Build the Road (620/2222) (Houston, Austin, Anderson Mill: home, high school, tornado)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

I was at that meeting. They admitted that it "wouldn't help much," but it was "the best they could do."

That's the exact opposite of what they're _explicitly_ quoted as saying the article.

"“Our modeling has shown this will provide a tremendous amount of relief to this intersection, because what it does effectively is split the traffic coming from the north and the traffic from the south and allows better green times to merge and get past this bottleneck we currently have,” Byron said."

That contradicts the official report

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...esentation.pdf


"By removing this traffic from
the existing intersection, it allows more green time for traffic to/from north RM 620. "

[Dynamoo]

Instead of permanently destroying a delicate ecosystem, why don't they just pay 3M to provide access and widen the road they already have within their campus? 

[Mimmyu]

Originally Posted by Dynamoo

Instead of permanently destroying a delicate ecosystem, why don't they just pay 3M to provide access and widen the road they already have within their campus? 

3M is selling (has sold?) their campus...

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Mimmyu

3M is selling (has sold?) their campus...

This (selling, not sold yet). And I'm not sure, but there may be some liability issues with that as well since it is private property.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That's the exact opposite of what they're _explicitly_ quoted as saying the article.

"“Our modeling has shown this will provide a tremendous amount of relief to this intersection, because what it does effectively is split the traffic coming from the north and the traffic from the south and allows better green times to merge and get past this bottleneck we currently have,” Byron said."

That contradicts the official report

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...esentation.pdf


"By removing this traffic from
the existing intersection, it allows more green time for traffic to/from north RM 620. "

There was more said than what was quoted in the article or in the report.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

but there may be some liability issues with that as well since it is private property.

So? LISD has eminent domain rights. They can acquire it if they want to. They just have to pay for it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

There was more said than what was quoted in the article or in the report.

But you're claiming they completely contradicted themselves, and the professional engineers which prepared traffic engineering reports and swore their reputations on it.

Oh, and also, you're the only one who heard them, not any of the reporters covering the event.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So? LISD has eminent domain rights. They can acquire it if they want to. They just have to pay for it.

I don't think it's that easy. 3M has been very supportive of this project, which does go across some of their property.

[Austin97]

the right answer is to remove all lights from 620 and 2222 and make high speed interchanges with 2222 and 620 (and with 71 and 183)

However the people on 620 and 2222 voted down turning 620 into an actual highway.

Now they want to encroach on the nature preserve.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Because that "small road" (1 mile by >100 feet wide) permanently cuts off a large tract of the nature preserve from the rest of the preserve. It permanently destroys the tree canopy connection (which, granted, is barely there now, but still is) which means that the cut off section is no longer effectively part of the same preserve, which makes it useless for maintaining a stable species population.

If you look at the site plan, there is a bridge that will allow wildlife to get to the other side of the road (the wildlife will go under the bridge). My source is the Four Point News from June 7.