ToryGattis

Don't know how I missed this thread, but I'm subscribed now.  My Sunday Chronicle op-ed this week on the Astrodome:

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Gattis-Astrodome-should-showcase-area-s-4432364.php

I spoke with one of the engineers working on this project and he told me that with this being geared more towards the family crowd, the average person is going to find this project disappointing.

 

He said the ones calling the shots are hell bent on having this park be a certain way, that is until demand for more roller coasters and thrill seeking rides forces them to change their point of view.

Isn't that pretty much the exact story of what happened with Fiesta, Texas in San Antonio?

Does anybody have the data (and sources) for the Houston MSA's population growth over the last couple of decades broken down inside the loop, loop to BW8, and outside BW8?  If not that exact breakdown, then I'm looking for something showing growth in the core vs. the suburbs, by whatever division you happen to have.  If available, forecasts forward would be great too...

(thanks in advance!)

Give them a couple of years.   Remember,  it's basically a giant construction zone right now.    Being worked on my mainly non-profits.      Won't have the same expediency as if say Hines was in there directing construction and waiting on the payoff at the finish.

 

It WILL look a lot diffent than the old overgrown jungle of invasive species that it was.   It will be much more open  (and usable - nice bonus) and healthy and in five years barring more droughts of a lifetime - it should look pretty good.      It will have a mix of the surviving old large trees and a lot of new young trees that will mature over time.

The Mayor mentioned that it hadn't been quite managed right over the last few decades, and not only had invasive species, but also had way too many trees planted at the same time and the same age, so they were all vulnerable simultaneously.  Evidently they have a much smarter management plan in place now and it should do much better over the next few years.

Why? It would improve speed and not mess with roadways.

I generally don't have a lot of sympathy for NIMBYs, but I've been near the elevateds in Chicago, and it would have wrecked the neighborhood - not to mention the high costs of elevation plus ADA compliance on the stations.  Richmond is a fair alternate routing which is better at catching UST and Greenway Plaza.  Certainly it hits more than the original Westpark RoW proposal.  The 59 feeder also runs parallel to it and can handle any displaced traffic from the lost lanes on Richmond.

There is a significant portion with just 3 lanes total though, or am I getting confused with Alabama

Alabama is 3 lanes, Richmond is 6.  Where it gets tight is when Richmond becomes Wheeler in Midtown.  I think METRO may be planning on taking RoW there from along the edges.

Edit: I stand corrected.  Looking at the Google satellite image, it looks like Richmond may be more like 4 or 5 plus a median, but that median makes all the difference.

For comparison, wasn't Harrisburg was 5 lanes total, 2 in each direction, and a suicide turn lane, now it's 2 rail, 1 lane each direction, and graciously sized bike paths.

Most of Richmond is 6 lanes and a median, so I think it will be able to keep 2 lanes each direction for traffic.  At least I certainly hope so.

That makes sense but I believe there was also an outrage from highland village businesses that had some (or more than some) impact on the rerouting to Richmond. Richmond itself is just a 3 lane road for a decent portion, does that mean the land on the sides would have been seized for university line? Also, for the expansion, are all the streets that the rail is being expanded to previously 5 lane roads?

I don't know the answer to your second question, but Richmond is 5 or 6 lanes plus a median along the portions with the University line.

That really makes no sense. At some level, METRO, or someone, should have the power to do what's best for the overall citizen base, not a few neighborhoods or businesses. All the people saying otherwise are hypocrites because the freeways were built with the same concept.

I think it was simply a lack of right-of-way issue.  At least one lane has to be kept each direction for access, and I think the rail needs the equivalent of 3 lanes in the middle (space for the stations).  Look at the Main St. LRT.  I believe that was a 5 lane road previously.  Lower Westheimer is barely 4 lanes, and narrow ones at that.  Some of the curves of lower Westheimer may also be problematic.

Some of the roads in Houston are an absolute joke.  But I doubt that anyone would approve an increase in taxes to make them better.

The severe drought of 2011 was a major cause damage to roads over the entire metro as our clay soil dried up and shrank, creating potholes and heaving up asphalt all over.  It will take a decade or two of maintenance to get them back in shape.  We did pass the new water fee for drainage projects, which also goes to streets.  More at http://www.rebuildhouston.org/ and http://www.haaonline.org/Display.aspx?id=1100 

Wouldn't three lanes combined with frequent METRO bus service cause pretty substantial backups?  Or would the cars pass in the middle lane?

CultureMap has the story now too.  Claims that construction starts in May...

Looks like the all-stars tweeted their locations at the Galleria, and waves of people came to see them.  Just crazy that it reached its legal capacity.  Has that ever happened before?

http://www.click2houston.com/news/HPD-The-Galleria-closes-early-due-to-large-crowds/-/1735978/18580904/-/x823ou/-/index.html 

It took my girlfriend a *full hour* around 4pm today (a Saturday!) to get from just west of the Galleria area to Max's Wine Dive on Washington - a trip that would normally be 15-20 mins.  Crazy traffic.  Is this really all attributable to the All-Star game?  Are that many people really here?  The Toyota Center only holds around 20,000, right?

If you don't have parking and the store is good enough, people will still come. Diagonal parking only re-emphasizes the notion that car is God. Someone taking away that subliminal idea can do a lot.

You're right, but that's the problem: very few stores are unique enough that people will clearly pick them over a competitor with easier parking.  And even if a store does have a loyal customer base, it may still lose the marginal/less-loyal customer, which can make all the difference.

Still waiting on the answer to where you can find block after block of empty retail under apartments in LA...

He didn't say.

I agree with the parking in back, but think Houstonians need "teaser" parking in front, ideally diagonal street parking if the RoW is available.  Think about University Blvd in the Rice Village for something similar. Ed Wulfe talked about this once. If you have the teaser parking in front, people will drive to that store thinking they will get it, and once they're there but it's full, they'll drive around back.  When a place has no parking in front, or just one or two parallel spaces, people just pick a destination/competitor with easier parking.

More parking and less landscaping? Typical houston mindset

Street sidewalk/retail vibrancy requires people which requires parking (apartments on top are never enough people to fully support the street retail).  Better to have vibrancy and parking than pretty but deserted landscaping.

Joel Kotkin has described to me whole streets in LA with block after block of empty retail with absolutely packed apartments on top of them.

The Post restaurants seem to do quite well, but the non-restaurant retail seems to be struggling, and the retail space next to Christian's Tailgate has been perpetually empty.  I think these places would have more of a chance if there was diagonal street parking in front, which I sorta wish the Bagby St reconstruction had included instead of the somewhat overdone landscaping, IMHO.

I totally disagree.

 

1) Having A&M take over would mean a huge reduction in the tax base

 

2) Rice, UH, and TSU all have engineering programs within 5 miles of this site

 

3) UH just started a petroleum engineering program and is spending millions (with corporate backing) to turn the old Schlumberger site into an Energy Research Park. 

 

4) I doubt an Aggie Campus just south of the Fifth Ward would be successful. 

When you think about it, the competitive perspective doesn't really make sense.  TAMU *is* going to expand and draw in 14,000 more engineering students from all over the state, country, and globe.  They can be based in College Station, or based in Houston.  I would argue it's better for Houston to have them based here.  It should also help TAMU attract those students, since Houston is probably a more attractive city for students than College Station.  Win for the city, and win for TAMU.  Impact on Rice/UH/TSU would be minimal.  In fact, it might be synergistic, with opportunities for collaboration, like what happens in the Medical Center.

The tax reduction would be trivial compared to the economic development benefits of a major engineering campus in the city, and it would absolutely transform that east end neighborhood.

Blanking on his name. A senior exec with HAS did a talk at H-GAC. Might have been Lance Lyttle.

http://www.fly2houst.../0/3917577/0/0/

If you click on the IAH Master Plan brochure here you'll see the reconfigured terminal plan to look like ATL. That's what they've scrapped.

http://www.fly2houst...ut-master-plans

Houston19514, this is the presentation I was talking about:

"New IAH Master Plan Report to be complete by December 2013. Old master plan from 2006 to mirror ATL terminal setup has been "Thrown in the trash". Not feasible, estimated at 20 billion."

"New IAH Master Plan Report to be complete by December 2013. Old master plan from 2006 to mirror ATL terminal setup has been "Thrown in the trash". Not feasible, estimated at 20 billion."

In a previous thread there was some debate about this. This is the presentation I attended.

Who is the "them" you asked? And who is the "he" who answered?

The plan always called for incremental improvements and expansions. So far, everything they have done is in accordance with the plan. (The possibility of a Terminal B FIS facility was not part of the Master Plan, but is not a huge departure from it.) There is nothing in the master plan that would be "almost impossible", or even particularly difficult, to do while keeping the airport running.

Further, the Hobby Master Plan (which was 2004, not 2003) indeed includes provision for the new international terminal. (Under "Terminal Area", Item 4 - West Concourse - "Could also include a new FIS Facility, if international flight be initiated". The West Concourse is where the new international gates and FIS Facility are being planned at Hobby.

Blanking on his name. A senior exec with HAS did a talk at H-GAC. Might have been Lance Lyttle.

http://www.fly2houston.com/0/3917577/0/0/

If you click on the IAH Master Plan brochure here you'll see the reconfigured terminal plan to look like ATL. That's what they've scrapped.

http://www.fly2houston.com/about-master-plans

Pretty incredible vision, Niche. It would certainly more than rival Atlanta for flights and nonstop destinations. The tricky part is the cost of the tubes and riding them. If it's self-funding, I'm guessing it adds at least $100 per person round trip (and possibly much higher), which would more than wipe out the competition benefits. If it's subsidized, then the question is who's paying for it - the airport? (which will build it into ticket prices, see previous problem), the taxpayers? The cool part would be enabling intra-triangle high-speed travel at the same time as connecting the airport. Maybe the inter-city riders on that could cover the cost of making it cheap or free for fliers?

The same competition effect might be possible with just very high-speed rail/tubes between IAH and DFW, allowing local fliers to pick flights at either and forcing AA and UA to compete on "nonstop" service (assuming the tube ride is so fast as to be irrelevant and not really the same hassle as a connecting flight). It would exclude Austin and SAT, but still hit ~75% of the triangle population.

There is a comprehensive report available on the future of IAH, with plans for additional runways, and a complete re-organization of the terminals. The report is a few years old, but provides all the forward estimates and build out materials your heart could desire. Obviously, the down-turn has had an impact, so if you want to be conservative, just add five years to any projection.

(One link... http://www.houstontx...n/cohPlans.html)

I asked them about that IAH terminal reorg at a recent HGAC event, and he said they've (wisely) scrapped that plan. Not only was it potentially astronomically expensive, unneeded, and would create massive parking jams with a single pickup and dropoff point (my main concern), but he said it would be almost impossible to do while keeping the airport actually running. They now see incremental terminal improvements and expansions for the foreseeable future.

The Hobby plan is way out of date now (2003!), and does not include the new international terminal.

http://www.fly2houston.com/about-master-plans

I agree both airports have the ability to add capacity for the foreseeable future. Down at HOU I would be interested in seeing if they could some how have two 7,600ft 12's where they can launch and receive simultaneously. Albeit, most airlines like to land 04 for that easy off to the terminal.

12L and R look too close together for that, but I'm wondering if they could use 12R for landing and extend 17 south for southbound takeoffs, with the planes starting south of the 12R intersection so the routes don't cross?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/KHOU_airport_diagram.pdf

I've heard no more talk lately about a third airport west of the city. Has anyone else heard anything? I was at IAH just last week for an international flight. The place is pretty empty at 4:30am (my departure) and at midnight (my return) but I can see how it would have trouble handling even a moderate increase in traffic. The whole complex just doesn't seem to be laid out efficiently.

I do most of my air travel inside the U.S. and almost all of that on Southwest. Hobby is much closer to my home and office anyway. If (when) Southwest begins international flights HOU will really get crowded.

I believe the westside plan was killed a while back. Houston is fine for capacity for the foreseeable future. IAH actually has room for more runways, and the terminals can always be expanded. Yes, they are adding another pier to Terminal D (intl). IAH is also a big enough hub with enough destinations that a lot of our capacity growth may just be up-gauging existing flights to larger planes rather than a lot of new flights/destinations - so it will be more about handling people and parking than flights.

Consider that IAH has as many runways as Atlanta (5), the busiest airport in the world with 2x+ our annual passengers - so we can certainly grow IAH a long, long time within its existing footprint. Hobby is a little more gate constrained, but I think it should be able to handle any growth SWA or anybody else wants to throw at it for the next couple of decades, at least. Consider that San Diego is the 2nd-busiest single-runway airport in the world and handles 550 arrivals and departures/day. Hobby is about half that with 3 runways (albeit crossing ones, which is more limiting) - so it has room to grow capacity.