration had been talked about. This would have been 3rd or 4Q17. I wouldn't call a potentially multi-year heads up surprising.

 

Quote

There was an orchestrated effort by people in the Mayor's Office to manufacture "public support" for tearing down the bridge, by leveraging influence over the various Management Districts, TIRZs, and other local advocacy entities (Rice Kinder Institute, Bike Houston, etc.). All of the initial community support (Kinder Institute, Public Works' proposal, endorsement by the TIRZs and management districts, endorsement by Westmoreland and Annise Parker, etc.) all came AFTER it had already been decided by people in the Mayor's Office that they wanted to tear down the bridge and BEFORE any attempt was made to have a public announcement or meeting.

Regardless of your opinion on the bridge tear-down itself, you have to understand that this whole attempted project was a product of our corrupt local government.

 

 

Except as I mentioned above.... the changes were being clamored on for this intersection for years before this happened. Even so, what's the relevance of someone in the mayor's office wanting to do it before? They're the ones that killed it in the end, too. Someone gets to decide, and that's the mayor's office, so how is that corrupt? 

 

If anything the corrupt nature is that they wouldn't even allow HPW to do a full traffic study to understand how unnecessary or necessary it actually is. HPW said that Smith could handle the load of cars, but that wasn't good enough for some people since it wasn't an actual traffic study. 

[bulldog]

I'm talking specifically about the attempted permanent tear-down of the bridge and the way the Mayor's Office created a false narrative of support for it in secret and used that to manipulate Public Works into pursuing it. I'm not talking about the proposed pedestrian/bicyclist improvements on Smith/Bagby/Holman.

[trymahjong]

I have known about the Bridge fiasco for quite a while. Montrose Commons has an informative PowerPoint presentation concerning the Bridge being built in the late 50’s and the disastrous result on on neighborhood cohesion as well as walkability. I bring this up as many of the Civic associations along Brazos bring up the negative stuff to the Mayors Office and City Council officials many many times after that bridge was built.........many many times.....so I’m sure every  Mayors office and Council were aware of the resentment of that bridge. How could anything that is brought up year after year be labeled “ kept off everyone’s radar”. 
I was in the minority who thought, the residents of the area next to Bagby should choose what was done to Brazos/Bagby. IMO living with the Spur over 50 years should have given more say in the outcome.
 

=>about the safety measures that won’t be incorporated into the Brazos bridge renovation. I’m not sure of the entire list, but the larger traffic lights, the red lights used to outline cross walks and the use of changing textures ( bricks) to slow down traffic are a few I can think of.
 

lastly, I have to admit I am confused and confounded that safety measures for Holman/Bagby is given crap priority by COH for safety and therefore “walkability” but one block south, the lower Westheimer corridor gets all kinds of hoopla From COH about safety and walkability.
It seems a mixed message

 

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, bulldog said:

I'm talking specifically about the attempted permanent tear-down of the bridge and the way the Mayor's Office created a false narrative of support for it in secret and used that to manipulate Public Works into pursuing it. I'm not talking about the proposed pedestrian/bicyclist improvements on Smith/Bagby/Holman.

 

To be clear, are you saying that there was a plan for a tear down of the bridge before they closed in summer '19 for emergency repairs? 

 

Also, in regards to reduction in pedestrian improvements, I reached out to someone who I would assume would have known about it, and they said it would be news to them.

Edited October 1, 2020 by wilcal

[Texasota]

Well apparently to some people,

 

"Corruption" = the government trying *and failing!* to do something I personally disagree with

[wilcal]

11 hours ago, trymahjong said:

Councilwomen Kamin  Did a zoom  with some constituent leaders of District C.

sadly most of the safety measures and proposals to protect pedestrians and bicyclists aren’t likely to be incorporated as the Renovations  ofBrazos bridge goes forward.

 

I've received confirmation from Houston Public Works that this is not true.

 

This is likely a case of telephone gone awry and CM Kamin was likely telling the group about how the bridge WOULD be reconstructed.

 

The planned bike/ped improvements are still going forward. 

[trymahjong]

If the PWE guys told you all plans are still a “go” I can only tell you I have a bit of Civic skepticism 

 

I have observed Councilwoman Kamin giving information to her constituents many many times IMO she is extremely diligent in fact checking, even rechecking the fact checking and will refuse to pass on any information she deems “ dicey-my word). She doesn’t hesitate to label some information as “rumor “ or “unconfirmed”.

 

soooooooo hmmmmmm yup I’m a little skeptical. Plus, I think back on what PWE explained about the lower Westheimer improvements. So yes I’m skeptical. I suppose time will tell- lol

[wilcal]

2 hours ago, trymahjong said:

If the PWE guys told you all plans are still a “go” I can only tell you I have a bit of Civic skepticism 

 

I have observed Councilwoman Kamin giving information to her constituents many many times IMO she is extremely diligent in fact checking, even rechecking the fact checking and will refuse to pass on any information she deems “ dicey-my word). She doesn’t hesitate to label some information as “rumor “ or “unconfirmed”.

 

soooooooo hmmmmmm yup I’m a little skeptical. Plus, I think back on what PWE explained about the lower Westheimer improvements. So yes I’m skeptical. I suppose time will tell- lol

 

Would you mind letting me know what meeting this was heard at? I had reached out to CM Kamin's office and they wanted to double back to the people at the meeting to clarify that all safety measures were moving forward. 

[trymahjong]

Okay, I will follow CK lead— I have previously explained that I believe what I hear from her. 

[bulldog]

On 10/1/2020 at 5:02 PM, wilcal said:

To be clear, are you saying that there was a plan for a tear down of the bridge before they closed in summer '19 for emergency repairs? 

No. The initial tear-down (as part of the original approved $4MM reconstruction project) started and then was halted when someone in the Mayor's Office found out the city owned the bridge and not TXDOT. The Mayor's Office cherry-picked entities to provide "public support" with the intent to justify not rebuilding it. They dumped the permanent tear-down proposal on Public Works, which fumbled around for a few months trying to figure out what to do.

[HouTXRanger]

Hmm. This is pretty enlightening, although it sucks to hear this is why the project fell through.

Considering how other projects/proposals have gone through Planning ect. with overwhelming positive feedback, I thought it was really weird how this specific project fell through when it seemed on the outset to be a slam dunk: take expensive infrastructure off the city's books, increase pedestrian safety, local homeowners get less traffic on their neighborhood streets. Considering how much it usually takes to get a city initiative cancelled in Houston, the opposition seemed very disproportionate to the response.

Honestly kinda glad to know it was a cluster from the start, because it gives me more confidence in the current and upcoming city initiatives that I know are being done correctly.

[iah77]

14 hours ago, HouTXRanger said:

Hmm. This is pretty enlightening, although it sucks to hear this is why the project fell through.

Considering how other projects/proposals have gone through Planning ect. with overwhelming positive feedback, I thought it was really weird how this specific project fell through when it seemed on the outset to be a slam dunk: take expensive infrastructure off the city's books, increase pedestrian safety, local homeowners get less traffic on their neighborhood streets. Considering how much it usually takes to get a city initiative cancelled in Houston, the opposition seemed very disproportionate to the response.

Honestly kinda glad to know it was a cluster from the start, because it gives me more confidence in the current and upcoming city initiatives that I know are being done correctly.

 

This project would have been a disaster, amazing how fast things can pass without public input when they benefit very wealthy homeowners in a two block radius. 

 

You don't think that new park would have been more expensive to maintain than a basic overpass that survived 60 years without maintenance btw? 

[wilcal]

On 10/3/2020 at 5:28 PM, bulldog said:

No. The initial tear-down (as part of the original approved $4MM reconstruction project) started and then was halted when someone in the Mayor's Office found out the city owned the bridge and not TXDOT. The Mayor's Office cherry-picked entities to provide "public support" with the intent to justify not rebuilding it. They dumped the permanent tear-down proposal on Public Works, which fumbled around for a few months trying to figure out what to do.

 

How exactly do you think any project is developed? How do you think Complete Communities or other planning initiatives happen? Sometimes they come from within the Planning Department or from Public Works and sometimes they come from the mayor's office. 

 

And cherry-picked entities? You mean the ones that already deemed this area dangerous? 😄

 

Can you elaborate on why you think that Public Works "fumbled around for a few months"? It's a pretty simple solution. Seems like it would have taken about one 15 minute meeting to figure out some implementation ideas. You paint a picture like they were losing sleep for weeks on end trying to wrap their brain around the problem. 

 

You have such a skewed view of how you think the city operates. What if I told you someone in the crooked city government came up with the implementation for every project. 

 

14 hours ago, HouTXRanger said:

Hmm. This is pretty enlightening, although it sucks to hear this is why the project fell through.

Considering how other projects/proposals have gone through Planning ect. with overwhelming positive feedback, I thought it was really weird how this specific project fell through when it seemed on the outset to be a slam dunk: take expensive infrastructure off the city's books, increase pedestrian safety, local homeowners get less traffic on their neighborhood streets. Considering how much it usually takes to get a city initiative cancelled in Houston, the opposition seemed very disproportionate to the response.

Honestly kinda glad to know it was a cluster from the start, because it gives me more confidence in the current and upcoming city initiatives that I know are being done correctly.

 

It wasn't a cluster at all until big business interests from Midtown got involved. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but many of them have built their business models not on local residents, but by drive-by commuters who live far away. Whole Foods is evidently very much unhappy with how their store is performing and Spec's freaked out since their sales dipped when Brazos closed (yes a new Total Wine opened between the Heights and their store at the same time 🤔)

 

16 minutes ago, iah77 said:

 

This project would have been a disaster, amazing how fast things can pass without public input when they benefit very wealthy homeowners in a two block radius. 

 

You don't think that new park would have been more expensive to maintain than a basic overpass that survived 60 years without maintenance btw? 

 

Are you talking about Westmoreland who would have lost their convenient access road from Bagby into their neighborhood? 

 

This project would have been a disaster.... for non-resident cut-through traffic using Midtown as a highway bypass to get from 45 to 59 and possibly for downtown workers who would have had to consolidate on *gasp* Smith and Louisiana which are two whole blocks away.

 

 

[Texasota]

Also, very wealthy homeowners? Everything immediately east is apartments, and the number of people in those apartments is vastly greater than the number of people in the houses a block or two west of the project.

Hell, there are plenty of apartments on Hawthorne and Emerson on the west side as well. 

 

I do not understand the continued whining about a proposal that didn't even end up getting built. You people got your nasty overpass rebuilt. Quit being sore winners about it and crying about ill-defined "corruption."

[Houston19514]

5 hours ago, iah77 said:

 

This project would have been a disaster, amazing how fast things can pass without public input when they benefit very wealthy homeowners in a two block radius. 

 

 

Seems like a bad example of that, considering IT DIDN'T PASS AND IS NOT HAPPENING!

[HouTXRanger]

8 hours ago, iah77 said:

 

This project would have been a disaster, amazing how fast things can pass without public input when they benefit very wealthy homeowners in a two block radius. 

 

You don't think that new park would have been more expensive to maintain than a basic overpass that survived 60 years without maintenance btw? 

Yes, I do think that, because it's true. Roads and highways are massive money sinks. Look at how many billions of dollars we spend on highway interchange redos every decade! People absolutely take for granted how expensive modern streets are.

Tons of concrete, rebar, and way, way more labor than people think. And I doubt the overpass had zero work done on it in 60 years. Even quick pothole fillings and asphalt patches cost tens of thousands of dollars per hour. Multiply that by 60 years, and that's a massive price tag considering the overpass generates zero income to cover that cost. That's not to mention all the small things it costs the city administratively, though that's small peanuts compared to the public works price tag.

Comparatively, a park costs next to nothing to build or maintain. And, removing the bridge would have made one of the most important connections between Midtown and Montrose safe and pedestrian friendly. People used to and still do treat it like a highway on/off ramp instead of a neighborhood street.

[BeerNut]

9 hours ago, iah77 said:

You don't think that new park would have been more expensive to maintain than a basic overpass that survived 60 years without maintenance btw? 

 

translation:  Let's pave all the parks and save money

[iah77]

16 hours ago, HouTXRanger said:

Yes, I do think that, because it's true. Roads and highways are massive money sinks. Look at how many billions of dollars we spend on highway interchange redos every decade! People absolutely take for granted how expensive modern streets are.

Tons of concrete, rebar, and way, way more labor than people think. And I doubt the overpass had zero work done on it in 60 years. Even quick pothole fillings and asphalt patches cost tens of thousands of dollars per hour. Multiply that by 60 years, and that's a massive price tag considering the overpass generates zero income to cover that cost. That's not to mention all the small things it costs the city administratively, though that's small peanuts compared to the public works price tag.

Comparatively, a park costs next to nothing to build or maintain. And, removing the bridge would have made one of the most important connections between Midtown and Montrose safe and pedestrian friendly. People used to and still do treat it like a highway on/off ramp instead of a neighborhood street.

Sounds like the contractor charging thousands of dollars to fix a pothole is your problem and not the actual overpass lol...

 

People actually use streets and highways. It's funny how upset people get when things don't fit their narrative.

 

Btw, as a Houston resident and person who pays taxes, why shouldn't people be allowed to use it as a cut through? You make it sound illegal. People treat it like a on/off ramp because that is what is it. So if everywhere becomes a "neighborhood street", how exactly would you even move smoothly through Houston? Through our non-existent subway? 

[Texasota]

you know, I think the biggest mistake Planning made with this proposal was in not just making it a surface street southern extension of Bagby. Remove the northbound bridge, create a much more clearly programmed plaza between Bagby and (the previous) Saint Dane's, and maintain connectivity south to the spur and (new!) connection to Hawthorne. Maybe 2 lanes - one of which peels off at Hawthorne. 

 

That would have maintained most of the safety improvements while also keeping good connectivity and avoid making all these quasi-park spaces with somewhat unclear purposes. 

 

Because again, to be clear, these kinds of higher speed auto-oriented monstrosities don't just speed commuter traffic with no side effects- they increase the frequency of serious car crashes resulting in real human suffering and loss of life. 

[HouTXRanger]

2 hours ago, iah77 said:

People actually use streets and highways.

And they don't use parks? You're missing the key component: Cars use these streets and highways because they're designed around them. I liked the change because it would have made the streets more usable for bikers and pedestrians by removing unnecessary high speed intersections. Elgin/Westheimer could have evolved into a much more pedestrian friendly corridor (which it kinda has to, since there isn't any room for more lanes so car traffic's maxxed out).

 

 

2 hours ago, iah77 said:

Btw, as a Houston resident and person who pays taxes

. . . I hate to burst your bubble, but I live here too and I also pay taxes. Most of us do. Thus, the Houston in Houstonarchitecture.com

 

 

2 hours ago, iah77 said:

why shouldn't people be allowed to use it as a cut through? You make it sound illegal.

People treat it like a on/off ramp because that is what is it. So if everywhere becomes a "neighborhood street", how exactly would you even move smoothly through Houston? Through our non-existent subway? 

I call it a neighborhood street because there are single family houses who have their driveways directly on Bagby by that intersection. It also serves as a connection between many neighborhoods in Montrose to Elgin, the whole foods, and the rail. If it weren't such a dangerous intersection, people would walk through there much more often.

But, cars aren't going away anytime soon and they also need corridors. Thing is, this bridge isn't about connecting Montrose to Midtown, or serving any of the people who actually live there. It's about funneling commuters in and out of downtown and on to 59.

That's why it's completely appropriate in my opinion to funnel commuters down just two blocks, about 200ft, to use the other two ramps onto the spur at Smith or Milam.
That's what's so silly about all this to me, and why I thought it seemed like a no-brainer. There are already two other ramps for this that are on better, wider streets, while that area desperately needs better multimodal infrastructure. 
 

[dbigtex56]

On 10/6/2020 at 9:57 AM, Texasota said:

Also, very wealthy homeowners? Everything immediately east is apartments, and the number of people in those apartments is vastly greater than the number of people in the houses a block or two west of the project.

Hell, there are plenty of apartments on Hawthorne and Emerson on the west side as well. 

 

I do not understand the continued whining about a proposal that didn't even end up getting built. You people got your nasty overpass rebuilt. Quit being sore winners about it and crying about ill-defined "corruption."

100% agree. 
It's true that there are mansions on Westmoreland Blvd., and that our former mayor and her wife have a stately home there. But there's also
somewhere around a dozen apartment complexes, and although rents have skyrocketed, the tenants can hardly be described as "very wealthy". A large percentage are occupied by young adults who tend to be more enthusiastic about having a walkable and bikeable neighborhood. Removal of the Spur could have helped to tie Montrose,  Westmoreland, and Midtown together, to the benefit of all involved. But, no.
I lived in Westmoreland for well over 23 years and it's bemusing to read the proclamations of people who obviously have little acquaintance with the neighborhood and no comprehension of  how unwelcome that damn Spur is.