ADCS

Shame they couldn't fast-track this while all the restaurants/bars were closed and restricted. Houston remains friendly to small business, the rest of us be damned

On 9/27/2019 at 7:44 PM, arbpro said:

When this first broke I told you it would never happen. A few said I was delusional, that UT was boss and what it wants, it gets. Well, how did that work out? And even now, you continue to miss the point. There was NO objection to UT having a "research facility" but when renderings were leaked disclosing athletic facilities and diverse campus facilities, the true motive for the site was obvious. What was objected to was UT intending degree programs already offered by another public university. That constituted a waste of taxpayer funds and the motive therefor could only be to dilute the strength of the other public university. So if you are going to complain, be relevant. 

This parochialism is why Houston continues to self-sabotage. Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia all do fine with several major research universities nearby.

20 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

There might be a case to be made for your plan, but tearing down the Embarcadero does nothing to support it. The Embarcadero was not a through-freeway, it was little more than an extended exit ramp; same for the Central Freeway.

The better comparison is the no-build on 95 north through DC. The Beltway is a beast, but the only real choke point is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

I also don't think replacement of the Ship Channel bridge is all that much of an issue. It's nearing the end of its service life already, and will almost certainly be replaced within the next 25 years.

Think it would be pretty cool if the Astros/Dynamo would chip in to the cap fund in exchange for putting baseball and soccer fields on there.

4 minutes ago, samagon said:

Leeland will be a one way crossing

See, here's a place where it would be useful to work with CoH (since they control how the streets are managed) rather than try to torpedo the project altogether. Not only do current plans have Leeland as two way across the highway, it wouldn't be too difficult to restripe it downtown for two-way traffic altogether, as a complete street with biking and parking facilities. I think there are many in planning who would be amenable to that kind of suggestion, instead of just digging in your heels.

I don't know why people are crying for investors' potential losses when the worst case scenario is the state getting a fully-built piece of high-capital infrastructure for pennies on the dollar. Certainly those investors are not crying for you when their gains come at your expense, and there's no public good left behind as a result.

9 hours ago, samagon said:

I don't see a problem with his agenda of not liking freeways.

Really? You don't see how it's too broad of a statement?

Look, I'm in favor of rail development, even where it's not (yet) appropriate, because the underlying infrastructure is what drives the overlying development. However, once the development is there, it has to be accounted for. 45 must be rebuilt, because if it is not, people will unnecessarily die from what is already a very dangerous route. This plan, while not perfect, does significantly reduce the impact on the surface around downtown. That's the part I'm invested in, because it's the next step in Houston becoming the kind of city I would like it to be.

That's not to say that there aren't big issues regarding the rest of the route. But those need to be considered separately, and the argument should not be to kill the project altogether.

9 hours ago, samagon said:

I also believe that when he makes an argument that it would probably be good to lay out that you don't just not build, you have to still invest in transportation, just of a different sort, aka, public transportation. maybe he assumes everyone knows that this is the only logical thing? 

Also, this is wrong. If they don't spend the money on 45, the money simply won't get spent in Houston. They're about to start work on sinking 35 in Central Austin. Don't you think they'd love to have a nicer version of the plans, including a fully-covered tunnel, something they could possibly get with the money from the 45 plan? And TxDOT money will not get to METRO, no matter how much of a "good idea" it is. There are too many in the Lege who are ideologically opposed to metropolitan transit services getting more state cash than they already do.

And you know as well as I do that race has nothing to do with how/where the Pierce is being handled. It's all money and development potential there. The racial argument makes you sound disingenuous.

16 hours ago, samagon said:

 

So because Houston is number 14 instead of 3, everything else he says it's invalid, and let's build that freeway and climb that ladder?

 

Or are you just attacking his character where you can because his points are actually valid and you can't argue against them?

 

I'm still waiting on someone to show his points to be invalid without attacking his character, or a random stat. 

 

Sure, he might be a sleezeball with an agenda (still trying to figure out what that agenda is, other than a better place to live). 

The agenda is he doesn't like freeways, period. His analysis will never get around or past that agenda.

I agree we need more and better public transportation, but that doesn't mean this particular project shouldn't be done. The lack of particularity and nuance is the most glaring weakness in his position.

10 hours ago, samagon said:

 

if you can't refute the points he makes, you have to attack the person, I guess?

It's perfectly valid to attack his credibility as someone using this issue to grind a particular political axe, rather than someone closely tied to and invested in the community and the people who the project will impact.

13 hours ago, The Ozone Files said:

Another editorial against the TxDOT plan in the Houston Chronicle:

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Widening-I-45-will-be-a-disaster-for-Houston-14417614.php

 

 

Jeff Speck. Didn't he say he was never coming back to Houston?

7 hours ago, Nate99 said:

 

Interesting. Maybe he's wary of the decade of construction disruption. 

You'd think that he's got enough clout where if that were the concern, he'd just get that section done as quick as possible, as soon as possible, rather than opposing the project altogether.

10 minutes ago, gmac said:

 

COH should ban delivery vans and semis inside the loop, too. Y'all can walk to the furniture store and hump your trendy new sofa home on your back.

Nah, those serve a public good. But semis that don't serve an origin/destination route should be banned ITL, IMO. Would significantly improve I-10 traffic.

1 hour ago, Ross said:

It's not the burbs with the F250's that will complain. I know a bunch of people who live in the City limits who have large pickups, SUV's, etc, who need a place to park when they visit businesses. Houston is 600+ square miles within the city limits. One rule will not work everywhere.

They should consider not buying vehicles that do not fit the demands of a major city then. Personal responsibility and all.

8 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Do the billionaire wives actually use Memorial Park or do they just have expansive lawns to look out on?

 

No, they like being philanthropic.

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

I do think there was a successful opposition that stopped the widening of the West Loop to 24 lanes in the early 90's, but that was before my time.

 

That's only because it impacted Memorial Park, which annoyed the billionaire wife crowd.

I don't understand people's focus on retaining the PE when most substantive opposition relates to other parts of the project, specifically north of Downtown where freeway design is much more conventional.

I use the scooters at least once a week in Austin, though I prefer the ebikes.

13 hours ago, BigFootsSocks said:

I mean isn’t the NIMBY-ism pretty strong along this area? They were pretty vocal about not wanting the HSR to extend into downtown via that train route (above or below)

They didn’t want anything more disruptive than the existing rail corridor. I think you will see less opposition to what’s essentially a streetcar to the Theater District. It’s a QOL and property value enhancer.

Businesses will complain but hardly any of them last longer than 5 years on Washington.

13 minutes ago, Triton said:

 

Fantastic! Me and my wife were literally talking about this yesterday as we were eating on Washington at Ninja Ramen. I dare anyone to take a drive down Washington and the amount of renovations, new town homes, brand new bars, and multi-family mid rises either just finished or under construction is just staggering. The Washington corridor is on the up and we were telling each other how it would be great to have some type of transit line bring all this together. But I think they need to be wary about only have one lane going each way on Washington... some of those areas can get clogged, especially with Uber and Lyft constantly dropping people off. Too bad there's not a way to do a type of Post Oak Blvd redevelopment... I just don't think Washington Ave has the space.

Center St is a logical relief route for Washington

3 hours ago, august948 said:

 

And the alternative is...to let the freeways degrade, or better yet rip them up so the population either has to move away from the Houston metro area or all move inside the loop?  In the first case the city decays from lack of economic activity in the second case cost of living goes through the roof.  All of that is purely hypothetical, of course, because highway building is largely under the control of txdot and various regional toll authorties.  So, if you don't proactively address transit for the denizens of the hinterlands you'll just end up with more traffic on on more of those giant rivers of concrete that take up perhaps .00001% of the land in the city.

 

Or we could just move the business centers out of the city (a la Exxon) if we're determined to make it difficult to live and work in the city.  I'm sure that will help densify the core.

Maintain existing facilities after the 45 rebuild, but don't prioritize further expansion. Redirect resources toward comprehensive public transit whose primary purpose isn't just welfare for the poor. I don't see companies moving away from NYC and SF because of the difficulties commuting from Dutchess County or Vallejo

1 hour ago, IronTiger said:

Ending oil "subsidies" probably wouldn't do much except hurt the economy.

 

You could save about $10 billion by...

- not allowing oil companies (including smaller exploration companies) to write off unsalvageable wells and force them to keep an asset that produces nothing. This would de-incentivize the smaller companies from doing business entirely and become a legal challenge for the bigger ones, but it would be too late for the smaller companies.

- increasing royalty payment reductions on federal lands (wouldn't save much)

- not treating reserves in the ground as a capitalized asset that can be written down by 15% each year (wouldn't affect big oil, since those companies are not allowed the exemption).

- exempting the oil and gas industry from a 2004 subsidy that encouraged domestic production (would only mean that refineries would rely on overseas operations, which would be bad for refinery workers, not so bad for big oil and end users)

- exempting the oil and gas industry from taxes paid in foreign countries as long as the money comes back to the U.S. (all companies get this, and it's only $900M)

- ending Master Limited Partnerships which would decrease money paid out to pensioners, widows, etc. with stock in the company.

The other $90 billion comes from military and other uses, including low income households.

 

You could argue that harming the economy and driving people out of town would reduce the number of cars on the road, but I don't think that's what you were aiming for.

 

I wasn't talking about oil.

The best location would be in one of the parcels off of N San Jacinto opened up by the relocation of I-10 and I-45. That area is never going to redevelop due to the jail locations there, and already has good access to transit.

47 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

Trying to force additional expenses on road users only makes driving accessible for the upper class and widens the wage gap, which is a bad thing all-around, unless you particularly like dystopias.

It isn't "forcing additional expenses"; it's ending subsidies whose costs outweigh the benefits.

6 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

You were great until the very last line. Actually it is the reverse. Its always better to assume ignorance over malevolence. The odds that people are secretly super crazy smart super villains is incredibly low compared to lazy and stupid. How many super villains or mustachio twirling evil doers do you know compared to people that are just lazy or stupid?

See, I'd agree in most scenarios, but not when it comes to big public works projects. You can get people on board with that, and because it's usually a mass collective effort, it doesn't take all that much from any one person. However, where do these projects almost always get hung up? When it's encroaching on some honcho's territory, or demanding a benefit to a small, well-connected group at the expense of a large group of politically weaker people.

It's not malevolence so much as acquisitiveness and or defensiveness I'm talking about.

Houston has had inordinate wealth and ambitious people for over 120 years now. Lush subtropical forests have been popular for ~200 years now. City beautification efforts have been popular since the turn of the last century.

Which is to say... if this were an easy process, there’s no reason to think it would not have been done already. So a reasonable assumption is that this is not an easy process.

If something seems obvious, and hasn’t been done, your first assumption should never be that people were lazy or stupid. There’s either a good reason, or a predictable one (like corruption or greed).