I'm not going to teach you engineering on a message board, but I'll give you a hint. DDIs have fewer signal phases which allows for more green light time, is more efficient, can handle more capacity, has more longevity, etc. DDIs are also safer. There are numerous websites that can explain it in detail.

My issue is that you and many others make statements that paint an entire profession (engineers in this case, but others too) as fools, which is counterproductive because it turns everyone into a cynic. Instead, be curious, research, ask questions to understand, and then point out specific issues that seem out of line based on your understanding. Most things aren't perfect and can be questioned. For instance, I believe there's a minor inefficiency in a part of the 2818 DDI setup that they will hopefully correct one day, but otherwise it appears to be operating wonderfully.

etmydst said:

---

I'm not going to teach you engineering on a message board, but I'll give you a hint. DDIs have fewer signal phases which allows for more green light time, is more efficient, can handle more capacity, has more longevity, etc. DDIs are also safer. There are numerous websites that can explain it in detail.

My issue is that you and many others make statements that paint an entire profession (engineers in this case, but others too) as fools, which is counterproductive because it turns everyone into a cynic. Instead, be curious, research, ask questions to understand, and then point out specific issues that seem out of line based on your understanding. Most things aren't perfect and can be questioned. For instance, I believe there's a minor inefficiency in a part of the 2818 DDI setup that they will hopefully correct one day, but otherwise it appears to be operating wonderfully.

---

This is a great post!!
We need more people, especially those that have strong opinions on what they think the city is doing, to gather facts before attacking/lashing out.

If anyone wants their voice/message to actually be heard by members of city council, make sure you get your facts straight first.

It's definitely more fun on a message board to just start attacking, but if you truly care about the future of the city and want Council Members to be receptive to complaints/concerns, then make sure you aren't just attacking to attack.

Mr. Yancy is reaching out here. He already said he had nothing to do with the Macy's debacle.
I think he has heard that we don't want the city doing things like this. Yes, I want to city to divest of it quickly, hopefully to a private entity that will pay taxes on it.

I definitely would like to see transparency from the city council members that are still present that chose to buy it and provide their reasoning why. It does seem to be that those members are not wanting to be transparent about it, and that definitely causes the perception that their intentions were not based on "this is what is best for the future of the city". But we can't put Mr. Yancy in the position to speak for them.

The Medians, the DDD intersection and the new project for expansion of Hwy 6 are TXDOT projects.

There are tons of studies on the DDD intersections that show they are safer and more efficient. But what you see here on this board from the haters always seems to be anecdotal "Sometimes I have to stop at a red-light longer than what it was before the DDD for the direction I am coming from" scenarios, or worse, just hate for it because it something new and different and not "Well this is not something I grew up with and know well. and I just can't adapt to change well, so it sucks"

woodiewood said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Hittag1492 said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

woodiewood said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

Growth is fine and inevitable considering the presence of the growth of A&M and the desire of former students to live here whether young or retirees.

What is occuring is that those persons who desire the smaller town atmosphere and feeling are moving to Navasota, Caldwell, Anderson, Iola and other small towns.

Who would have thought that Navasota would have two or three fine dining restaurants?

Who would have thought that Anderson would have a winebar restaurant?

Hwy 50 from Breham is bumper to bumper every morning with persons driving to BCS from The small town Brenham area.

The challenge for those in charge is the manage growth so that the infrastructure in maintained in good condition and so that "big city" crime and other issues are minimized. Even Bryan has issues with growth. There are streets in NW Bryan that are in very poor condition with the city doing their best to address street conditions but it appears they are overwhelmed.

I think overall the city managers have done a good job although I didn't agree with the city getting into the real estate business with the Macys and other projects. I for one liked the new City Hall as it is a showplace and also built for growth in the next 20 years or so.

Now that they have it, the city might look at the Macys building for a combination senior citizens use and also for a YMCA. Some structural issues might be costly, but comparing its renovation cost versus building an new building elsewhere it might be advantageous to place those entities there? The city has set aside $22 million for the YMCA and half of that might cover any renovation cost of the Macys building as the parking is already present.

I would like a law that prohibits cities and countries from purchasing real property unless there is current or projected future public need of the property.

---

I realize it's becoming a dead horse, but the Macy's debacle is infuriating. I want even one member of council or city staff to give us just one good reason why that purchase occurred. They won't and they can't. They need to hear the displeasure on gross misuse of city funds loud and clear this November. Again, cities have zero business playing developer and landlord with taxpayer funds in the private sector.

---

Well I didn't support it and as quoted in The Eagle esports article earlier this week- the calculus has changed now that you, me, all of us, own it. There's a fiduciary duty to ensure the taxpayers lose no money on it. That's all we can do, now.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

Respectfully-Hurry up and do it. It seem to me it is being made to be much harder to fix than it really is. Whatever the solution is-do it. It is burning money daily. If nobody there can figure it out or find someone who can-then you answered your own question on should you be re-elected.

Wasn't someone trying to get in there when the city bought it? Was it a business? Church? What exactly was the situation? Seems time for that cloud of mystery to fade away and someone give a bit of full disclosure. Why protect the fools who did it? Who owes them that protection? Aren't the taxpayers owed much more?

Find someone yo fill it and move on. I cannot wait for the day it gets filled and the entire council crows about how genius they are, lol. The sun will be shining and birds chirping that day-you can count on that my friend!

---

Supposedly an air conditioned storage facility the city elders would find objectionable at a prominent entry point into the city, if memory serves from past discussions about it on here.

---

Yep, the storage facility would have both high property texas and BPP taxes. Now, there are no taxes collected

The city did the same at Rock Prairie where Wal-Mart wanted to put a Super Wal-Mart there but the city wouldn't approve it. So what do they do, allow The non-profit, non-taxed Scott and White buy it and building there. That was one of the best and highest land value vacant tract of land there is. Not only would the city collect the property taxes on about a $20,000,000 value in the building and the land, but also lost the sales tax receipts from hundreds if not millions of dollars of sales.

---

And, the developer would have paid for the traffic impacts - >$10MM for the Rock Prairie overpass (if I remember correctly) that the city/taxpayer had to foot instead...

etmydst said:

---

I'm not going to teach you engineering on a message board, but I'll give you a hint. DDIs have fewer signal phases which allows for more green light time, is more efficient, can handle more capacity, has more longevity, etc. DDIs are also safer. There are numerous websites that can explain it in detail.

My issue is that you and many others make statements that paint an entire profession (engineers in this case, but others too) as fools, which is counterproductive because it turns everyone into a cynic. Instead, be curious, research, ask questions to understand, and then point out specific issues that seem out of line based on your understanding. Most things aren't perfect and can be questioned. For instance, I believe there's a minor inefficiency in a part of the 2818 DDI setup that they will hopefully correct one day, but otherwise it appears to be operating wonderfully.

---

I read up on them when it was proposed. Spending millions on solutions in search of a problem is a waste of tax funds.

How MUCH "safer" and "efficient?"

14M worth? Doubt it.

As far as "giving engineers a bad name," they do that without any help from me.

Have you tried to serve or repair any piece of equipment newer than about 2005?

cavscout96 said:

---

As far as "giving engineers a bad name," they do that without any help from me.

Have you tried to serve or repair any piece of equipment newer than about 2005?

---

Correlation does not imply causation.

It's not engineers making the decision to not have something be repairable or to fail for planned obsolescence... that is the people in the C-Suite who aren't engineers.

In fact, the engineers are doing a fantastic job following the directions of their bosses.
It takes great engineering to make an item last just enough to get past warranty period and then fail.

Once again, just another emotional post that isn't moving your position forward in a debate...just a distraction from facts.

There's a large, empty anchor store that they aren't paying common maintenance on that failed as an esports venue it was sold to the taxpayers as that all of a sudden now ain't up to muster,

Can we stop taking things off the tax rolls?

Can we stop with the vanity projects?

Can we stop raising the tax bar for the average homeowner?

etmydst said:

---

I'm not going to teach you engineering on a message board, but I'll give you a hint. DDIs have fewer signal phases which allows for more green light time, is more efficient, can handle more capacity, has more longevity, etc. DDIs are also safer. There are numerous websites that can explain it in detail.

My issue is that you and many others make statements that paint an entire profession (engineers in this case, but others too) as fools, which is counterproductive because it turns everyone into a cynic. Instead, be curious, research, ask questions to understand, and then point out specific issues that seem out of line based on your understanding. Most things aren't perfect and can be questioned. For instance, I believe there's a minor inefficiency in a part of the 2818 DDI setup that they will hopefully correct one day, but otherwise it appears to be operating wonderfully.

---

I go through the DDI at 2018 at least twice a day and I think it was a great improvement with traffic running smoothly. I have yet to see an accident on it.

etmydst said:

---

I'm not going to teach you engineering on a message board, but I'll give you a hint. DDIs have fewer signal phases which allows for more green light time, is more efficient, can handle more capacity, has more longevity, etc. DDIs are also safer. There are numerous websites that can explain it in detail.

My issue is that you and many others make statements that paint an entire profession (engineers in this case, but others too) as fools, which is counterproductive because it turns everyone into a cynic. Instead, be curious, research, ask questions to understand, and then point out specific issues that seem out of line based on your understanding. Most things aren't perfect and can be questioned. For instance, I believe there's a minor inefficiency in a part of the 2818 DDI setup that they will hopefully correct one day, but otherwise it appears to be operating wonderfully.

---

Let me take a shot at this. My background is engineering, so call me an egg-head to start.

That's the problem though -- the drivers going through an DDI aren't egg-heads. They are normal drivers. They aren't engineers. They aren't traffic experts. They haven't read how efficient DDIs are supposed to be. They aren't computer simulations.

What they are are regular people -- some 16-year-old early drivers. Some 45-year-old experienced drivers who are used to "normal" intersections. Some 70-year-old past-their-prime drivers. Some distracted drivers.

Instead of running the egg-head simulations which show that DDIs are the bomb, do you know what happens? Almost every single driver -- even very experienced ones -- gets up there ... takes a look ... is completely baffled about this new-fangled thing ... and slows to almost a complete stop while they try to navigate their way through it. Now -- that's the experienced ones.

Call me a shi**ty driver. I think I'm better than that, but still, call me that. Every. Single. Time. I have to go through the DDI at University and 2818, I slow to a crawl, look all over the place, and try to figure out what in the heck I am supposed to do. Now, throw in some 16-year-olds, some 70-+-year-olds, some olds and youngs on their cell-phones ... yeah, the DDIs are awesome! They are one of those things that is awesome in a computer simulation and absolutely the opposite in real life.

You can tell me I'm wrong, and I'm sure your engineering knowledge and simulations will prove you right, but I can tell you that the incredible DDI intersection at 60 and 2818 is accommodating far less traffic than this old guy saw it accommodate 30 years ago. I'd love to see the accident statistics from that intersection from the last 30 years compared to the next 10 years. Not sure if this egg-head will be around that long though.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

How often do the population signs get updated? Once we hit 130k I'd like to see new signs.

---

Those signs are updated by TxDot. At most they update every two years. Cities can request TxDot to update them. Cities in Texas have been growing so fast, reportedly they have a hard time keeping up.

cavscout96 said:

---

etmydst said:

---

I'm not going to teach you engineering on a message board, but I'll give you a hint. DDIs have fewer signal phases which allows for more green light time, is more efficient, can handle more capacity, has more longevity, etc. DDIs are also safer. There are numerous websites that can explain it in detail.

My issue is that you and many others make statements that paint an entire profession (engineers in this case, but others too) as fools, which is counterproductive because it turns everyone into a cynic. Instead, be curious, research, ask questions to understand, and then point out specific issues that seem out of line based on your understanding. Most things aren't perfect and can be questioned. For instance, I believe there's a minor inefficiency in a part of the 2818 DDI setup that they will hopefully correct one day, but otherwise it appears to be operating wonderfully.

---

I read up on them when it was proposed. Spending millions on solutions in search of a problem is a waste of tax funds.

How MUCH "safer" and "efficient?"

14M worth? Doubt it.

---

The old intersection needed to be redone. By the mid-2010s there would be several cars stacked up in the middle lane, which wasn't how it was back in the 1990s and 2000s.

Rather than reading up on the intersection and why it's better for flow and efficiency than the typical 1960s-era diamond interchanges you basically declared that it was entirely unnecessary and a waste of money without even a shred of evidence or counter-argument. "It's bad because I don't understand it" is not an argument, no matter how often its used.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

There's a large, empty anchor store that they aren't paying common maintenance on that failed as an esports venue it was sold to the taxpayers as that all of a sudden now ain't up to muster,

Can we stop taking things off the tax rolls?

Can we stop with the vanity projects?

Can we stop raising the tax bar for the average homeowner?

---

Yessir I think we can and should. Except the vanity projects part. I'm not sure what a vanity project is and I stand ready to be educated. But on the rest of your statement I concur.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

Vanity Project: building a monument city hall and Instagram prop on a a high value property on a main thoroughfare when you own much less expensive land in proximity to other city buildings.

p.s. Yes, I know this predated you, Councilman and do appreciate you engaging here

nought said:

---

etmydst said:

---

I'm not going to teach you engineering on a message board, but I'll give you a hint. DDIs have fewer signal phases which allows for more green light time, is more efficient, can handle more capacity, has more longevity, etc. DDIs are also safer. There are numerous websites that can explain it in detail.

My issue is that you and many others make statements that paint an entire profession (engineers in this case, but others too) as fools, which is counterproductive because it turns everyone into a cynic. Instead, be curious, research, ask questions to understand, and then point out specific issues that seem out of line based on your understanding. Most things aren't perfect and can be questioned. For instance, I believe there's a minor inefficiency in a part of the 2818 DDI setup that they will hopefully correct one day, but otherwise it appears to be operating wonderfully.

---

Let me take a shot at this. My background is engineering, so call me an egg-head to start.

That's the problem though -- the drivers going through an DDI aren't egg-heads. They are normal drivers. They aren't engineers. They aren't traffic experts. They haven't read how efficient DDIs are supposed to be. They aren't computer simulations.

What they are are regular people -- some 16-year-old early drivers. Some 45-year-old experienced drivers who are used to "normal" intersections. Some 70-year-old past-their-prime drivers. Some distracted drivers.

Instead of running the egg-head simulations which show that DDIs are the bomb, do you know what happens? Almost every single driver -- even very experienced ones -- gets up there ... takes a look ... is completely baffled about this new-fangled thing ... and slows to almost a complete stop while they try to navigate their way through it. Now -- that's the experienced ones.

Call me a shi**ty driver. I think I'm better than that, but still, call me that. Every. Single. Time. I have to go through the DDI at University and 2818, I slow to a crawl, look all over the place, and try to figure out what in the heck I am supposed to do. Now, throw in some 16-year-olds, some 70-+-year-olds, some olds and youngs on their cell-phones ... yeah, the DDIs are awesome! They are one of those things that is awesome in a computer simulation and absolutely the opposite in real life.

You can tell me I'm wrong, and I'm sure your engineering knowledge and simulations will prove you right, but I can tell you that the incredible DDI intersection at 60 and 2818 is accommodating far less traffic than this old guy saw it accommodate 30 years ago. I'd love to see the accident statistics from that intersection from the last 30 years compared to the next 10 years. Not sure if this egg-head will be around that long though.

---

I bet a similar dialogue happened in 1914 with the first traffic light was installed in Cleveland.

FWIW, I hated the DDI when when I first went through it, but have gotten used to it and have seen it's magic work at high traffic times.

BCS-Ag said:

---

Bob Yancy said:

---

Hornbeck said:

---

There's a large, empty anchor store that they aren't paying common maintenance on that failed as an esports venue it was sold to the taxpayers as that all of a sudden now ain't up to muster,

Can we stop taking things off the tax rolls?

Can we stop with the vanity projects?

Can we stop raising the tax bar for the average homeowner?

---

Yessir I think we can and should. Except the vanity projects part. I'm not sure what a vanity project is and I stand ready to be educated. But on the rest of your statement I concur.

Respectfully,

-yancy

---

Vanity Project: building a monument city hall and Instagram prop on a a high value property on a main thoroughfare when you own much less expensive land in proximity to other city buildings.

p.s. Yes, I know this predated you, Councilman and do appreciate you engaging here

---

I own the I Love Aggieland sign decision and stand by it. Lengthy post previously. Yes the other decisions predate me. Have a good 4th.

Respectfully,

-yancy

maroon barchetta said:

---

What new methods of making tax payers sign up for recurring subscriptions is council considering?

---

Parking in front of your own home for one…

cavscout96 said:

---

PS3D said:

---

cavscout96 said:

---

etmydst said:

---

I'm not going to teach you engineering on a message board, but I'll give you a hint. DDIs have fewer signal phases which allows for more green light time, is more efficient, can handle more capacity, has more longevity, etc. DDIs are also safer. There are numerous websites that can explain it in detail.

My issue is that you and many others make statements that paint an entire profession (engineers in this case, but others too) as fools, which is counterproductive because it turns everyone into a cynic. Instead, be curious, research, ask questions to understand, and then point out specific issues that seem out of line based on your understanding. Most things aren't perfect and can be questioned. For instance, I believe there's a minor inefficiency in a part of the 2818 DDI setup that they will hopefully correct one day, but otherwise it appears to be operating wonderfully.

---

I read up on them when it was proposed. Spending millions on solutions in search of a problem is a waste of tax funds.

How MUCH "safer" and "efficient?"

14M worth? Doubt it.

---

The old intersection needed to be redone. By the mid-2010s there would be several cars stacked up in the middle lane, which wasn't how it was back in the 1990s and 2000s.

Rather than reading up on the intersection and why it's better for flow and efficiency than the typical 1960s-era diamond interchanges you basically declared that it was entirely unnecessary and a waste of money without even a shred of evidence or counter-argument. "It's bad because I don't understand it" is not an argument, no matter how often its used.

---

I didn't say it was bad because I didn't understand it. I actually do understand it and have since it was planned.

I said you could have accomplished an appropriately safe alternative at much less cost. would it have been less efficient for that 40 minutes a day where the traffic is a PITA and the 4-5 home football games? Sure, but that added convenience is not worth the cost in my opinion.

---

The design eliminates turning left in front of traffic as well as the total number of conflict points (and improves pedestrian access, too). I get the "just do it the cheapest way possible, I don't care if it's bad" mindset but you shouldn't disparage other people just because they have different ideas.

PS3D said:

---

cavscout96 said:

---

PS3D said:

---

cavscout96 said:

---

etmydst said:

---

I'm not going to teach you engineering on a message board, but I'll give you a hint. DDIs have fewer signal phases which allows for more green light time, is more efficient, can handle more capacity, has more longevity, etc. DDIs are also safer. There are numerous websites that can explain it in detail.

My issue is that you and many others make statements that paint an entire profession (engineers in this case, but others too) as fools, which is counterproductive because it turns everyone into a cynic. Instead, be curious, research, ask questions to understand, and then point out specific issues that seem out of line based on your understanding. Most things aren't perfect and can be questioned. For instance, I believe there's a minor inefficiency in a part of the 2818 DDI setup that they will hopefully correct one day, but otherwise it appears to be operating wonderfully.

---

I read up on them when it was proposed. Spending millions on solutions in search of a problem is a waste of tax funds.

How MUCH "safer" and "efficient?"

14M worth? Doubt it.

---

The old intersection needed to be redone. By the mid-2010s there would be several cars stacked up in the middle lane, which wasn't how it was back in the 1990s and 2000s.

Rather than reading up on the intersection and why it's better for flow and efficiency than the typical 1960s-era diamond interchanges you basically declared that it was entirely unnecessary and a waste of money without even a shred of evidence or counter-argument. "It's bad because I don't understand it" is not an argument, no matter how often its used.

---

I didn't say it was bad because I didn't understand it. I actually do understand it and have since it was planned.

I said you could have accomplished an appropriately safe alternative at much less cost. would it have been less efficient for that 40 minutes a day where the traffic is a PITA and the 4-5 home football games? Sure, but that added convenience is not worth the cost in my opinion.

---

The design eliminates turning left in front of traffic as well as the total number of conflict points (and improves pedestrian access, too). I get the "just do it the cheapest way possible, I don't care if it's bad" mindset but you shouldn't disparage other people just because they have different ideas.

---

Pedestrians? Really?

Has a single person actually used that DDI for foot traffic in the time it's been open?

Where in the world were they coming from or going?

The thing is a waste. The obsession with shiny new objects just because an engineer stamped them absolutely baffles me.

The one thing it almost certainly accomplished was making a pile of cash for some road and bridge contractor.

maroon barchetta said:

---

What new methods of making tax payers sign up for recurring subscriptions is council considering?

---

[Long sigh.] I'll give you credit. At least you're consistent.

Happy 4th of July man.

Bob Yancy said:

---

Stucco said:

---

Is this growth rate optimal? We don't want flat or negative growth, but what is the ideal rate to preserve the place we live the longest we can?

---

That's a really good question and the conversation I was looking for when posting this.

Frankly I don't know if a city can, or should, constrain growth. Like many folks I talk to, I miss the ever diminishing "small town feel." But my family and I also enjoy the growing amenities and entertainment options.

I suppose city government could constrain permitting, but in my gut that's not right. If folks want to relocate their families here or start a private sector business, who is government to say no?

I think the best a city can do is manage growth efficiently. Police, fire, roadways and infrastructure- and otherwise stay out of the private sector's way.

---

We are in the same situation that Austin was in the early 1970s...uncontrolled growth and overwhelmed infrastructure. I told people then that they will have major issues, and now they do.

Everyone wants a vibrant economy and great job opportunities, but there are tradeoffs to having that and we are experiencing them.

We can see it now, the nearby towns are beginning to grow with people moving to those areas from out of town and due to property taxes and congestion, residents of BCS moving to adjoining counties. Anderson, Navasota, Iola, and Caldwell and even Snook are beginning to grow their populations at an increased rate.

Even towns like Chappell Hill are booming. There are four or five newer nice rural subdivisions north of Chappell Hill. For a rural area to live, the rolling terrain area north of Chappell Hill would be attractive to me. 35 miles from BCS, 12 to Brenham, 40 to Cypress area of Houston metro.

I am not sure we need to make any policy to constrain growth, but I also not sure we need to be giving tax benefits for businesses to move and build here?