HouTXRanger

On 2/6/2024 at 11:05 AM, hindesky said:

Houston is without a chief transportation planner, at a time when some suspect the plan for Houston transportation is moving backward.

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, David Fields said his last day with the city was Monday, listing a number of accomplishments he credited city workers with instituting.

“Through sound planning and a passionate commitment to this mission, Vision Zero Houston has led the work in reducing crashes and fatalities,” Fields wrote. “We have miles of new bikeways and sidewalks thanks to the Houston Bike Plan and the Sidewalk Program; and most importantly, Houstonians recognize they deserve transportation that works no matter how they travel: walking, rolling, riding transit, or driving.”

Fields’ departure comes as Whitmire slows or reverses many of the street redesigns he shepherded. On Monday, because of what Whitmire called a “bad design,” crews removed a recently installed median along Houston Avenue south of Washington that led to complaints from nearby residents and businesses, notably Trinity Lutheran Church. In the past two months, a large truck and a Metropolitan Transit Authority bus both got stuck on the median, though other heavy trucks and buses routinely navigated the street.

“I can say to me concern is an understatement,” said Mehdi Rais, a Montrose area resident who recently helped form Walk Roll Houston, a group aimed at pedestrian safety, especially around schools.

Rais said the recent changes at Houston Avenue, coupled with the departures, signal the city is unwilling to make any changes if they draw ire from certain people.

“All of that work was unraveled by a phone call from a pastor,” Rais said.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/houston-transportation-planner-resigns-amid-road-18651043.php

It looks like the post I wrote was lost to the ether . . . to summarize, losing Fields is a tragedy for the city. A few years ago, when he first started, I was fortunate enough to speak/work with him a little, and I was impressed with his attitude regarding the city and its potential. He went out of his way to make projects work (like attending an opposition meeting for 11th street to answer questions and talk with concerned residents) and I respected his decision to take his career (multi-modal planning) to a challenging place (a sunbelt metropolis). It will be difficult to find a replacement that has his attitude and outlook, if Whitmire plans to get a replacement at all, which I doubt considering how he's conducted his office so far. Very disappointed that my hometown seems to be taking ten steps back.

On 3/17/2023 at 3:39 PM, Ross said:

Their property, their choice. If it bothers you that much, make an offer for the property and develop it as you wish. You will fail, because the Catholic Church doesn't care at all what you think.

Of course, how could I forget! Unless you own the land, you get zero right to opine on how your neighborhood changes for the worse. Someone should tell all those people protesting NHIP . . .

Also, if I really cared what the landowners thought, I wouldn't waste my time commenting here, would I? I doubt any landowners of any projects we discuss even know we exist.
 

54 minutes ago, steve1363 said:

I’m not an architect but isn’t the purpose of architecture to be functional?  Why is a surface parking lot an abomination if it meets the needs of the church patrons?  Don’t tell me you want my 80-year old parents (members of Sacred Heart) to ride their bikes to mass or walk a mile from a transit stop?  I much prefer a surface parking lot across the street from the church than a dark dingy parking garage.

A parking lot can be surrounded by a nice fence or green hedges.  The church can make it look nice.  The church has nice flower beds if I remember correctly.  Give them a chance.

Calling a parking lot "architecture" is a stretch. Calling storage for unoccupied cars "functional" is less of a stretch, in the same way an empty dirt lot is functional because it's non-permeable and absorbs water when it rains. Looking at google earth, in the eight blocks surrounding the church, there are three multi-level parking garages and four surface lots, one of which is already owned and used by the church.

Nobody is saying your grandparents should take transit or bike. There is a drop-off area for people of any physical ability. There is already a parking lot owned by the church for them to use, and the building is surrounded by even more parking lots and street parking. Demolishing the old building doesn't make anything easier for your parents. In fact, it might make things more difficult by inducing the demand for parking when more people start driving there and expecting an easy parking spot.

Why are the only two possible uses for you a parking lot or parking garage? This is in downtown Houston, within walking distance of hundreds of apartments, tons of workplaces, and the downtown transit center. Why can't this be used as a church facility again? Or as a school? Or as, god forbid, housing?

The church is demolishing this because they can't be arsed to take care of their property and want to wash their hands of a potential asset for short term gains. It's not about parking. Or about the plaza. It's about doing the bare minimum by lazy management, and pretty much everyone will be worse off for it.

I'm really proud of what Houston has done over the past decade or two, but this is a stain on the transformation of Downtown. It's honestly pathetic. If they can transform a freaking post office into a mall and it works great, y'all really don't think they could do something amazing with this site? All for a goddamn parking lot. Two blocks from the Downtown Transit Center! Outstanding. Even better when the pierce elevated comes down, and more prime real estate is eaten up by a surface lot.

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

@Some one I never said you did (note I did not say "you," I said "transit promoter"), I used your comment to illustrate a point about one of the many elementary arguments people make about why people don't use transit today but would tomorrow if one just built rail, i.e., "people just need a choice."

I've heard this bandied about so often and must say I don't get it.  BUT, I confess I am ignorant on the topic.  What could METRO have done differently to make it convertible to LRT?  What exactly is preventing it from being converted to LRT in the future?  Has anything been constructed today in connection with the Silver Line that would make it more cost-prohibitive than before to build LRT in the future?

They'd have to rebuild the stations, all the bridges, tear up all the roads to put tracks in, tear down more trees for the wire poles, etc. All the while somehow not disrupting the BRT operations since, I assume, there will be enough passengers to warrant the light rail and therefore enough passengers to be really pissed off if they closed the route for 5+ years for all this construction. In the end it wouldn't be that much cheaper than building a line from scratch. Cheaper certainly, since certain studies won't have to be redone on some segments and METRO will still have accurate maps of the utilities from when the BRT was put in. But in terms of materials and labor, about the same.

However, I do think it is very cheap Politically to do this since METRO will already own the right of way.* It's much easier to get people against this sort of thing to agree to a BRT now, and then agree to a BRT>Rail decades later.

In terms of how to make the LRT cheaper in the future through the design of the BRT now, there really isn't much they can do. All that would possibly help is just ROW. The more room METRO owns through the BRT lanes, median, curbs, and station, is all room that METRO would desperately need to fit a train through, and any more ROW they take is an additional political complication. And although that ship has sailed, the bridge over the train tracks by Harrisburg would have been easier to convert if it was a tunnel instead. I'd bet you a nickle that the BRT bridge will be simply incapable of holding the weight of a light rail, and will have to be torn down and rebuilt when the time comes.

*METRO will have to buy more ROW at some intersections if they convert to rail, since the trains can't take some corners as tightly as busses. See: Redline in near northside.

Attended the Zoom meeting on the 28th. They said they were at 30% design completion. Some interesting tidbits:

• They plan for 6-minute frequency during peak hours, just like the redline (why doesn't the silver line BRT run this frequent?).
• The alignment between the Wheeler Transit Center and UH is now as follows: directly east on Wheeler to Ennis Street, north on Ennis Street to Elgin, east on Elgin Street until it turns into Lockwood when it crosses 45. They said this was changed after feedback to serve the residents of 3rd Ward better instead of just trying to get from Wheeler to UH as directly as possible.
• On Lockwood, there will be a bridge over the rail line between Rusk and Harrisburg.
  • They are committed to doing the bridge because the R in BRT won't work if the bus gets stopped by trains.
  • A tunnel won't work because the rail line currently acts as a makeshift levy for the neighborhoods to the south, and a tunnel would cause all sorts of knock-on flooding concerns they couldn't touch.
  • The bridge will not include space for cars, but they are going to add space for bikes and pedestrians, or at least some way for bikes and pedestrians to use the bridge to cross the tracks.
  • They also made a point of saying they would fund artwork at the bridge on Lockwood to make it suck less, I assume something like what they did for the green line bridge.
• On Lockwood, they said all the older trees on the roadsides should stay, and they only expect to remove the trees in the median.
• Apparently there were actually plans in motion to convert the intersection of Lockwood and Canal into a roundabout, but that won't happen now since they couldn't find a way to make that compatible with the BRT design.
• They are generally trying to avoid ROW eminent domaining wherever they can (of course), only project they often need to do that to make room for stations.
• They are planning on completely rebuilding the street along the entire alignment. So should include utility undergrounding if needed, sidewalk reconstruction, new crossings, better crosswalks, better drains, etc.
• They are taking into account where the project intersects with the high injury network and how to generally design the streets safer since they're rebuilding it all anyway. For instance, on Richmond, you won't be able to cross the BRT lanes at unsignaled intersections, only at intersections with stoplights. They will be adding more signals along that route to make sure the community around Richmond doesn't become too disconnected.
• Claimed plans for security cameras at all stops, and low emission or no emission busses including electric. I personally doubt this one comes to fruition but would be nice.

On 1/15/2023 at 9:36 AM, BEES?! said:

It sounds like they’re pretty serious (the Houston stakeholders I mean) about pursuing the Pierce Skypark, just going off the documents from downtown houston. 

If they really do it, it’d be quite a bit wider than the High Line in NYC, wouldn’t it? There’d be some pretty awesome stuff they could do with the structure, lots of potential really neat uses and those views would be outstanding. 

God, I hope not. That thing was terrible to walk under. Hopefully they at least tear down half of it to free up the street frontage on pierce.

On 2/22/2023 at 8:35 AM, HirschWacoYork said:

Probably my biggest complaint about Houston urban development - or maybe urban development in general - is that it focuses too much on "best use now". If this is not the best use in 30 years, then why offer a product where a 30 year mortgage is likely used to purchase? 

"Huge" might be a bit hyperbolic, but I agree additional residential development is good. These 5 town homes however have potential to max out at like, 15 residents? 10 if they're all car dependent, despite living right next to the metro. 10-15 people isn't as much as it could be for the neighborhood. I also pessimistically imagine at least 1 being an AirBnB right out of the gate, and a couple turn into rentals in 5 years.
 

In a place like Houston, I don't think seeing this as a "missed opportunity" for something better makes a lot of sense. If you look at google maps, there are tons of empty or under-utilized lots all around that will likely get filled in with denser housing soon. Houston's imperfect pro-housing codes work precisely because they aren't concerned with creating the "ideal" land use on a given parcel, but by pushing every development to be at least a slight improvement on what was there before (in terms of density, mixed use, TOD, etc.)

Look at this another way: the increased number of people living on what used to be a grass lot, and the increased number of people living in other imperfect but "good enough" residential developments nearby, will drive growth for future mixed-use and dense developments like the one you would prefer be built here (and objectively would be better).

On a completely 100% subjective personal note, little oddities like how these townhomes don't *quite* fit the capacity of this street, and how they will look *slightly* out of place as Harrisburg continues to fill in with denser buildings, is probably going to add to the character of the neighborhood decades from now. Generally many fine-grain developments that don't quite match are a lot more interesting than large-grain full-block developments that would occupy the same space. We used to build that all the time, but now we call those neighborhoods "historic districts" like market square. Worst case scenario is they get torn down in 20 years for something better, but in the meantime people get to live there and nearby businesses get patrons.

On 1/23/2023 at 6:20 PM, cityliving said:

 

Holy crap. These are some of my new favorite pictures of Houston! I always tell people it smelled funky because we were right next to all the refineries, and nobody really knew what that meant . . .

On 1/13/2023 at 9:40 AM, j_cuevas713 said:

I've said this before, the "haphazard" approach to development Houston has shown over the course of the past 30+ years has actually laid really nice groundwork for denser urban development.

Now that I've had to move to the Bay Area for work, people look at me like I'm an alien for talking about all the good qualities of central Houston's urban fabric. It might not be "world class" yet (just wait a few decades) but at least it doesn't take ten years to permit one affordable housing complex . . . .

Can you link that video you mentioned? I'd like to take a peek.

Ah, looks like I mistook this for a different development. Glad to see this one is moving a bit.

How long has that building in the little triangle been planned???? So pretty!

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Hmmm. 

Who would this be for exactly? Is this intended as a uni-directional loop, or a true two-way bus line? What do you imagine the headways being? 

I definitely think transit could be improved in the Heights, but I can't honestly imagine in what situation I would ride this loop. 

What I *can* imagine is riding the existing bus lines *if* they were much higher frequency.  One way to help do that might be to identify legs of existing bus lines that could be combined to either create a virtual loop, or add a separate bus route that has the effect of increasing service on those specific section of existing routes.

I've actually thought about this as well, in terms of somehow lengthening the current green or purple line up Shepherd/Durham to replicate the actual streetcar that once made living in the Heights attractive in the first place.

I'm not sure if a circulator like the downtown circulator makes sense for the heights, since it has much less density in destinations, but it could theoretically work. The Heights is already getting increasingly better bike infrastructure too, which can make such a short haul bus route less useful.

I agree 100% though, the best thing for the heights would simply be better and/or more reliable access to routes we already have. If this helps increase that access, then that would be fantastic.

44 minutes ago, southerncrj said:

City Beautiful just posted a video with a quick look at the proposed and possible station locations for high speed rail in Texas:
 

 

Man, he REALLY got the locations of the Houston and Dallas stations wrong . . . regardless don't really disagree with his points. We've already discussed the pros/cons of the Houston station to death.

1 hour ago, Brooklyn173 said:

Between Central Cadillac, the bank lot on Milam and now possibly the bus terminal, there will be a lot of large lot developable property  in midtown between Gray and Travis.

Did you heard anything regarding the owner of Central Cadillac being willing to sell? It would be awesome if all that land close to the rail station got turned into something better!

It's not really Rice's project itself. It's the fact that they expect land prices across 288 to skyrocket due to the Ion, displacing people there.

Imho Rice is doing a standup job, assuming they follow through. This coalition is based on the assumption that unless an agreement is made with them and them specifically, Rice can disregard whatever agreement they made with the city and not be penalized. How that's different than Rice theoretically disregarding whatever agreement they might make with this coalition, when the city is probably going to be the one they call to enforce their agreement . . . I'm not sure really.

7 hours ago, TTTatum said:

I live in the neighborhood directly across the metro line / on the same side of McKinney as this site. House hasn't stopped shaking while that backhoe is breaking up the concrete on the lot. So it looks like this building is going to be affordable housing/something to do with transitional teens? What does that mean for nearby property values in the short term (~3-5yrs)? Also what is housing for transitional teens? 

Transitional Housing of any kind usually means housing for homeless people to give them a permanent address for a year or two so they can apply for jobs and find housing of their own once under income. 

Whatever this does to local housing prices, I doubt it'll make much of a dent in the current housing price boom.

Do my eyes deceive me . . . are they actually narrowing the road? Incredible!

2 hours ago, Luminare said:

As one who went to A&M and was in the Corps of Cadets, Spence park was only ever used for two things, making Freshman (Fish) do pushups and pullups, along with running up and down the hill, and on weekends it was used for tailgating. Other than those two things Spence Park was always a dead space of a park. It was butt ugly and nobody spent time there. I welcome the changes, and its in line with what the schools direction has been over the past decade or so. Many old Ags don't like it and even people like me who went there in the last decade think whats being put in or replacing things is a bit...much sometimes, but its part of a greater goal by the board of directors which is simple. If we want to be a top 10 university then we need facilities, spaces, and environments that match that caliber of a school. That has been the goal. Whether one agrees with the aesthetics or grandiose nature of it all it has worked, and I at least admire the schools commitment to that objective.

Although I do have fond memories of many painful 5 AM mornings on that slope to the creek, I do agree that the park was a bit of a dump for being right next to the largest college football stadium in the country. Glad to hear that it will at least maintain the tailgating space, and I really hope it doesn't end up as . . . well, too much.

On 7/13/2021 at 11:41 PM, Some one said:

My only concern with BRT is the possibility that the buses might get too busy, especially on the University or Inner Katy corridor.

I can pretty much guarantee that the University BRT will be one of the busiest lines in the city within a few years, especially if the commuter bus system gets reworked.

On 7/14/2021 at 9:27 AM, mattyt36 said:

I thought those people called it the "toy train"

I thought that was the little train that ran through Hermann Park? 😋

You know, I bet that one crossing with the Hermann Park train has a similar number of incidents with cars as the average intersection with the light rail now . . . I've seen it happen before.

8 hours ago, wilcal said:

Please don't think I'm trying to dunk on you or anything, but they've had extensive talks and pretty much have a modified combined route laid out for green/purple line extension to Hobby laid out. The airport really wants them to use Telephone so that they can build a new car rental center there. Also, this is part of METRONext.

This article is from about 2 years ago: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Metro-leaders-optimistic-about-shared-13799310.php

You are right that nothing is finalized (and there are a bunch of railroad tracks to cross), but they've got a plan 

 

Oh wow, I'm a dummy. I misspoke and said there are no solid plans for extending east, when I meant extending west. I am SUPER looking forward to the eastern extensions to Hobby, I meant to say there wasn't anything solid on where lines west would be extended, like down Washington or something. My bad.

14 hours ago, wilcal said:

Far off? They'll be breaking ground in maybe 4-5 yearsish?

The only thing I know of even being part of MetroNext was the small extension to the courthouse, and that got bumped to the bottom of the priority list pretty quick when the pandemic happened.

As for extending it beyond, that's what I mean by way off. Since there's no solid idea of where those lines will even go, we're looking at an entire cycle of design prototyping, maybe another vote, public comments, and undoubtedly protests from a handful of people along the route, all over again. It's not like the richmond route which was more or less set in stone many years ago.

There are very far off plans to extend that rail east of downtown sometime in the future, but its all in the clouds. There are numerous small roadblocks to extending it, but it was very easy to build the lines going west, so they did that ~5 years ago because it was easy. The stations in downtown may be sharing stations with a (relatively) imminent Katy BRT though.

Speaking of the Astrodome, just saw this article on it recently. It also has the most up-to-date info on the state of its "renovations."

https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2021/06/28/we-need-talk-about-astrodome

30 minutes ago, BEES?! said:

That glass on the main building is just stunningly beautiful. Wow.

It really is. I absolutely love the color of the windows with the color and texture of the walls."

Is there a name for this kind of architecture? I want to say modern/contemporary, but this looks . . . too good to be called that imho 😁