JamesL

They're looking for input on where the new stations should be located. http://wikimapping.com/wikimap/Houston-B-cycle-Expansion.html

Did you think about doing some investigation before you made assumptions? Of course there are waiting areas inside for passengers. The people loitering outside aren't passengers. I live in the area and I'm pretty sure Greyhound isn't the cause of the issues you cite. In fact, they've been keeping their block under control lately. It's the combination of other things in the surrounding area (Pierce Elevated, McDonalds, convenience stores) that are the real draw for vagrants.

Yes, it was used for testing the original LRVs. It's on UP property and either reverted to them or they won't let METRO use it anymore or something. I seem to recall a story about an LRV hitting at UP truck that had driven under a crossing gate.

Not usually. Taking a typical 12 foot traffic lane to a 9 foot parking lane frees up 3 feet - entirely in the door zone of the parked cars, a very unsafe place to ride.

At least it will block freeway noise for the neighborhood. There's something to be said for that.

The same thing occurred to me. The answer, I think, is that at the time the lines were planned trains from the East End line were supposed to turn up Main Street to the intermodal terminal. So we're stuck with this as a legacy of poor planning past.

Contract was just awarded to construct the Beekman crossing. http://ridemetro.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=928

The blocks between Main and Fannin have turnouts for the track connections to Main Street. A train on the diverging route will overhang to the outside, hitting the platform edge if one were built. ADA specifies very tight tolerances for gaps between the train and the platform so moving the platform edge away from the track wouldn't be possible.

And don't forget the initial late change to an underpass was because the city belatedly decided to step up with some funding.

It's a design-build contract so that's on HRT.

I'm thrilled with how this project is turning out. If only it weren't sandwiched between two freeways. I think there's an opportunity to turn Allen Parkway into more of an urban boulevard and enhance access from the south. As it stands, there's almost a mile between safe crossing locations east of Montrose. That's not how a city capitalizes on a gem of an urban park.

The whole point of dedicating a lane to transit is to gain speed and reliability. A grade crossing would ruin that. To spend that much money on a corridor with no reliability benefit would be...silly.

I think you have this somewhat reversed. I would say: "The more attractive Houston becomes, the denser and more expensive." Its increasing attractiveness is due to a number of factors including a strong economy and a variety of quality of life improvements. Then the feedback loop kicks in and the denser, fancier developments make it even more attractive and so on. The first thing I'd say about the preponderance of "luxury" developments is that luxury is not a regulated term. Whatever the price point, developers call it "luxury" to make it sound more attractive. Secondly, developers aren't creating the demand for expensive apartments, they're responding to it. As long as there's demand for expensive apartments they might as well build expensive apartments since I'd imagine they're the most profitable. Escalation in overall rent prices and the negative impact on housing affordability are definite concerns, but I haven't seen where the "affordable unit" requirements you mention have solved the problem anywhere. Ultimately, housing prices are due to simple supply and demand. The market will respond to demand if it can. For the city to require affordable units while simultaneously stipulating excessive amounts of parking would be asinine. Right now, to build a one-bedroom apartment of, say, 800 square feet, a developer must build 1.33 parking spaces. Including aisle area, that's an additional 400 square feet or more. So very roughly speaking, that apartment will cost 50% more than if it didn't come with a parking space. Property managers could unbundle the rent for the unit from the rent for the parking space, but right now there's no incentive to do that when the regulations create an oversupply such that the free market price of a space is zero. Developers provide the exact number of windows, closets, toilets, cabinets, and treadmills they think they need to make a project viable. Government-mandated parking is unnecessary and leads to poor urban outcomes and decreased affordability.

I'm really surprised Public Works okayed that. Heck, they required HAWKs along Navigation to cross two lanes of one-way traffic to get the esplanade.

East and Southeast will open for service in September or October probably.