ADCS

On 7/14/2008 at 3:01 PM, ADCS said:

I've always heard it as "Lord, please let it get back up to $40 a barrel, I swear I won't blow it this time"

Nowadays, we're (well, those of us not in the oil industry) all praying for it to get back DOWN to $60 a barrel!

Huh, guess we're not praying so much for this anymore.

Just now, kbates2 said:

 

Has that worked out for  UTSA, UTEP, UTRGV, UT Arlington, or UT Tyler?  The UT system does not spread the wealth like the University of Cal system that you keep mentioning.

That is its own separate issue, and something I believe needs reforming within the UT system. 

2 hours ago, samagon said:

 

I think the point is that the PUF money is better spent in regions of the state that are not so saturated already, and if the state (UT) wants to put state money (PUF) into the Houston market, why not put that money into UH rather than duplicating efforts? 

 

Why would UT being denied by the state to waste PUF money to continue saturating an already saturated market be the fault of UH? 

 

If that's the case, then why doesn't UH roll into the UT system? Same outcome with less bureaucratic overhead.

Again, the fact that the PUF is continually brought up just serves to demonstrate that this is about bureaucratic politics, rather than what's actually good for the state. Bring up UCLA all you want, but notice the "UC" there: they're part of the same system as UC - Berkeley and all their sister institutions, and subject to systemwide oversight (with considerable independence). If UH wants that PUF money, and to exist within a known successful framework, then they should be looking at a merger with UT or A&M, rather than engaging in spiteful turf wars.

15 minutes ago, kbates2 said:

 

And there it is.  UT will keep spending money grossly overpaying on polluted brownfield locations to misappropriate assets into their booster's pockets without state approval.  They will continue to use funds that could be better spent raising the value of all of our state schools, and Texas residents as a result, on sketchy deals that go nowhere, good of the state be damned.  Especially while they ruin a conference from within that was once respected.

 

Disgusting, really.

Yup, football and avarice. Face it - UH didn't care about the acquisition process one bit. Fertitta thinks the university that's an extension of his ego doesn't get the state funds that it deserves, simply because he's associated with it. So he's going to engineer a block until he either gets the football he wants, or the money he wants.

The truth is we do not need more state systems. California demonstrates that a two-system public model, with different missions, that all state schools are a part of, is the best functioning model. We will never have this in Texas, though, because there are too many entrenched bureaucrats in the smaller systems, and too many alumni for whom a reorganization would be a shot to their pride. Again, primarily because of football.

2 hours ago, kbates2 said:

Doing it all with PUF money that could be much better utilized if spread amongst the other state universities.

And there it is. UH will keep obstructing until they get ahold of that sweet oil cash, good of the city and region be damned. Especially since they couldn't make it into the Big 12.

Disgusting, really.

So glad to see that typical Texan parochialism and territoriality won the day here /s

29 minutes ago, skooljunkie said:

Getting in and out of these outdoor, mixed-use "malls" always grinds my gears no matter if it's The Domain, City Centre, First Colony, or The Woodlands. I tend to gravitate to developments without so many stores and restaurants packed into one area. I like that Regent Square would surround and directly link to existing communities that are becoming denser. The Domain and City Centre pack in all these shops adjacent to freeways and I tend to avoid going to them because of traffic.

Well, it sounds like you're not their target market, then.

I read that Buc-ee's was funding much of the opposition to the line. Can anyone verify or debunk this?

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

I'm not certain exactly what you talking about. It seems you are talking about I45 NB.  But after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB currently has 3 lanes.  In the future plan, after the I45/I69/TX288 intersection, I45 NB has 5 lanes (and runs in a straight line for a longer stretch than does the Pierce Elevated).

 

If you are talking about I45 SB after the I10 interchange, an accurate analysis is a little more complicated.  You are probably looking at the proposed I-45 lanes on the north end of downtown where it is proposed to run next to I-10.  That area indeed shows 3 lanes, just as the current I45 SB has on the west and south sides of downtown.  Here's the complication:  Those proposed I45 SB lanes on the north side of downtown do not have to carry all the traffic that the current I45 SB lanes carry, because they don't carry the I10 WB to I45 SB traffic (and maybe not all of the I10EB to I45 SB traffic).  That doesn't join in until you get past the northeast corner, at which point there are I45 SB lanes.

 

THAT, in part, is how the new way is going to be better. (Capacity can/will also be added by curves being less tight (as you have acknowledged) and possibly by banking the surface in the curves, and one hopes by avoiding sharp dips/curves such as currently exist on I45)

Not only that, but the new 45 lanes only carry through traffic - local traffic will take the Downtown Connector. This further reduces movements and conflicts along that stretch.

3 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said:

Turner field was a nice park too.  Only about 15 years old when the Braves decided to abandon it for the suburbs (though they have continued to play in it until the new one is built).

 

its not always about the stadium..... its about the money.

Atlanta's a bit of a special case, though, with middle to upper-middle class whites living almost entirely north of Downtown. These folks, the primary Braves season ticketholders, didn't want to go to the "bad part of town" 81 nights a year.

3 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

two things then. direct through traffic onto 610, this isn't done or encouraged or 610 would be a lot more busy and we'd be spending money expanding that freeway right now.

 

if the problem is bad planning of exits and merges they can fix that in the existing ROW without needing to take 19 blocks from the east side of downtown and calling it a quality of life improvement.

 

in fact, there is a plan already on the books to move the 59 NB/SB exit to a different location entirely. Gotta wonder how that is going to adjust traffic flow through town.

 

Again, my point is that everything they are planning on doing by taking 19 blocks from the east end (and kicking a lot of people out of established neighborhoods) they can do in the existing corridors with minimal ROW expansion. The only benefit of removing the 1 mile stretch of ROW that is the pierce elevated is to make high end developers a lot of money. sure there are going to also be people that smile when the pierce is gone, but that number will be about the same as the people who are out on their ass because their home was condemned.

1. Agree that TxDOT should do a better job of directing traffic onto bypass routes. Then again, they hardly put control cities on major interstate junctions around here. Never understood why.

2. Do you have engineering schematics demonstrating that everything they're planning on adding can be handled with minimal ROW expansion in existing corridors?

9 hours ago, samagon said:

No respect necessary, I saw it wrong. you're right. There are still very serious corners that will slow traffic just as bad as the current pinches though. and the money cost just to realign and remove the pierce is so high.

Slowing traffic isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it keeps moving. This is a highway in the center of the city - serving through traffic at high speed isn't necessarily the ideal use of the corridors. Again, if you're going from north of Houston to Galveston or vice-versa, best practices would have you taking the East Loop, anyway. 

The problem with the current pinches isn't a reduction in speed - it's last minute and indecisive merging from unexpected lane ends (particularly the 45NB to 288/59SB) causing conflicts within and backpressure on the traffic flow. Part of the reason for the current design plans, by my estimation, is that reconfiguring the Pierce Elevated to meet these design goals would be too expensive due to the needed land acquisition.

13 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

 

I wouldn't say "no one is proposing to abolish cars" with that much confidence, as some far-left publications really DO seem to support the "They hate private automobiles and force us to ride public transportation" fear that some train opponents have. However, I agree that is not the view of the majority. While rejecting trains on a purely ideological basis is wrong, it's equally just as wrong to push trains on an ideological basis.

 

Sometimes I have this sneaking suspicion that the only people who really like trains as public transportation (besides the fringe anti-car wingnuts, that is) are a grown version of the wide-eyed kid from a small town (or at least a city that lacks rail) riding the trains in the "big city" (or Europe) for the first time (or at least the first time in a while), and holding to ideals of public transportation instead of the realities that go along with it.

 

I'd be lying if I said that this sort of thinking didn't influence me on rail. So on 288, would rail be awesome? HELL YEAH! But is it practical and pragmatic? That's a harder question...

I think many of them realize that cities develop around the infrastructure provided for them, and in ways influenced by that infrastructure. We put auto-centric infrastructure in (and always at a high capital investment), we will have an auto-centric city. Likewise, if there is a comprehensive rail system, development will take advantage of that system. The musculature builds around the bones.

21 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

 

Sounds like you're implying veiled racism to me, but then following that same logic, are you seriously arguing that "If you don't like trains, you must be racist"? While I'm glad for you that you don't have any questions about who you're voting for, falling back on an argument like that just proves August's point...managed lanes are better and more efficient for transportation and transit.

None of that follows in the least bit. The dislike for trains seems to be ideological primarily, as they chafe against a certain conception of "freedom" that's popular around here. Cars are seen as promoting "freedom", even though no one is proposing to abolish cars, and the implementation of more lanes and elimination of potential rail routes leaves us less free to choose modes.

You're the one projecting racism there - it's more classism in my mind. Just look at the Heights fight over beer and wine sales if you don't think it's there.

16 hours ago, august948 said:

 

Everything is subsidized, one way or another.  It's just a matter of how to balance the subsidies to get the greatest bang for the buck.

You can't possibly believe this has anything to do with the real world.

The primary driver of transit policy in this city is not efficiency; it's making sure the wrong people stay out of the right neighborhoods. It's territoriality and NIMBYism. Just check out the TCR fights if you don't believe me.

Just now, august948 said:

 

Ok. 

 

How about we force employers out, say to the Beltway, and then convert the downtown towers to all residential?  We'd need to Katy Freeway-ize the Beltway but by spreading out the employment along the course of the Beltway we'd eliminate the daily in and out bottleneck thereby obviating the need for new toll lanes on 288.

 

Or we could flatten downtown for McMansions.  Because, you know, there is are reasons that people don't all flock to cramped, high-rise living.

 

 

Right. We subsidize other options that would otherwise be unavailable were it not for state intervention, and then throw a fit when someone wants to put a train line in.

Point being, it's all the same thing - policy choices.

3 hours ago, august948 said:

 

I assume you mean depopulate the core in favor of the suburbs, right?  That would certainly solve a lot of inner loop traffic headaches.  Then we might not need toll lanes on 288.

Ha. Try again.

17 hours ago, august948 said:

Neither can exist in current form without the other.

Sure, but that's not much of an issue if you'd like to see that form changed, is it?

18 hours ago, Ross said:

So what do you want, 2 hour commutes from Pearland for people who can't afford to live in town unless it's in a tiny apartment?

Choices have consequences. We can't subsidize the suburbs forever.

IT, if you really care about the answers to those questions, go to the meeting tonight. Bring them up. There will be engineers there to help with those details.

However, I think you'll find it most effective if you're not trying to force your opinion on the project's experts.

41 minutes ago, Twinsanity02 said:

Any news on segment H?  Has a date been set for start of construction?

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Audit-finds-faults-with-TxDOT-design-build-checks-9184040.php?t=0b0f5c7ecc438d9cbb&cmpid=reddit-premium

There were a few tidbits in there -

• Construction to start next year
• Portions will be built as a Texas Super-2 (similar to the existing I-2)

2 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

Lagos is a hot mess right now. Think Caracas. Their currency has fallen off a cliff so the government their froze foreign exchanges leaving the airlines owed over $600 million dollars. United and Iberia have already left the market. Others have lowered the number of flights or seats offered to the market. Even British Air, which has served the country for over 80 years going back to colonial days, is hinting at exited the market. 

There's the whole revival of the Biafra separatism issue along with the ongoing Boko Haram and associated Sahel extremism. Nigeria is going to be a mess for a while, possibly a decade or more.

2 hours ago, Triton said:

 

Convert.... Ha, so it's a dead proposal already. You start now.. you don't wait... This is the perfect opportunity. They'll be making too much money from the managed lanes to convert them later. As someone who just visited California last week, they integrate the mass transit in with the highways during the construction phase... or they lay it out in a way for any expansion. San Francisco was a little different in that they did some above grade Caltrain work that didn't necessarily need to be tied in with the highway but let's not kid ourselves with wishful thinking, especially with TxDot who tried to force Metro to say that the bus lanes will never be converted to light rail.

Thing is, though, Houston's freeway landscapes, with the interminable feeder roads, are almost uniquely hostile toward public transit in all but park-and-ride setups.

16 hours ago, Sellanious Caesar said:

This will not be a 4 year university. It won't be a UT Houston. They want the campus for research and collaborative projects it seems like. 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2016/06/heres-what-utcould-do-with-its-houston-campus.html

My guess is that the primary purpose for the campus is proximity to major rail, air and sea connections, minimizing costs both for personnel and equipment.