Shepherd Dr. And Durham Dr. Reconstruction

[Houston19514]

37 minutes ago, s3mh said:

What did he say during his interview that I got wrong?  And more importantly, what did he say in his interview that justifies sending a completely approved and funded project back to the drawing board, possibly jeopardizing federal funding and causes unnecessary delays.  The Shep corridor will be three lanes from Memorial to I-10 and from 15th to 610.  How is carving a 1.3 mile segment for four lanes out of 3.5 miles going to help traffic?  And giving up on the pedestrian improvements right smack in the middle of the corridor basically wastes all the money spent improving the bookends as you lose connectivity.  This is just a flex by the mayor to show the libs who is who.  This right out of the play book of the likes of Rep. Culberson and Gov. Abbott who just can't stand it when a local government wants to do something other than build more lanes.

I just think it’s important for people to be able to listen to his actual words, in context. Hence I provided the link.

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I just think it’s important for people to be able to listen to his actual words, in context. Hence I provided the link.

And, FWIW, the rest of the Houston Matters show (after the interview with the Mayor) is also worth a listen.

[samagon]

is there a transcript of the interview?

[hbg.50]

52 minutes ago, samagon said:

is there a transcript of the interview?

Click on the link.  Whitmire's interview is 2-3 minutes long...

[CREguy13]

Went in with an open mind, still disagree with his comments/viewpoint. I'm not a business owner, so if a lot of the business owners are concerned with losing parking that is valid if it impacts their business after the construction clears. Even if the second phase is paused to see how the first phase performs for 6-12 months, wouldn't that be better than a total redesign before prematurely judging the project's potential success?

That said it's not like shepherd/durham will be inaccessible going from 4 lanes to 3. If it reroutes some drivers to take 610 around to I-10 or stay on I-45 and not speed through the Heights, why is that wrong? This is truly one area where wider sidewalks and bike lanes are justified as its a neighborhood yearning for more walkability. Whitmire saying its common sense to keep it 4 lanes, is not common sense to me. I guess we'll see what his sidewalk program looks like, but I really believe its backwards thinking to suggest that even if we lose federal funding, he'll still move forward so it's done right. How it's being done now, is being done right. But again, this is just my personal opinion. I'm sure I speak for many on this forum, that not everyone believes car mobility is the top concern, especially for residents in the Heights which is the area in discussion.

[j_cuevas713]

On 5/4/2024 at 12:49 PM, CREguy13 said:

Went in with an open mind, still disagree with his comments/viewpoint. I'm not a business owner, so if a lot of the business owners are concerned with losing parking that is valid if it impacts their business after the construction clears. Even if the second phase is paused to see how the first phase performs for 6-12 months, wouldn't that be better than a total redesign before prematurely judging the project's potential success?

That said it's not like shepherd/durham will be inaccessible going from 4 lanes to 3. If it reroutes some drivers to take 610 around to I-10 or stay on I-45 and not speed through the Heights, why is that wrong? This is truly one area where wider sidewalks and bike lanes are justified as its a neighborhood yearning for more walkability. Whitmire saying its common sense to keep it 4 lanes, is not common sense to me. I guess we'll see what his sidewalk program looks like, but I really believe its backwards thinking to suggest that even if we lose federal funding, he'll still move forward so it's done right. How it's being done now, is being done right. But again, this is just my personal opinion. I'm sure I speak for many on this forum, that not everyone believes car mobility is the top concern, especially for residents in the Heights which is the area in discussion.

And even TxDOT signed off on the redesign

[hindesky]

 

[samagon]

21 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

And even TxDOT signed off on the redesign

so did Whitmire himself!

"The reconstruction of Shepherd and Durham are critical components of the transportation infrastructure for the City of Houston, the Houston-Galveston region, and ultimately, the State of Texas," Whitmire wrote on June 24, 2019.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2024/04/29/484985/houston-shepherd-durham-redesign-changes-john-whitmire/

[j_cuevas713]

31 minutes ago, samagon said:

so did Whitmire himself!

"The reconstruction of Shepherd and Durham are critical components of the transportation infrastructure for the City of Houston, the Houston-Galveston region, and ultimately, the State of Texas," Whitmire wrote on June 24, 2019.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/transportation/2024/04/29/484985/houston-shepherd-durham-redesign-changes-john-whitmire/

Yet he somehow didn't know what he was signing

[hindesky]

As you’ve likely now seen in recent media coverage, the City of Houston officials are reviewing infrastructure projects and have decided to pause Phase 2 of the Shepherd Durham Project. 

Phase 1 is continuing and spans from 15th Street to the 610 loop, while the now-paused Phase 2 would extend from I-10 to 15th Street.

The Shepherd Durham Project aims to address high crash rates, limited pedestrian access, flooding, and congestion. Planned enhancements include stormwater infrastructure upgrades, new street pavement with turn lanes at locations with high turning movements, continuous pedestrian and bicycle pathways, new street lighting, tree-lined streets, and replacement of aging water and wastewater pipes. This project is revitalizing an area that has seen little significant infrastructure investment since the 1960s and has been developed based on several independent traffic studies. These studies confirm that the project's design is suitable for both current and future traffic and aims to boost economic development along the corridor.

This pause poses significant risks for the project, especially since the project is due for bidding by September 2024 as part of the City’s agreements with TxDOT and H-GAC. Missing the project deadline could jeopardize federal funding, as a delay or significant project change would trigger necessary actions by the H-GAC Transportation Policy Council. 
 
Phase 1 construction is continuing, with sidewalk paving on 19th St., wet connections and stormwater management installations taking place now.

https://www.shepherddurham.com

[J.A.]

Over the weekend, I found and signed this petition through change.org to continue Phase 2 of the Shepherd Durham Project:

Petition · Continue Phase 2 of the Shepherd Durham Project! - Houston, United States · Change.org

Started April 27th and now has just over 1000 signatures as of today...

Tell your friends?! 🙂

[Triton]

On 5/2/2024 at 1:46 PM, Houston19514 said:

Again, I suggest everyone listen to the interview.  Maybe even with an open mind.

So I listened to it with an open mind. He's saying he's correcting the wrongs of some of these TIRZs directing money to their areas (Montrose being an example) while other areas that have far more pressing issues are cast aside. I think it's a good thing he is doing it and that's the reason he has paused the Montrose Blvd rebuild. Perhaps there are drainage projects that are needed more immediately while Montrose can wait. He also says biking and pedestrian crosswalks are top priority for him as well and he says he's working to get a Westcott crossing built.

Whitmire says a lot but so far his actions have indicated otherwise. As I've said before, time will tell whether anything that he is saying lines up with what he actually does. He mentioned he has a major sidewalk project incoming. Well let's see it then!

[Ross]

4 hours ago, Triton said:

So I listened to it with an open mind. He's saying he's correcting the wrongs of some of these TIRZs directing money to their areas (Montrose being an example) while other areas that have far more pressing issues are cast aside. I think it's a good thing he is doing it and that's the reason he has paused the Montrose Blvd rebuild. Perhaps there are drainage projects that are needed more immediately while Montrose can wait. He also says biking and pedestrian crosswalks are top priority for him as well and he says he's working to get a Westcott crossing built.

Whitmire says a lot but so far his actions have indicated otherwise. As I've said before, time will tell whether anything that he is saying lines up with what he actually does. He mentioned he has a major sidewalk project incoming. Well let's see it then!

The entire purpose of a TIRZ is to invest the increment in the area covered by the TIRZ. WTH is Whitmire thinking?

[Triton]

3 hours ago, Ross said:

The entire purpose of a TIRZ is to invest the increment in the area covered by the TIRZ. WTH is Whitmire thinking?

Based on what he said in the interview, the TIRZ received $50 million from the city? They'll seek additional funding from Metro for the sidewalks. He's saying he's working with the flood control district to make sure this area actually needs the drainage project or if the money would be better used for a more flood prone area... because that's what initiated this project in the first place... better drainage.

[s3mh]

10 hours ago, Triton said:

Based on what he said in the interview, the TIRZ received $50 million from the city? They'll seek additional funding from Metro for the sidewalks. He's saying he's working with the flood control district to make sure this area actually needs the drainage project or if the money would be better used for a more flood prone area... because that's what initiated this project in the first place... better drainage.

Phase 2 of the Shep/Durham rebuild gets $40 mil from Federal grants, $20 mil from TIRZ funds and $10 mil from City of Houston.  

If this project was such a gross misuse of funds, Whitmire should just shut it down and hold a press conference to announce where the funds will be spent instead.  But that is not what he is doing.  He is still greenlighting the project, but forcing a huge redesign because his donors are relics of City Hall politics from the days of strip malls and urban sprawl.  They hate the idea of new urbanism because it puts pedestrians and cyclists on even terms with motor vehicle drivers.  They think these are "woke" policies and are determined to rip out any bike/pedestrian infrastructure that impedes traffic, mostly just because it will own the libs.  So, Whitmire is just grabbing at straws to try to justify the redesign of this project because just coming out and saying that he is opposed to infrastructure that balances the needs of pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles will just piss everyone off.  He has to construct a false narrative about these projects as being wasteful while the poor residents of Denver Harbor get run over by cars because they have no sidewalks and residents in some other neighborhood need a drainage project.  It is just a power play by Whitmire.  That is the kind of guy he is.  It is why he earned the nick name Quitmire after breaking with his party to let Republicans have a quorum.  

[Triton]

3 hours ago, s3mh said:

Phase 2 of the Shep/Durham rebuild gets $40 mil from Federal grants, $20 mil from TIRZ funds and $10 mil from City of Houston.  

If this project was such a gross misuse of funds, Whitmire should just shut it down and hold a press conference to announce where the funds will be spent instead.  But that is not what he is doing.  He is still greenlighting the project, but forcing a huge redesign because his donors are relics of City Hall politics from the days of strip malls and urban sprawl.  They hate the idea of new urbanism because it puts pedestrians and cyclists on even terms with motor vehicle drivers.  They think these are "woke" policies and are determined to rip out any bike/pedestrian infrastructure that impedes traffic, mostly just because it will own the libs.  So, Whitmire is just grabbing at straws to try to justify the redesign of this project because just coming out and saying that he is opposed to infrastructure that balances the needs of pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles will just piss everyone off.  He has to construct a false narrative about these projects as being wasteful while the poor residents of Denver Harbor get run over by cars because they have no sidewalks and residents in some other neighborhood need a drainage project.  It is just a power play by Whitmire.  That is the kind of guy he is.  It is why he earned the nick name Quitmire after breaking with his party to let Republicans have a quorum.  

Hey I'm just the messenger. lol 

In my view, his words don't match his actions. He can try be on everyone's side but at the end of the day, he's already hinting that he plans to pull bike lanes that "people that don't represent the community" put in place. I don't know, my community seems to want them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[samagon]

6 hours ago, s3mh said:

Phase 2 of the Shep/Durham rebuild gets $40 mil from Federal grants, $20 mil from TIRZ funds and $10 mil from City of Houston.  

If this project was such a gross misuse of funds, Whitmire should just shut it down and hold a press conference to announce where the funds will be spent instead.  But that is not what he is doing.  He is still greenlighting the project, but forcing a huge redesign because his donors are relics of City Hall politics from the days of strip malls and urban sprawl. ...

I would presume if there is any material change to the plans that the federal level would have to re-approve it for grant funding. 

[j_cuevas713]

Durham had two calls for first responders today. The mayor said there is a "conflict of interest" when it comes to what he thinks should be done compared to what the majority of Houstonians want. I'd say the pressure is mounting and he's running out of excuses. 

[004n063]

I'm not convinced by the conspiracies. I think it's a simple combination of putting politics over governance.

I think he wants to appear effective and equitably responsive to voters' wants.

Voters want less congestion. He can't easily build a bunch of new highways, but he can stop projects that he can claim will worsen congestion. He is not wrong that the majority of Houston's voters are not actively in favor of the Shepherd/Durham project, and a poll would probably tell you that the majority disfavors reductions in car lanes (and probably any construction project along their commute, for that matter). So he can sell his bike/ped antipathy as working to relieve congestion. (It just happens to be extremely stupid in this instance, since congestion will be worse with a 4-3 merge than it would have been with three lanes the whole way.)

He also probably can't deliver a lot of net-positive equitability for underserved neighborhoods in the city. He may even actually realize that Houston proper is probably underpopulated by about ten million if equitable access to proper urban amenities is the goal. But he can stop projects that pump tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into gentrified neighborhoods while ostensibly doing nothing for underserved neighborhoods, and he can sell that as an equity-oriented approach.

Over the last ten and especially five years, the internet has done an impressive job of spreading the urbanist gospel around the country and even around Houston. There are a lot of people out here who want to see Houston reinvent itself as a livably urban place. 

But unfortunately, it's still a fairly small minority of Houstonians who are invested in that objective, especially to the point of actively wanting to, say, sacrifice their own car speed for the sake of walkability in the neighborhoods they traverse at rush hour.

It's frustrating to me, because to my mind, this is a pretty big part of the reason why government leadership exists in the first place. If we deferred to general preference on every issue, we'd have no speed limits, no infrastructure maintenance, no other customers at our favorite businesses, no school, and no public services of any kind, actually, because we'd have no taxes.

Part of the job of elected leadership - arguably the most important part - is to be right when the general public is wrong. 

[samagon]

1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

...a poll would probably tell you that the majority disfavors reductions in car lanes (and probably any construction project along their commute, for that matter)...

I agree with most of your other statements. 

I do think that a poll worded simply "should we reduce lanes" would absolutely be a no vote from all but the people who don't own a car.

on the other hand, I think a poll worded simply "should the number of lanes on a road match motorists needs" I bet everyone would vote yes, because all they think is that this means someone is going to put in 50 lanes so every car can get through the light on the first cycle, when in reality it means that there will be a traffic study, and if there are too few cars for the number of lanes, then one of the lanes goes away.

which is why we end up with such weirdly worded questions on ballots.

[j_cuevas713]

What I don't understand is his pandering to communities that have never had sidewalks. If the city is broke, how are you going to build sidewalks without federal funding? The feds are funding so much for us right now and he's willing to forfeit those monies for nearsightedness. Yes, there are people opposed to this project, there will always be people opposed, but let's not act like Shepherd is 4 lanes the whole stretch. At some point it bottlenecks and splits. Are we going to justify removing homes, businesses, etc to make it a 4 lane one way the entire stretch to 59 to appease commuters who don't even live in Houston? 

[004n063]

17 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

What I don't understand is his pandering to communities that have never had sidewalks. If the city is broke, how are you going to build sidewalks without federal funding?

I think you're giving him too much credit. I really think the equity thing is pure performance. He's using Denver Harbor, etc., as an excuse to oppose pedestrian improvements on Washington, not because he has a viable plan to make Denver Harbor walkable.

[s3mh]

On 5/9/2024 at 7:00 AM, 004n063 said:

Voters want less congestion.

But with Whitmire, the political calculation on this issue is backwards.  He did not campaign on taking out bike lanes and reversing course on pedestrian friendly street designs.  But once in office, he thinks that there will be no political repercussions because he can justify his actions on the grounds that he is trying to reduce traffic.  It is an asking for forgiveness instead of permission strategy.  

And while everyone in Houston hates traffic, I think there has been a lot of evolution in public opinion on this issue.  It is not 2002 when everyone thought that adding lanes would make everything better.  I-10 is almost as wide as it is long and it still has awful traffic.  People are much more concerned about quality of life within the city and want neighborhoods that are pedestrian friendly and not have to drive everywhere.  So, it is then a very hard sell to say that people in the Heights don't get nice things because people driving in from the Woodlands need to be able to take Shepherd when I-45 is clogged up and don't want to have an extra 48 seconds added on to their commute time because Shep is down to three lanes.  And that makes a big assumption that the reduction in lanes would have any noticeable effect on traffic.

 

[wilcal]

4 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I think you're giving him too much credit. I really think the equity thing is pure performance. He's using Denver Harbor, etc., as an excuse to oppose pedestrian improvements on Washington, not because he has a viable plan to make Denver Harbor walkable.

No actual inside information here, but I have heard that some type of comprehensive sidewalk plan might be coming. 

There's still the whole no money thing, but some funds are being generated for discretionary sidewalk improvements via the sidewalk fee in lieu. It is a bit of a complicated structure because a portion of the funds are city wide and a portion are locked into local sidewalk districts. So we really do need some methodology of deciding on which sidewalks to build first.

[BeerNut]

 

[Some one]

So to reiterate what I said earlier

[Triton]

6 hours ago, BeerNut said:

 

It was incredibly clear that we didn't want this to be a highway going through the Heights anymore. Lane reduction plus better walking and biking areas on both sides of the road. I think it will be a huge blunder on his part if he brings this back to its previous configuration.

[Some one]

Why is it that every time this city is about to make some sort of progress on urban planning some politician comes in to ruin it all? Has any other city been screwed over as much as Houston's been?

ETA: How long until we get a fourth loop around Houston named after Whitmire 🙄

Edited May 16 by Some one

[texan]

Evidently Whitmire conceded to 3 lanes but now is holding firm they cannot be reduced in width. Keep up the pressure on all of these projects, it's working! In fact, turn up the pressure for 11th, Montrose, and the coming fight for Telephone.

And thanks to @AustrianInHOU on X for posting.

 

[samagon]

this is good news, not great, lane width is one of the things that encourages the speed that drivers choose to go. drivers naturally want to drive slower when the lanes are more narrow, and they want to driver faster when the lanes are wider.

but then, just having a more narrow road overall will help too.

Edited May 16 by samagon