Coaster Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Well, you can put lipstick on a pig but when driving down F2 with little Johnny, telling him how scenic it is...er was..."Look Johnny! There used to be woods and fields and farms over there where the Super Walmart is now. It was very scenic when grandma and grandpa took us there on pick-nicks. But don't worry, when we get home I'll show you some pictures."Of course, little Johnny knows better and wonders why a minority of speculators got to decide on what goes where. Well, at least little Johnny won't be spending his life waiting for the light to turn green. Take little Johnny to Navasota to look at the trees so the rest of us can get to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Well, at least little Johnny won't be spending his life waiting for the light to turn green. Take little Johnny to Navasota to look at the trees so the rest of us can get to work. THAT's the spirit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 So, if I may summarize, you think the Northern Alignment better serves regional and local transportation needs because it is Not In My [your] Back Yard. Did I get that about right?(And by the way, you just sound silly claiming that the GPA first said the the F-2 Segment was being developed for local traffic needs. The whole of Grand Parkway is being developed tp serve the regional mobility needs of metropolitan Houston area; it has always been thus and has been so stated. Local transportation benefits are a happy side-effect. But then we're used to you sounding silly when it comes to the Grand Parkway, e.g. your claims that it will have an 800-1500 foot R-O-W, that it will have no connection with I-45...)i'm all for the grand parkway taking traffic away from woodlands parkway. however, there is no need to slam our dearest pineda. i think that pineda's efforts are noble and well founded. i find pineda neither silly nor shortsighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coaster Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I wouldn't want to get into any heated debate with you NMAIN or Pineda because I've read your posts for a long time and respect your opinions. I agree Pineda is THE source to go to when it comes to keeping up with the GP issue. And I'm personally greatful that he keeps the rest of us up-to-date at this forum.But respectfully, I just don't agree with him. I want the GP to happen. Just like the people who want to stop it because of their own personal interest, I want it because I would be one of the people who would use the northwestern GP segments on a regular basis if it existed today. Call me selfish, but realize that so is trying to stop the GP just because it will be close to YOUR home. And also realize that everytime you drive down freeways like the west loop and the west belt - others had to make a sacrifice for YOUR convenience.Really, I think the opposition to this project could have a very good effect on the ultimate outcome. If TxDOT or any other agency is allowed to go unchecked, we could very easily have another I-45 on our hands. My hope is that people who object to the GP, like Pineda, will have enough of an influence to make the project be the best it can be, WITHOUT cancelling it.Also, I know I was being glib and insensitive about poor little Johnny. I was just trying to be funny, but in reality I really hope there is a way to allow the people to get to work AND for little Johnny and the rest of us to be able to apprieciate the beautiful pines along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I wouldn't want to get into any heated debate with you NMAIN or Pineda because I've read your posts for a long time and respect your opinions. I agree Pineda is THE source to go to when it comes to keeping up with the GP issue. And I'm personally greatful that he keeps the rest of us up-to-date at this forum.But respectfully, I just don't agree with him. I want the GP to happen. Just like the people who want to stop it because of their own personal interest, I want it because I would be one of the people who would use the northwestern GP segments on a regular basis if it existed today. Call me selfish, but realize that so is trying to stop the GP just because it will be close to YOUR home. And also realize that everytime you drive down freeways like the west loop and the west belt - others had to make a sacrifice for YOUR convenience.Really, I think the opposition to this project could have a very good effect on the ultimate outcome. If TxDOT or any other agency is allowed to go unchecked, we could very easily have another I-45 on our hands. My hope is that people who object to the GP, like Pineda, will have enough of an influence to make the project be the best it can be, WITHOUT cancelling it.Also, I know I was being glib and insensitive about poor little Johnny. I was just trying to be funny, but in reality I really hope there is a way to allow the people to get to work AND for little Johnny and the rest of us to be able to apprieciate the beautiful pines along the way.That was actually a pretty good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 On this topic, I have found it to be un-wise in discounting pineda. No where on this forum has there been anyone more passionate and up on their facts then pineda. I also recall being told it would be for local use. No doubt Pineda is passionate. But "up on their facts?" Is it a fact that the Grand Parkway is planned or seriously likely to have 800-1200-1500 foot R-O-W's, as Pineda has told us on several occasions? Is it a fact that there will be no connection between the end of Segment F-2 and I-45 ("No exits, no ramps, no nothing" in Pineda's words). Is it a fact that the Grand Parkway project east of US 59 is "dead", as Pineda once told us? I could go on, but those examples should make the point. Pineda's presentations of "facts" have been about as reliable as are those of the opponents of rail on Richmond. His (and your) confusion about the purpose of Grand Parkway is mystifying. It could not be more obvious that the primary purpose of the Grand Parkway (and therefore of every segment of the Grand Parkway) is to serve regional transportation needs. Each segment will obviously also serve local transportation needs within that context. They need to locate the segments to adequately and appropriately serve both. Why is that so difficult to understand? I would imagine the evil Grand Parkway people may have said at various times something along the lines of "we are planning/designing segment F-2 to serve local transportation needs." Well, yeah. I would hope they would. Does that mean it is not also (and primarily) planned/designed to serve regional transportation needs? No. The Northern Alignment Feasibility Study concluded very clearly that another new road may be needed in the southern Montgomery County area to serve local transportation needs, but that running Grand Parkway Segment F-2 in that alignment would not serve the regional transportation needs intended to be served by the Grand Parkway project, nor the local transportation needs of the currently-planned alignment. No, I was not at the meeting, so I cannot say for certain how they reported the results of the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study, but I have looked over the study and those are the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I really can't help it if the "facts" given to me or told to me by the kind folks at the Grand Parkway Association or TxDOT are as changeable as the weather. I'm not an engineer, I relay information that I get from these different people, but I don't really rely upon them for actually knowing what's going on with this project. Nobody really seems to have a good handle on the whole project. My facts are only as reliable as the folks that I've gotten them from, for the past five years now. Sorry that bugs you, Houston 19514. The Northern Alignment Feasibility Study concluded very clearly that another new road may be needed in the southern Montgomery County area to serve local transportation needs, but that running Grand Parkway Segment F-2 in that alignment would not serve the regional transportation needs intended to be served by the Grand Parkway project, nor the local transportation needs of the currently-planned alignment.I love the above statement! (That is one sentence, isn't it?) If I were with the Grand Parkway Association, I think I would have written it JUST LIKE THAT! This must have been the part they told us they had to "tweak" before presenting it sight unseen at the Public Hearing. If it's a REGIONAL project, meant to serve REGIONAL needs, and the Spring community is so upset over the placement of the project in the Spring area, why can't the project be located elsewhere in the REGION, such as Montgomery County, where their traffic problems already far exceed that of the Spring area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I love the above statement! (That is one sentence, isn't it?) If I were with the Grand Parkway Association, I think I would have written it JUST LIKE THAT! This must have been the part they told us they had to "tweak" before presenting it sight unseen at the Public Hearing. If it's a REGIONAL project, meant to serve REGIONAL needs, and the Spring community is so upset over the placement of the project in the Spring area, why can't the project be located elsewhere in the REGION, such as Montgomery County, where their traffic problems already far exceed that of the Spring area?Now you're really being incoherent. Heck, why not build segment F-2 in Chambers County?... that's part of the region too. It should go without saying that when one says "regional transportation needs" one is not just saying that it's a project in the region.But to answer your question... they aren't going to build F-2 in Montgomery County because the northern alignment does not serve the regional needs that are intended to be addressed by the Grand Parkway project (just as I said earlier and just as the study concluded).... (BTW, that was very clear in my earlier post; this is why I am little skeptical about so much of what you have "heard" from the Grand Parkway representatives. You seem to have a habit of mis-reading or misunderstanding.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 It should go without saying that when one says "regional transportation needs" one is not just saying that it's a project in the region.Man, talk about incoherent! I would think that when one says regional transportation needs, that one is indeed saying that it's a project in the region. they aren't going to build F-2 in Montgomery County because the northern alignment does not serve the regional needs that are intended to be addressed by the Grand Parkway project What a nice way of saying that because the Grand Parkway Association doesn't want to build F-2 in Montgomery County that it doesn't serve THEIR needs! Again, I go back to what I keep repeating, if the project is truly intended to serve REGIONAL needs, (not just the needs intended to be addressed by the GPA), then the REGIONAL need would appear to be much greater in the Montgomery County area. Why do I say "would appear to be"? Because no matter how many times they're asked to release them, the Grand Parkway Association will not release any traffic studies conducted in the Montgomery County area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Man, talk about incoherent! I would think that when one says regional transportation needs, that one is indeed saying that it's a project in the region. What a nice way of saying that because the Grand Parkway Association doesn't want to build F-2 in Montgomery County that it doesn't serve THEIR needs! Again, I go back to what I keep repeating, if the project is truly intended to serve REGIONAL needs, (not just the needs intended to be addressed by the GPA), then the REGIONAL need would appear to be much greater in the Montgomery County area. Why do I say "would appear to be"? Because no matter how many times they're asked to release them, the Grand Parkway Association will not release any traffic studies conducted in the Montgomery County area. Again with the misunderstanding / misreading . . . or is it just misrepresenting? Go back and read what I wrote. "It is not JUST saying that it's a project in the region." Let me try to explain it for you. That means that it is more than JUST a project IN the region. It is indeed in the regions, but it also serves some broader "REGIONAL" transportation needs or goals. As I've said before and as you would see if you looked at The Northern Alignment Study, southern Montgomery County may well need a new east-west highway in that area, but such a highway would serve local transportation needs only, and not the regional needs being addressed by the Grand Parkway. You have clearly made up your mind, the facts and studies be damned. And those evil Grand Parkway people, refusing to hand-deliver traffic studies to you, Pineda, of all people. Have you bothered to look at the Northern Alignment study? (Again, it's on the Grand Parkway website; if they are trying to keep it secret, well, let's just say I'm glad they aren't in charge of national security secrets.) There are traffic counts and projections all over the place, as I believe they are in the DEIS as well. For that matter, have you even looked at the routing for the Northern alignment? It's ridiculous. Come around the northwest edge of the city and when you get close to Pineda's house, take a hard left, go north 10 miles or so past The Woodlands, take a hard right, go east until you're well-clear of Pineda's neighborhood and then another hard right south for ten miles to rejoin the loop around the city. That's more ridiculous than the idea of jogging the University rail line off of Richmond over to Westpark just to avoid Afton Oaks and the few businesses etc along Richmond objecting to the rail line (in a similar way, both Richmond and Westpark alignments would be in the "region." But one cannot say that both options serve regional transportation needs equally well. As a wise member of this board said in another thread: "Scare tactics are cheap and common and often win out over logic and common sence in this city." I hope your 1200 foot r-o-w, no connection to I-45, sound barrier walls are ineffective, etc etc. scare tactics fail. It is my experience that one is likely to have more influence on the results and the final design if one avoids hysterical scare tactics. But you of course will do as you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 But you of course will do as you wish. Yes, OF COURSE, I will! Thanks for your interest in this topic. It's been fun debating you, Houston 19514. Obviously, my interests in protecting my neighborhood are different from your own. I will go on opposing the Grand Parkway Segment F-2 into the Spring area, just as I and my neighbors have done for the past five years, using my "cheap and common scare tactics", as you put it, or any other means that I deem necessary to oppose it. BTW, if you read the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study, and you read the part where the study repeatedly concludes that traffic congestion relief IS indeed needed in the Northern Alignment area, perhaps you will notice the part where it also mentions that the studies authors do not believe that the Northern Alignment will generate the toll revenue needed to fund the project, whereas the alignment in Spring will generate the funds necessary. Some wise person on this board mentioned one time that money was the real determining factor for where the Grand Parkway route would go. It's been my experience that this is usually true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Yes, OF COURSE, I will! Thanks for your interest in this topic. It's been fun debating you, Houston 19514. Obviously, my interests in protecting my neighborhood are different from your own. I will go on opposing the Grand Parkway Segment F-2 into the Spring area, just as I and my neighbors have done for the past five years, using my "cheap and common scare tactics", as you put it, or any other means that I deem necessary to oppose it. BTW, if you read the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study, and you read the part where the study repeatedly concludes that traffic congestion relief IS indeed needed in the Northern Alignment area, perhaps you will notice the part where it also mentions that the studies authors do not believe that the Northern Alignment will generate the toll revenue needed to fund the project, whereas the alignment in Spring will generate the funds necessary. Some wise person on this board mentioned one time that money was the real determining factor for where the Grand Parkway route would go. It's been my experience that this is usually true! Wow. Talk about stepping all over your argument... ;-) Isn't that just the sort of traffic study you have been complaining about not being provided? Thanks for confirming that they have in fact been provided. And is there really a better way to determine demand or need for a tollway than by how much toll revenue it will generate? But anyway, thanks for confirming that the Northern Alignment Study in fact shows that the Northern Alignment is in fact not feasible. I know you are so clouded by your passion that nothing the Grand Parkway people or their consultants say or do can be accepted as anything less than evil, but there really is nothing at all wrong with routing a toll road based in part on whether the tolls will pay for the road. If you want the Grand Parkway people or the Texas DOT people to take you seriously, you need to get serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Wow. Talk about stepping all over your argument... ;-) Isn't that just the sort of traffic study you have been complaining about not being provided? Thanks for confirming that they have in fact been provided. And is there really a better way to determine demand or need for a tollway than by how much toll revenue it will generate? But anyway, thanks for confirming that the Northern Alignment Study in fact shows that the Northern Alignment is in fact not feasible. I know you are so clouded by your passion that nothing the Grand Parkway people or their consultants say or do can be accepted as anything less than evil, but there really is nothing at all wrong with routing a toll road based in part on whether the tolls will pay for the road. If you want the Grand Parkway people or the Texas DOT people to take you seriously, you need to get serious. The Northern Alignment Feasibility Study was only recently posted online at the Grand Parkway website, and certainly not before the Public Hearing. I don't check their website daily, so please forgive me for that. Also, their traffic studies don't show where they pulled those numbers from or times or dates. As far as I know, all the numbers provided are old, not current. I also don't believe that the need for a road should be determined more by potential revenue, than by basic need for traffic congestion relief. I still believe that the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study shows more merit for a route into Montgomery County than into Spring, and I will continue to push for that. Thanks again for all your comments! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Hey, since we're so concerned about facts....well, let's get pineda's GENDER right, for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StopGP Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Until you have been in meetings with TxDOT or The Grand Parkway Association do not doubt anything Pineda says. I have been in numerous meeting where they have spoke and I have watched the story change. I have seen them ask questions like does anyone have a problem with the concept of the grand parkway and the next day report that they took a vote and the residents of Spring are in favor of the Grand Parkway in their area. I too heard that there are no planned direct connectors at 249 and no connectors at I45 directly from TxDOT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Until you have been in meetings with TxDOT or The Grand Parkway Association do not doubt anything Pineda says. I have been in numerous meeting where they have spoke and I have watched the story change. I have seen them ask questions like does anyone have a problem with the concept of the grand parkway and the next day report that they took a vote and the residents of Spring are in favor of the Grand Parkway in their area. I too heard that there are no planned direct connectors at 249 and no connectors at I45 directly from TxDOT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.