mfastx

Don't think that link is working, I'd be very intrigued if this is legit.

Agreed. I'm very dubious of that project btw. If it were rail, that projection would be much more easily attainable.

I like the idea of connecting the airports by rail, but I am a little disappointed at how much light rail they're proposing in what they call "dense" areas. The actual "dense" areas have no rail going to them at all (basically the entire west side of Houston). For the one rail line going towards the west side, having it in the middle of I-10 will also limit ridership. But BRT can work as well so hopefully something gets done on the west side. I just think it's backwards, BRT is better served on the east side areas with fewer population.

This thing is sexy. Love the orientation.

One of the better garages in Htown.

It's no Deyaar Post Oak but I'll take it!

Even if the TCR station isn't in an optimal location, it makes too much sense for Amtrak to be moved there. One thing that would have to happen is that a platform compatible with Amtrak must be constructed. Amtrak's superliner cars which are used on the Sunset Limited can only be accessed via a low floor platform (15" above the rail). Typically, HSR trains use high floor platforms (48" above the rail). Also, the platform would have to be built adjacent to the existing UP trackage. Presumably, the HSR platforms will be elevated if the rendering is anything to go by, so you'd have platforms elevated and at ground level. Currently, the Sunset would have to do a short reverse move to access the station. The Sunset already does a reverse move leaving Houston eastbound and reverse moves are fairly common on Amtrak, so this shouldn't be an issue. Ultimately, the benefit of having one station for both Amtrak and TCR would be to allow both passengers to access food options, rental car and parking which would be at the station. Optimally, you'd have all the bus companies at the station too to make things even more efficient. All that being said, I don't see this happening.

Now that's how you do a garage.

I'm not sure it makes much sense to not have a line that hits San Antonio, San Marcos, Austin, Round Rock, Temple, Waco and Ft. Worth. Lots of ridership potential there all in a straight line.

Understood and agree with most of what you said. It's just a minor annoyance and I understand that the incremental cost associated with taking it downtown would likely be greater than the incremental return. Real estate is likely a large component of funding this project, and there's more "opportunity" at the NW mall site than in downtown. I really get all that. My only concern is that unless the train station is significantly closer to a large employment center than Hobby, many people will still opt to fly. If you have to schlep your way though 610/I-10 traffic to reach your final destination after you get off the train, what's the advantage to that over doing the same thing from Hobby? For Westerners it's better geographically, but the ideal location obviously would be a station in Downtown. Not only can you have the same garages with parking, rental cars and other ground transportation, but you also have the option of taking light rail or simply walking to your final destination, as there is much more within walking distance in downtown than anywhere else. You don't capture that market share if your station is outside of the city. I still support the project of course, I just felt compelled to point out the obvious shortcomings of the Houston station location (Dallas' is much better). It'd probably be more like 5 minutes. Acela takes only about 10-15 minutes to get from Rte 128 station to Back Bay in the Boston area, a distance far greater than NW Mall to Uptown. And this would be faster. It's supposed to be better than just an airport alternative. It has to be if this project is going to be successful.

Strongly disagree, this is a terrible location. If we can't even get light rail to the Galleria, what makes you think we would get it out here anytime soon? To be honest it doesn't matter that much, because most people would just drive to the station anyway, but there is definitely a market share of business travelers this won't capture due to the inconvenient location in Houston. If the station is in a random area of town, there's less of an incentive to take the train over flying. If you have to rent a car and drive wherever from the station, might as well rent a car and drive wherever from the airport. It's a shame because this is such a great project, but this is not a desirable area of town.

Finally some development in this area!

Yes, and it was passed, then Houston elected a mayor that intended to kill it, and he did.

Like the catch of the pigeon's wings mid-flight.

Gotta say that parking structure looks really bad so far lol. Hopefully there's cladding or something.

Yup, they could just back up on the wye after making the turn instead of continuing to downtown. Probably won't happen but it's a neat idea, and certainly would be an upgrade over the existing Amshack.

I agree. It'd be much better if the site were consolidated with other transportation, like Greyhound and other buses and Amtrak. Much better to have everything in one place. Unfortunately, I don't think the Sunset route makes it all the way up to NW Mall. Also it being a private endeavor would likely complicate things with Amtrak. Maybe Greyhound can move their operations there eventually.

That is incredible. Seems so rare for a building in Houston to have a really cool lighting scheme. Love it.

A heavy rail transit system here would certainly be successful in my view. Much more successful ridership wise than the current light rail system. A few short light rail lines don't make much of an impact, but a faster heavy rail transit system that reaches out into the suburbs, much like Washington DC's system, would generate a lot of ridership. Regarding subway vs above ground, I'd imagine that only a few small portions would be in a subway (such as downtown, uptown, TMC) but most of it would be above ground. It'll never happen of course, but it's fun to dream.

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize they were from different sources. I initially cited the 2010 US Census numbers that say about 5 million in 2010. Even so, calling Chicago a "failed city" is a bit of a bombastic comment in my opinion. It's still an extremely important city in the US and worldwide. If it drastically loses population over the course of the next several decades, then maybe it's a failed city.

Now that we're a little back on topic I'll respond lol. Not sure where you're trying to go on the weekend but there's other buses that run then. Can you give me an example of somewhere you can't get to on the weekend? I quickly googled a route from that intersection to Union Station and you could take the 29 only like a block away from that intersection. Also, I don't think 3/4 mile is very far. I routinely walked that when I rode the 25 home from high school every day growing up. The example you posted seemed to be an express route, not a local route. Growing up I seem to recall a handful of non-P&R routes in Houston that didn't operate on weekends, but I don't feel like taking the time to look at all the schedules. Anyway, that's just typically how it is in a more developed city. Between walking, Uber, taxis, bikeways, buses and rail, there's plenty of non-car ways to get around Chicago. I'm really surprised that you feel like you can't get around up there. I think what's driving the development of this and other downtown districts is the growing downtown population. Many people are more than willing to walk half a mile to do some casual shopping. The infrastructure improvements that are coming with it are appreciated as well. Many of the businesses in the tunnels are not open on weekends and are generally not accessible from street level unless you know where to go. Obviously it remains to be seen how successful it will ultimately be so who knows. I took my numbers from the urban area estimation: here's the 2010 estimate and 2017 estimate I found. I prefer the urban area designation as it does not take into account arbitrary civic boundaries such as city/county lines. I feel that it's the best representation of the population of cities in general. Clearly by other metrics it's a different story. See clarified post above.

Try using Google maps to see the most optimal route for your trip during the weekend. There's plenty of buses that operate on weekends in Chicago in your neighborhood. You could also walk a couple blocks (gasp) and use the rail. There's plenty of routes in Houston that don't operate on the weekend as well, so I don't see your point there. Here's why it's better than Houston's Metro: Chicago has almost 4 times more daily riders on their bus system than Houston. They also have another 800,000 or so rail riders, and that doesn't count METRA ridership. Their total daily ridership is 1,850,000 while Houston's barely approaches 300,000. So yes, their transit is miles ahead of Houston's even with their aging rail infrastructure and it's not close. Chicago's urban area might not be growing as fast as Houston's, but it is not losing population. It was at 8.5 mil in 2010 and is at about 9.2 mil in 2017. Houston's is about 5 mil. Official city limit populations are arbitrary and therefore meaningless if that's what you're going by. I do respect the fact that you're so proud of Houston that you'd say its transit system is better than Chicago's lol. EDIT: I just realized that this is wildly off topic lol, so this will by my last response on the subject in this thread. I'd love to continue the discussion in a transit thread if you'd like.

Couldn't disagree with you more about Chicago. Their public transportation system is miles better than Houston's. I've been there many times to visit a friend of mine who lives there and my experience was totally different. Chicago is a hub and spoke system that radiates out from downtown in all directions. It's extremely convenient and much superior to Houston's system, obviously. Ridership numbers will say as much. Calling Chicago a "failed city" is ridiculous. I'm just going to assume you're being sarcastic and trolling us lol.

Looks good from where I'm sitting. Let's reel 'er in, fellas!

So I'm assuming these buildings are lit up nicely just for the Super Bowl and will go back to being dark and bland right after?