Jump to content

Some one

Full Member
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Some one

  1. That is concerning and I don't understand why they would do that.
  2. More hysterics There are no actual plans to remove the bus lanes, at least not anytime soon.
  3. How soon can we vote to recall someone? Seriously though, I hope he never lives Houston Ave. down. ETA: Also, I wonder what his thoughts are on removing the Pierce Elevated since he seems to be so concerned about firefighters and police officers getting to Houston Ave. from 45 North. πŸ€”
  4. He's too busy giving speeches about how much he cares about "public safety." πŸ™„
  5. In my ideal world, I'd convert Westheimer into a multimodal corridor west of 610. Take the outer two lanes and convert them to bus and bike lanes. East of 610 would be a little more challenging but this is under the assumption that the Westheimer road diet already happened. Then I'd have an elevated rail running on Westheimer between West Oak and 610. Then it transitions to a subway east of 610, with two branches: One to downtown following the 82 and one to UH/Eastwood Transit Center following Elgin/Lockwood (interlining with the University BRT). I'd maybe even extend it south from West Oak and have it connect to the (hypothetical) Westpark Commuter Rail, running from Fulshear to Uptown TC, at Mission Bend P&R. It's fun to play make-believe sometimes. 😁 Or a rail line down Hardy that connects to the IAH BRT near Greenspoint and a rail line from Burnett TC down Highway 3 to Galveston, with the Purple/Green Line being extended from Hobby Airport (Future terminus) to SH 3 via Airport/College in South Houston (or even beyond that to Pasadena/La Porte). Adding onto your delusional optimism. I think it's less that TXDOT isn't open to the idea of rail/high-capacity transit on Westheimer, and more so that they're not open to any transit that reduces the amount of lanes on Westheimer.
  6. Great, so let's keep the bike lanes on 11th St AND add bike lanes to 14th. 😁
  7. From what I remember, METRO considered extending the green/purple line down Washington to Heights/Yale but axed it cause it was too late in the planning process. It's a shame too, cause it could've spurred more development for Washington and served as a feeder for the planned Inner Katy BRT. I would love to have a subway run down Westheimer but that's never gonna happen. :( Here's to hoping we see rail west of I-45 someday, even if it's to the Courthouse.
  8. Funnily enough, there are also plans to cap 45 under N Main too. I think once it's done, it's gonna look similar to this.
  9. What a backward decision and statement. "We want to improve safety on this street so we're going to remove everything that made the street safer for pedestrians and bicyclists and return it back to its hostile stroad environment. Dw, we'll study how to make it safer for pedestrians......not." I hope this doesn't set a precedent for projects like this.
  10. I thought below-grade freeways were supposed to function as flood basins though. πŸ€”
  11. Unfortunately, TxDOT is legally required to spend 97% of its funding on road projects. Maybe we would've seen commuter rail or (better) intercity rail if that wasn't the case, but for now, TxDOT's gonna TxDOT.
  12. I see. Still, I don't think this project is necessary.
  13. Yeah, I'm looking forward to the cap parks being built and implemented. I think they should also look into capping 59 between Elgin and McGowen and I-10/(and future I-45) between McKnee and the rail line, but I'll take what we can get. Also, might be an unpopular opinion, but am I the only one who doesn't see the point of the I-10 express lane continuing past downtown, especially when all of the other HOV/express lanes end downtown? I feel like they'd have less ROW to take if they had I-45 run where the express lanes should be, and just have the I-10 express lanes intertwine with 45's express lanes.
  14. I don't get it. So they want to elevate I-10 to get it out of the floodplain.... but they also want to sink 45 and 59 below ground so they can function as a floodplain? How inconsistent.
  15. From the GCRD Website. https://www.gcrd.net/post/westpark-corridor-map https://www.gcrd.net/post/us-90a-alternatives-analysis
  16. The 290 and Galveston corridors are still being studied as well, although not as much as the other two.
  17. So I've been looking into this and apparently, the US 90A and Westpark corridors' studies are ongoing. Granted, the plan isn't necessarily for commuter rail anymore, as they're exploring alternative options such as light rail or BRT, and it's not even a guarantee that this will advance past the studies. But it's interesting to see how they'll move forward with it. ETA: The Westpark corridor is likely to become an extension of the future University BRT into Fulshear. If this does go through then the Big BRT is about to get even bigger
  18. Me too, but an express BRT to IAH would be a lot faster than a potential Red Line extension. I just hate how its schedule is pretty much dependent on the I-45 expansion project (and we all know how that's going).
  19. I never said they should follow major freeway corridors. I actually think its foolish to put rail where the freeway is, especially since a lot of them have stations that are difficult to get to. I'd rather they put them where the people are. That's why the Houston METRO, despite being slow, has about as riders than the DART rail in Dallas. Because Metro was more focused on building rail where the people were (between districts and neighborhoods) rather than where the ROW was. I never suggested that. I understand the constraints METRO has. The plan we have now is still much better than having no transit plan. I just wish they were a little clearer about the BRT not being convertible.
  20. The light rail in DFW fails because DART was more focused on building them in old ROW rather than where the people were. It's the very same reason why the Houston metrorail, despite not covering as many areas as DART does, has almost as much riders as DART does.
  21. What's even more annoying is the fact that the Silver Line, which was supposed to be light rail, was later changed to BRT due to cost. And this was before the Metronext plan was approved. So Metro is really inconsistent with these things. Not to mention that a common complaint about the transit plan was that there was not enough rail, especially on the west side.
  22. I thought they were planning on tearing down half of it and turning the other half into the skypark.
  23. So they don't wanna, oh I don't know, maybe take a lane or two and convert them into bus lanes? I mean the road is wide enough anyways.
  24. Isn't the I-45 rebuild projected to be $10 billion? I hardly see that as wiser and "less expensive" than building rail transit.
  25. To to fair, the purple line and green line were built with the intention of the university line feeding into them. It's like if you build Spur 527 before you build US 59. Also, from what I've seen in the Metro presentation, they expect the University BRT to generate more ridership than the 3-4 planned light rail expansions combined. I think that warrants rail for an "incremental return."
×
×
  • Create New...