Trae

4 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Then why would Tom Ford move from ROD to the Galleria.  Why would Akris (apparently) move from ROD to the Galleria. Why would Balenciaga choose to locate in the Galleria?   How do you explain Gianvito Rossi  and The Golden Goose choosing to locate in the Galleria?  Explain to us all of the stores added to the Galleria just in 2019?  (And note how many high-end stores were added to ROD in the same time period.) How does the Galleria continue to have probably the largest concentration of luxury retail in the state?

 

Not all malls are dying.  Generally, the higher-end malls (like the Galleria) are doing well.  I agree we'll probably see more walkable development along Post Oak over the next 20 years. But I don't think that equates to the death of the Galleria.  If that was in the cards, at some point, surely we would start to see some evidence; like stores moving out of the Galleria and into one of the outdoor walkable developments, rather than the other way around.

I feel like you just enjoy debating. ROD clearly stepped up Houston's game in the luxury retail department. It doesn't take anything away from the Galleria. All you have to do is look at the list of luxury retailers within each. The ROD has ones commanding the most dollar.

34 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

There's a little place called the Galleria that has for many years been doing  a very good job of attracting the luxury retail clientele (and probably has the biggest concentration of luxury retail in the state).  

Lmao well obviously the Galleria has existed but walkable districts such as the River Oaks District was non-existent in Houston and this is what attracts the luxury clientele nowadays. It's not circling around a mall. The Galleria has luxury retail for sure but the real high-end stuff is locating in ROD. Why do you think it was so easy for ROD to pull so many luxury retailers? Look around the nation at where luxury retailers setup shop. You're more often than not in a walkable area like River Oaks District, Rodeo Drive, Michigan Ave, 5th Ave., Brickell, etc..

4 hours ago, HOUCAJUN said:

You really think so?

After River Oaks District and BLVD Place, Houston really exploded with luxury retail. Houston has increased it's profile as a luxury shopping destination fairly quickly and a lot of that was because it didn't have the setup that attracts the clientele until ROD.

Houston has really become a top luxury market especially in the Central Time Zone. I know Dallas used to be thought of as a more luxury shopping destination for this part of the country but I don't think that's the case anymore. This is especially true when you consider Houston receives many leisure travelers from Latin America. This shows what a few mixed-use developments and marketing will do to a city. Many stores now opening their first Texas or US locations in Houston more often lately than ever before.

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

I don't think price per square foot is the only measure of success, but considering that we currently have light rail but not true BRT (at least not operating yet), I'm not sure there's a useful comparison to make right now.

 

But also, some of the best mixed-use developments in the city are nowhere near the light rail. Montrose, the Heights, and everything in between have the obvious examples - think about the various massive developments being built along Allen Parkway. Or even smaller (not technically mixed-use, but less auto-oriented at least) developments like what replaced the Heights Post Office - that was going to be a strip mall but got pushback from the Historic Commission so ended up a lot better.

Midtown, Downtown, and East DT definitely have the most though and that's where the rail is. It'll be interesting to see how it shapes out but I'll bet almost anything that the areas nearest rail corridors will be more desirable in the long run than bus corridors. It's the case in every major city so I don't see Houston bucking that trend (outside of Uptown/RO of course), but I could be wrong.

11 minutes ago, Texasota said:

It's a few years old, but this is an interesting piece on TOD: https://www.citylab.com/life/2013/09/surprising-key-making-transit-oriented-development-work/6992/

 

TLDR: TOD success comes more from municipal/agency support and incentives than from any particular transit type. Example BRT lines from Cleveland and Pittsburgh are given as success and failures. 

Not just TODs though but new mixed-use development in general. Which projects are commanding the highest price per sq ft in Houston right now? The ones nearest the current rail lines, with Uptown/River Oaks being an obvious exception due to wealth.

A lot has changed since 2013. There are definitely cities out there expanding TOD policies for highly used bus routes (Chicago doing it for two or three lines) but of course those are complement routes to the main rail lines. In order to make it work for a bus line you're going to need high frequency service.

I hope Houston is successful going with all these buses versus higher quality rail, but I have my doubts based on perception of bus vs. rail by the general public, the lower capacity, and more variables.

18 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

You're not making your point very well.  If, as you admit, there is a limit to capacity for every system, perhaps it makes the most sense to choose the one that provides the capacity you need for any reasonable time line, like say 45 - 50 years (see your LA Orange line example).

 

1.  Not sure why there would be more potential for TODs.  I imagine you'll be able to quickly provide me with a long list of all of the TODs you are familiar with at commuter rail stations...  (yes, I'm being sarastic).  In any event, one of the MetroNext visions (which I actually mentioned in my earlier post) is to reimagine our Park & Ride lots with  the idea having them NOT be just giant parking lots.

 

2. Again, let's put capacity where it will serve a purpose.  Is there any scenario where we really need commuter rail cars that hold 200 people?  Rather than providing high-capacity/low frequency service (as commuter rail tends to be), aren't commuter better served by right-sized capacity/frequent service?

 

3.  Ah, yes... Metro buses sit in the same traffic as cars, except when they don't (which is a good portion of the time.) Nevertheless, that is a flaw in the current system, but see the MetroNext plan to fix that.  Of course you ignore the fact that Metro buses also get commuters much closer to their ultimate destination without another transfer.  Commuter rail can never do that as well.

 

If you really think the Orange line will likely be fully converted to light rail sooner than 2050, you don't know how California works (or doesn't work).  😉

 

I asked you earlier how many additional commuters you imagine would use commuter rail.  Of course you don't have an answer.  Here's some useful information to consider:

 

The Southern California Metrolink commuter rail system operates on seven lines with 62 stations and 534 miles of rail in a metropolitan area more than twice the size (both geographically and as to population) of Houston.  Metrolink averages about 40,000 boardings on a typical weekday.

 

Metro's park & ride system covering a smaller area and serving a far smaller population, averages almost 28,000 on a typical weekday. 

1. Because TODs most often form around rail stations. I have not seen TODs development around bus stations but let me know if I'm missing something there. Not even LA's Silver Line has TODs.

2. Yes during rush hour. Have you seen some of these PnR lots during those times? I admit it's been years since I've seen one but the 99/I-10 lot was my home. You see lines of people waiting for their bus and if it fills up they have to wait for the next one. I have to say it's much easier to go online or pull up the train schedule app and coordinate around that. Then you just adjust the train length throughout the day based on rush hour, special events, etc. It's a set schedule everyday that is more reliable than buses. Take it from someone who has used both systems.

3. No Metro buses definitely sit in the same traffic. Countless times I've seen Metro buses fight across 4-5 lanes of traffic on the Katy to exit in order to get to the PnR. Other freeways have concrete barrier HOVs, but again this causes backups as the buses move slower than personal vehicles. Meanwhile, the commuter rail train I ride on in LA goes 70-80 MPH between stops.

4. I agree CA is slow but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Orange Line converted much earlier (by 2030) because LA has been awarded quite a bit in federal funding. The Orange Line conversion is one of the higher priority projects.

Now about your rail numbers, you have to also consider that Metrolink (which is increasing in ridership) is not the only rail system out here. People also use the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner, then there is the Red Line in North Hollywood that acts as a commuter station. You also have the Blue Line from Long Beach and the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley that are built like commuter rail systems (especially the Gold Line in the SGV). The Houston PnR is just about the only way people are getting to the jobs within Houston's core via transit.. You also have to consider LA is more decentralized than Houston (like DFW). Houston is built more like Chicago which means building a hub-and-spoke rail system makes even more sense.

52 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

On the one hand you tell us that "No one wanted to ride the bus" (which was apparently not even a BRT bus, so the story was of minimal relevance) and "People really have a stigma about buses" and BRT is not that different.  But then you tell us that "some of these BRT lines will jump out the gate with ridership high enough to warrant conversion" to rail.  You seem confused.

 

How much higher do you imagine ridership would  be if we had commuter rail rather than Park & Ride?  And on what do you base that?  You have the flexibility argument exactly backwards. Park & Rides serve many different stations.  What is the benefit to an individual commuter to have a particular train stop at numerous stations?  An individual commuter really only needs/wants one boarding station per ride. Any additional stations just lengthen the commute.  FYI, the Katy Tollway is bi-directional and is open 24-7.  The MetroNext vision is for all major freeways to eventually have bidirectional 24-7 HOV or HOT lanes.

 

As for LA's Orange Line, it opened in 2005 and I understand their plan is to convert it to light rail by 2050 -- 2050!! Not bad, if a transit agency can get 45 years of service out of a route and then repurpose most of the infrastructure for another mode of service.  Seems like a pretty good plan.

I was a little exaggerate with the "no one" but do you really think buses are viewed the same as rail? Some of these BRT lines will be replacing highly used bus corridors which is why out of the gate they will have high ridership. But there is a limit to bus capacity, just like there is a limit to light rail capacity, just like there is a limit to heavy rail capacity, etc.

The flexibility option is not backwards and there are of course different ways each can be flexible. Sure, you might have to make a transfer (after walking a couple blocks) if it were commuter rail, but that's it. The benefit of having commuter rail stops are:

1. More potential for TODs, especially in suburban locations. Do you get this at PnR stations? No. You just have a dead parking lot most of the time.

2. Higher capacity trains. One commuter rail car can hold up to 200 people. Now multiple that by 5 or 7 depending on how many cars can be linked up in the train. What's the capacity of the Metro "Greyhounds"? Maybe 100?

3. Avoiding traffic. Current Metro buses sit in the same traffic as cars and don't have priority other than being in the HOV lane.

I'm basing the higher ridership on the fact that Houston has a centralized job core, good usage already with PnR buses, and that rail is more attractive thus bringing more riders. On top of that, the bi-directional travel board would be going on all day during the day and weekends. It's much easier to schedule trips if you're taking a train as there's less variables than with dealing with buses.

As for the LA Orange Line, here's a little history. The San Fernando Valley had decent density even back in the 80s when this was first proposed. Initially it was going to be a heavy rail line but there was a very powerful religious group that fought it to the end. So Metro (LA) compromised and built the BRT line. Full conversion is said to take place by 2050 meaning it can happen sooner and it likely will. The reason for that is there are fast-tracked rail projects in the San Fernando Valley (thanks Olympics 2028) and some funds may be diverted to the BRT-to-LRT conversion. Politicians who cover portions of the Valley served by the Orange Line have publicly stated that traffic movement and redevelopment was hindered due to it being a bus line. They see the projects going up along other rail lines, even suburban ones like the Gold Line in the San Gabriel Valley, and want more.

Edit: I am curious about Metro's long range plans for the commuter buses. Do they plan to make it like the Silver Line in LA? It's built within the tollway on the 110 Freeway from DTLA to San Pedro/Long Beach area. There are multiple stations in the middle of the freeway throughout that are very similar to rail stations. If Metro were to do something like this for Houston and run the buses longer, I can see it being a big success. But I doubt we'll see the freeways engineered to allow for stations.

On 2/6/2020 at 1:22 PM, wxman said:

This city, known for its innovation in aeronotics and space along with advanced medicine is so freaking backwards. When will city officials understand that buses are NOT sexy and they have a negative connotation that they serve only the lower classes of people in our city--lone exception being The Woodlands Express.

 

Trains are much fancier, sexier and attractive and the focus should be bringing commuter rail to the main suburban centers like Sugar Land, Katy, Clear Lake, The Woodlands and Kingwood. Buses are a thing of the past. They add to congestion, ride slowly in the fast lanes and are constantly stopping on main thoroughfares like Westheimer backing up cars and traffic to let one or two people off at a time. 

 

To see so much planning and energy being put into a stupid bus is typical government at work. So much money, so much time and so little in the way of moving our city into the 21st century. 

 

The high speed rail is also sort of a joke on Houston's end. The main terminal is in a piss poor location at a conjunction of two major, clogged freeways that is convenient for exactly nobody unless you live in Oak Forest. To stop before even reaching Houston is silly. I mean is it asking too much to at least get it to the Galleria area? It would be best to get it downtown like Dallas. 

I was just in Sacramento for a company outing and was heading out with coworkers. No one wanted to ride the bus so we instead walked a few extra blocks to the train station. People really have a stigma about buses. It's the whole reason why LA is trying it's best to convert the Orange Line BRT to LRT (aside from the fact that buses have lower capacity). There are so many buses that have limited capacity (you can't attach multiple buses together), LA had to construct overpasses because buses started to back up. Cities of Houston's size don't rely on buses as the primary transit option but Houston is doing this because politicians screwed the voters and city.

People will say "but BRT looks different" but it's not that different. It still looks like a regular extended bus and nothing like a light rail train no matter how low to the ground they try to make the bus.

And for those clamoring about Metro's Park and Ride, imagine how much higher the ridership would be if it were commuter rail. You'd have more flexibility with being able to get on at numerous stations and not have to fight freeway traffic to enter the HOT lanes (which causes more congestion). I hated being in the Katy Tollway during rush hour if I was stuck behind a Metro bus as they left lane hog because the HOV side is wrongly to the left instead of the right. Plus it'd be bi-directional and run throughout the day and night versus just a few hours in the AM/PM.

On 2/20/2020 at 4:37 PM, BEES?! said:

I'm super pro-rail and pro-LRT, but I am also pretty surprised at just how much cheaper it is to build BRT than LRT. I totally get why, and I'm not knocking LRT, but wow that is pretty nuts, and it really makes a lot of sense why METRO's opting to go this route, and I respect it. I was disappointed that old maps that showed heavy implementation of LRT/heavy rail seem to have been scrapped in favor of BRT and less LRT, but now that I've actually seen the cost, and understand that it's been a huge fight for METRO to even get money for these projects at all, it does seem like BRT will be more bang for their buck, let them move more people, and maybe be able to prove that Houston CAN be a transit-friendly city.

 

Those BOOST lines sound neat, too. Are they currently being implemented around town? I think I saw on one of the bike path threads they were (painted bike lanes and 'floating' bus stops). If that's what the BOOST lines will all be like, that will be awesome!

Cheap is nice but give me quality any day. That's what LRT lines are when compared to BRT.

The University Line from Gulfton to IAH would be absolutely PERFECT for LRT, as would the Inner Katy line. Those are the only two I think Metro should do everything in their power to convert to LRT instead. Those being LRT would change the landscape of Houston. BRT will be a cool novelty for a little while but you won't ever maximize ridership or redevelopment potential with a fancy bus.

People keep saying Houston is so different without saying why. Houston is a city seeing huge increases in highrise and urban living due to many factors including floods, downsizing, popularity of inner-city living in general, etc. Density in the urban area is going up across the board. A bus system is not going to properly support the city. No where in the first world is there a major city like Houston who has buses be the preferred method to rail. At best buses are the complement to the rail system. I have no idea why people think Houston will go against that trend with buses. What makes it special?

There is a reason why bus routes are converted to rail if ridership is high enough and some of these BRT lines will jump out the gate with ridership high enough to warrant conversion. Why wait until rail constructions gets even more expensive? Was the lesson not learned in the 1980s, early 2000s, etc.? What is Metro going to due when their pensions are sky high because they need to hire 3 operators vs 1 (3 buses for 1 train capacity)?

Houston is doing it backwards but time will tell if ridership holds. City has so much potential but it gets squandered. Where's the ambition?

3 hours ago, CaptainJilliams said:

 

An Alamo Drafthouse downtown would be a game changer. 

 

I honestly think if and when they rebuild the Bayou Center downtown, plugging in an Alamo Drafthouse in place of the AMC that is there currently.

They opened a location in Downtown Los Angeles that is probably the nicest theater they have. Very clean, modern, and right about LA's busiest subway system. It also had only one giant restroom that was completely gender neutral. First time I've ever seen something like that. This would be better than the current AMC downtown.

On 10/21/2019 at 7:10 AM, dbigtex56 said:

CVS remains on my 'naughty' list because of their inflexible approach to development.
Whether it's Main & Elgin, Gray & Brazos, or Montrose & Richmond, they slap up the same cookie-cutter building regardless of its surroundings and impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 
Good riddance. Hope more of them close.

On 10/21/2019 at 7:32 AM, bobruss said:

I agree with you dbigtex56. They have continued to create huge parking islands wherever they build in Houston, with no regard for new directions in retail and urban planning.

I think it's mostly a Houston problem (setback requirements, parking minimums) than a CVS problem. CVS builds plenty of urban locations. A similar example would be the Walmart and Target in the Heights with giant parking lots. We know both big box stores build urban locations, especially Target, but City of Houston policies at the time led to what we have currently. Luckily that is all changing and pretty rapidly at that. Exciting to see what Skanska builds here. Maybe we get an urban CVS or Walgreens on a corner with this development.

9 hours ago, Mattie said:

No, they just built one on Bay Area in Clear Lake. Not sure if it’s open yet 

Also stores in Sugar Land and Alvin that have been open a few months now. There's one in Spring coming soon too.

9 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Lots of good info in here, but.. are you saying that 288/59 caused Third Ward to decline or caused Midtown to decline, or both? From what I understand, Midtown was not historically the business district for Third Ward, which was on Dowling Street/Emancipation Avenue. Why the Dowling Street business district declined and disappeared (and why it was named for a Confederate general) is a legitimate cause for inquiry and perhaps lament. But the businesses in Midtown, up until the neighborhood tanked in the 70's-80's, were mostly white-frequented, as were the churches, hotels, and schools. South Main had a role in the city similar to the role that Westheimer would later play. So I don't think 288/59 impacted Third Ward in any large way except to cut it off from other neighborhoods, which happened to a lot of neighborhoods in central Houston.

 

 

Before 288/59 came and wrecked things, Almeda was the business row for Third Ward. The freeway going in there had a ton of negative impact on the community. And it was built so wide with minimum continous streets or pedestrian overpasses.

5 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Jewish families were systematically rounded up, sent to prison camps and exterminated.  Historical fact.

Yeah but there's also a lot more to this story. Jews were slave labor during that time too but plenty got reparations. Heck it was Jews denying Blacks home loans for the longest time. 

On 11/21/2019 at 7:44 AM, Houston19514 said:

 

Looks like a solution in search of a problem.

 

 

Quite right, but even more important, not all roads leading to downtown (and through Midtown) need to be high-speed thoroughfares. Outbound traffic can (and does) turn left on Holman, then right on Crawford.  Done.

I don't think it'd automatically be a high-speed thoroughfare, especially since Almeda itself isn't a high-speed road in this area. Put in wide sidewalks, heavy landscaping, bike lanes, and don't have it be more than two lanes wide. This would also eliminate a pedestrian crossing for cars, so that'd be safer for everyone. With the space left over, you can add green space, another garage with ground floor retail, etc. Wouldn't be a bad idea.

On 11/29/2019 at 5:58 AM, Toopicky said:

You people are dreaming.

Metro won't change their plan other than perhaps a simple reroute until AFTER all the money is spent..... the voters have spoken.

 

Dropping a line because Federal funding was blocked isn't nearly the same as Metro deciding to upgrade from BRT to LRT.

The former was blocked and no funds were spent, while the later is simply IGNORING what the electorate voted to do and spend  MORE that they approved.

 

Not going to happen without another vote, and that won't happen until this tranche of money is spent.  Even then, how does Metro approach the voters again and say. "Remember all that money we spent building BRT ? Well, we want to tear it all up and spend even more and BTW we will have to shut down the BRT route for a few years while we replace all the new concrete to support the rail we should have built in the first place."

 

Wait another 30 years ......

Isn't that what a referendum is? Which is what I said Metro should have based on the margin of victory. Also if BRT is supposed to be easily switched to rail, then converting any voter approved lines to LRT during construction will only delay it a couple of years at worst. The likelihood of a referendum happening to convert these lines back to LRT as originally voted on years ago is not high, so Houston will have to deal with the Great Value form of transit for a few decades.

5 hours ago, Texasota said:

Don't get me a wrong: I would love to see a referendum next year converting the University line to rail (before it's built), building the 90 and 290 commuter lines (but as true regional rail), regional lines along Hardy and 45 S to Galveston, and a serious proposal for rail into the Heights and Montrose (probably 3-4 lines, though a N-S cross-neighborhood line would actually be pretty useful - maybe it could even swoop down through the Village and into the medical center.)

 

I agree that below a certain size it makes no sense to use another city for comparison, but I think mid-size cities are absolutely fair game. I personally view that Houston as functionally a mid-size city with big city suburbs. I do think we need to stop relying on American cities and start looking at cities in other countries that actually have functioning transit. Many of which manage to take buses and make them work as real transit, regardless of whether that's part of a larger system or the backbone. Copenhagen didn't have a subway until pretty recently, and the bus line that runs along Norrebrograde is still incredibly heavily used and important for getting in and out of the center city.

 

And for what it's worth, Bordeaux's metro area is actually almost exactly the same as Austin's at roughly 2.1 million

It depends on what you define as a mid-size city, and if that's Bordeaux then Houston is not midsize. Copenhagen has had a subway for almost 20 years, and a light rail system for decades longer. The urban core of Houston has reached substantial size and density, or at least enough to warrant much more rail. Even some of the projections of a few BRT lines are enough to federally petition for light rail instead.

I think we agree that Metro wasn't ambitious with this plan. It's telling when literally every city of Houston's caliber has banked on rail transit and has only included BRT options as supplements to the overall system. None of them seem to think that BRT is right as a first option for their system for a reason, yet the densest and most urban side of Houston is going to use the less attractive transit mode. I really hope Metro goes back to the table after the holidays, looks at the margin this won by, and starts working on a referendum. If they can do that for some of the lines you named, along with the other BRT proposals feeding into them, then Houston might have a true mass transit system.

11 hours ago, Texasota said:

Also, what Metro proposed takes the entire existing system and improves it. All of it. Across the board. In some ways that's more ambitious than a few big flashy projects, and it is 100% necessary to get our overall transit system to anywhere near world-class. Copenhagen has a subway, but it also has a network of high-frequency buses that get their own lanes. Same with Barcelona. The only local rail Bordeaux has is three light rail lines. Buses don't have to be an embarrassment; they can provide a strong, independently useful foundation on which to build future projects as capacity needs grow.

I agree it improves the system but they low balled it at the end of the day. Those buses in Copenhagen are in addition to its 105-mile S-Train (light rail) and 23-mile Metro train (heavy rail subway). Barcelona's buses are in addition to its over 89 miles of rail, with more on the way (commuter, subway, and light rail).  Bordeaux is a small city, and it's metro isn't even larger than Austin. It's not a city Houston should be compared to.

Metro could have re-implemented the rail lines from the 2008 proposal and with the improved bus routes. Yeah it would have taken money, but it's at a time when Houstonians have become sick with traffic and driving, and now the city has much better urban offerings. It's almost a perfect storm. This was the same city that approved the heavy rail plan in the 80s before a mayor diverted the funds. I'm happy the system is improving, but hopefully there's a way to convert some of these BRT routes to LRT (like they were originally) because it'll be decades before they eventually make the switch.

On 11/9/2019 at 7:34 AM, Naviguessor said:

I’ve come to agree with the BRT option too. With the money that available, and the ground that we need to make up, it’s the best option imo. Also, if done right, Houston may become a roll model for the country. Are there any other US cities which use BRT as extensively as what’s Proposed in MetroNext? 

Pretty much every city in America of Houston's caliber or higher (and quite a few lower) have been mainly looking at rail transit and expanding that, with BRT as a complement at best. Seattle recently converted their bus tunnel to rail. Los Angeles is looking to do the same with its Orange Line. The only sizable city which had a huge BRT plan was Nashville, but the voters there turned it down. With the high margin this referendum passed with, I bet Metro could have had some of these routes as rail (Inner Katy, University, Westheimer) and the voters still would have approved. It's clear Houstonians were hungry for something so Metro could have proposed a little more.

Houston has dense enough corridors for a complete light rail system in the inner loop with extensions to both airports (which isn't the same as a bus from downtown to IAH). You can have lines towards the west and southwest sides of towns. This isn't Houston 1985. With the location of the largest employment centers in Houston and the increase in density within the Beltway, it makes getting rail ridership here easier. The recent expansion was incomplete and doesn't show the full potential of the current lines. Would be a lot different if the University and Inner Katy lines were also complete at this point.

I agree with those that say commuter rail would work best from the suburbs, especially since the trains could run more often throughout the entire day than the current Metro P&R system. Studies have shown that even BRT is less favorable to potential riders than rail would be. It's still a bus, just in its own lane. There's talk of autonomous buses from folks who don't want rail but we already have autonomous rail in the world. Hindsight 20/20 (or not since it was voted for by citizens but turned down by the mayor at the time), Houston should have heavy rail down most major freeways with limited stops until you reach the core and it could 17-20 hours a day.

3 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

 

Are you saying Houston only has one public 4-year university? Good god, there are two in the Third Ward alone. Cough Cough. One of them was created to keep UTAustin lily white. 

 

Additionally, there are BA opportunities at TWU-Houston, A&M- Galveston, Sam Houston State, Prairie View A&M, and UTH. And that's just off the top of my head. 

Texas Southern University is not a school that's sought after by most undergrads. Prairie View definitely has more prestige than TSU but it too is just a blip (and I went to PVAMU my freshman year). Sam Houston State is in Huntsville so that doesn't count.

Houston is indeed the only top ten metro area without multiple 4-year public universities that rank. Phoenix is the 11th largest metro and the only one with just one large public university, but at least it's the state's flagship. It'd be like having UT-Austin somewhere in the Inner Loop. But I guess you could say that DC only has one large public university in it's metro, but that again is the state flagship (Maryland) and there are so many other colleges in and around DC that make up for it. Something Houston can't say.

Texas in general punches below it's weight in higher education, and so does Houston.

4 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Los Angeles (Cal State-LA and UCLA), and I think Chicago, but drawing the line at city limits is artificial and pointless. (I would venture to guess that an insignificant number of students choose their school based on in what city limits it happens to fall.)

 

A far more important question:  How many of the top 10 metros (other than Houston) do not have two or more public 4-year universities from two or more different state systems (or the equivalent, because not everyone has university "systems" the way Texas does)?

Don't forget CSU-Northridge in LA city limits. It's actually quite amazing how 4-year public unis there are in SoCal.

5 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I would agree if it came to the possibility of this being a full campus. But that was never likely what it was going to be (the land area was too small, among other reasons), and it shouldn't have been too difficult to get them to pledge that it wasn't going to be for that. It turned out the plan was for a data center. This was more about chasing away the UT brand and its footprint in Houston, which basically means chasing away UT money and its impact on Houston.

 

It also means we lose a rare chance to diversify our workforce and become a little more attractive to non-oil companies. Dallas owns the region on corporate relocations; they just pulled in McKesson last week, #6 on the Fortune 500. Not very big news up there though since it's only their third company in the Fortune top 10. 

 

I love my hometown and have defended Houston endlessly in the past, but there have been decisions made over the years that have accumulated and I think Houston may be at a crossroads. From all of the strip annexation that left vast amounts of unincorporated areas relying on a stretched thin county instead of allowing for more local incorporation. Then there's the weak flood control policies, failure at attracting non-energy companies, inadequate rail transit, no major amusement park=less outside tourism dollars, bad roadway planning (the arterial grid in Houston looks nice but the implementation of it leaves a lot to be desired --- the small things like dedicated turning lanes or right turn yield lanes can go a long way), very patchy sidewalk network, and arguably the worst of the bunch is not allowing the state's largest university system to build a school in town. If Houston just had a couple of those items (namely more incorporated suburbs and better flood control), then the future outlook would look brighter in my opinion.

There are other mid-size Southern cities that are starting to rise (Nashville, Raleigh, Orlando, Charlotte) who have become stronger competition than in the past. Like Nashville just landed Amazon's operational HQ that'll have up to 5,000 jobs. Houston would never be considering for something like that today. Houston is not even attracting medical companies. Those go to DFW. It's shouldn't be a mystery why the governor of the state who comes FROM the Houston area can't even get outside companies to relocate their HQ to it. The I-35 corridor has gotten all the love. Houston has made strides in many areas but there's a lot of work to do and I don't think residents want to be taxed to make these things happen.

6 hours ago, shasta said:

 

Trrae, this is bigger issue that just not allowing a UT-Houston,  it revolves around HOW the State of Texas funds ITS public schools. Read up on the PUF (Permanent University Fund) and how the ONLY Public schools that have access to the HUGE pot of money is the UT system and TAMU system. Even among those two UT gets more of the share. Its written into the Texas State Constitution.

 

All other STATE schools were not allowed to get a penny from this fund...that includes UH, Texas Tech, Sam Houston, Texas State, North Texas, etc. so each year these schools would essentially beg for THEIR state to fund THEIR state schools. Eventually the state did create a secondary pot but that is a much smaller pot is divided among all the non- UT/TAMU system public schools in the state.

 

So, you can imagine UH's position....when a nearly hundred year old state school in the state of Texas that has to BEG for state funding each year found out that Texas was going to build a new campus for UH with the excess funds from a pot that the other state schools do not have access to ..they just had to put their foot down.

 

As for the State of Texas, there is ZERO reasons why the university of Houston should not be as prestigious as say a UCLA......this is a State government issue

 

This whole issue revolves around how the state of Texas manages their public institutions of higher learning. They CHOSE not to have a collaborative system as say the UC system in California....that was their decision. It was also their decision to leave certain institutions to fend for themselves instead of helping to build them up into the premiere State system in the United States... This a state issue..not a city Houston issue....

I hear you but this is still a short-sighted position in my opinion. Yeah it's unfair that UT/A&M get most of the funds, but you let the school come first. The finances and how money is distributed across all state public universities can be decided on and worked out later. That will happen with or without UT putting a school in the middle of Houston. Let that money flow into the city. Instead that money will continue flowing to DFW, Austin, SA, etc., while Houston will be left behind. Other metros of similar size have multiple public universities that are gearing those cities towards the future economy. UH at worst would have remained the same with a UT-Houston coming on. With all the history UH has in this region, do you think it would have become a Paul Quinn College? I think having just one large university in such a fast growing metro area is not going to work. Trying to make UH into the one super college campus in Houston is going to be similar to Houston gobbling up so much unincorporated area. You're going to stretch things thin instead of sectioning off and letting different areas compete to bring out the best. That's what you see in DFW where the suburban cities have competed so much to where now they're seen as pristine and very attractive for relocating companies. Those companies move in and give funding to the multiple colleges in the area, hire people who move from out of state and then send kids to those colleges, and now those colleges are shooting up the ranking with giant tech departments. Not putting another 4-year school in town is just not preparing Houston for the future at all.

On 12/3/2018 at 8:05 AM, H-Town Man said:

The state's largest and wealthiest university will think twice before they try to start a project in Houston again, amirite?!

 

Yeah this will go down as an all time stupid decision by Houston leaders. And I'm a UH grad and would have liked having this school there. The difference between a UT-Houston vs a UTEP, UT-Tyler, etc., is that this would be in Houston, an international city with a top 8 population and economy in America. Houston is nothing like those other small cities with a UT campus. Look at where UT-Dallas is now versus 10-15 years ago. It's attracting high numbers of National Merit Scholars and the school's rankings have really improved. That's what a UT-Houston could have become. Houston is way too big to have just one large public university and A&M is too far to count as a legit second. DFW having three large public universities within it's metro is starting to really benefit it now and will help in the future. UT-Arlington and UNT may not be that high of ranked schools but they're higher than before. They've helped improve the cities they are located in (Arlington and Denton) because of services (often free) to the local community and have spurred development around them (UT-Dallas has too).

Houston has one of the highest birth rates of top ten metros in America and we're not going to be able to squeeze all of those kids into UH if they want to stay home. I hope somehow this can still happen even if it's somewhere else in the city. If not then hopefully A&M or Texas Tech opens up a public 4-year campus within Harris County.

At a projection of 59,500 riders on 22 miles, the University BRT would have more than enough ridership to justify it being rail. It'd have the 8th highest ridership per mile out of all light rail systems in this country. Even better, the Inner Katy line would have the 4th highest riders per mile if it were a light rail system. Some short-shortsightedness going on by making these lines BRT. But such is Houston nowadays, where people band together to stop another flagship university from forming.