DNAguy
-
Posts
342 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by DNAguy
-
-
9 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:
I'm not talking about an immediate presence downtown. But considering the move along with the development of the Innovation District, as more and more "cool" companies start to move here, I could def see offices downtown or something in the future.
You’d have to assume Rice is lobbying pretty hard to get them to be involved in some way with the Innovation District.
-
18 hours ago, MaxConcrete said:
There was an update at the January NCTCOG meeting. See item 6
video https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/01092020-1369
presentation https://www.nctcog.org/nctcg/media/Transportation/Committees/RTC/2020/presentations-jan.pdf?ext=.pdf
You'll see that North Texas is enamored of hyperloop. At 3:50 in the video or page 7 in the presentation, the alternatives screening is shown. All the high-ranking options are hyperloop, and two HSR options are ranked low.
North Texas is bidding for the hyperloop test track. (That's not mentioned in the presentation)
In my opinion, hyperloop is somewhat speculative since only short test tracks have been built. I also think it is going to be about the same cost as HSR. (I think I read a report that even Hyperloop officials are saying it will cost around 75% of HSR, and it will probably increase)
The preliminary analysis also recommends running it mostly along IH35, especially through the heavily populated areas. I'm somewhat skeptical of the feasibility of running it though Austin on IH-35. But it would be great for access to UT and downtown Austin.
The IH 35 proposal would not affect a Houston-to-Austin expansion of Texas Central.
Any HSR or hyperloop that is built along the I35 corridor will likely pass Austin to the east.... along SH130.
I always imagined a stop at or ~ the Austin Airport.
-
On 2/24/2020 at 5:44 PM, zaphod said:
The California project was a lot different from this one too.
It was supposed to traverse extreme terrain with tunnels dozens of miles long. It was also supposed to go through some of the most expensive real estate in the world. And California has a well entrenched NIMBY force which was set out from the start to sue the project into the ground.
Assuming Texas Central can get off the ground, it will have a much easier time building an at-grade route with no major bridges or tunnels across sparsely populated rural areas.
The Texas project is also ~ 1/2 the length of the California system as well. That helps a lot.
-
3
-
-
No one is in the booth. I've been in enough bumper to bumper traffic on 59 to look at that booth between Kirby and Buff. Sp. and know no human has occupied that in a long time.
Ever since they opened the HOV for HOT, it made enforcement virtually impossible.
1.) How does a Metro police officer know if you've paid the toll via driving the in the HOT lane or used the HOV lane.... during hours both are allowed?
2a.) Are they really going to pull someone over during peak usage? That's going to hamper traffic A LOT more than a single illegal HOV user.
2b.) They can only really enforce if you're exiting, or trying to enter the HOV lane. So...… unless they park a cop at every entrance and exit, its really impossible.
3.) Are the penalties of using the HOV strict enough to actually dissuade use. You have to figure that a ticket will cost you ~ $200-300. A HOT toll can be upwards of 6.5. 3-4 weeks of using the HOT lane illegally essentially makes up for any ticket you get.
-
On 2/20/2020 at 9:11 AM, H-Town Man said:
The medical office building looks a little value-engineered here compared to ekdrm's rendering and the one in the Chron article. Still a nice building. Breaks ground in Fall 2021 per the article, so a long way off.
It is A&M. At least they're standing up?
-
1
-
-
Instead of building a concurrently running toll road and tie-in to the stub, I've got some ideas:
1.) Use the powerline ROW (like I said earlier) - but probably won't work / the neighborhood that it would run through would reject it.... even more than they're going to reject the tollroad running along Post Oak. In addition, the direct connect tying into 610 would require home demo.
2.) Build direct connectors at 610 for the existing Alt 90. - This would require a lot less $ than a new toll-road. There would be ROW purchase.... but a lot less $ I would think.
As far as the 90 corridor as a whole, I think a lot of thought should be given to:
1.) Extending a tollway along Holmes road to tie into the 288's tollway / 610 east. This would actually make 90 alt an almost complete alternative to taking 59 into downtown and the medical center (the medical center is less of a need it is really already accessible via 90. But this does split / provide an alternative path to the medical center). In addition, it almost makes for a new east/west way of traversing Houston that can help in moving goods / products / people in Houston. It kind of provides a pseudo-tie from Southwest Houston to the Ship Channel.... and tying one area of heavily industrial Houston (South of Reliant / Almeda corridor) to another (Ship Channel / Petrochemical 225 complex)
However, you'd have to expand the sections of 90 between Chimney Rock and the Mainstreet. But you would necessarily have to build a completely separate road. My guess is that the section would have to be upgraded to more of a interstate quality with better traffic management via separate frontage roads and on/off ramps to S. Post Oak.
2.) Completely rebuild the S. Post Oak and 90 overpasses / bridges. Grade is way to steep. It slows down traffic. S. Post oak should be an underpass under the railroad. Then the main 90 traffic can be at a more gradual grade seeing as it no longer needs to be such a high bridge.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Triton said:
Critics say they are in for long haul against $15B bullet train
Oof. Karen is the worst.
Of everyone who attended this meeting, what percentage of them do you think own a MAGA hat?
No need to answer. I've tabulated the results and present to you the Venn diagram:
-
7
-
-
On 2/13/2020 at 3:09 PM, gmac said:
This project would have been forward-thinking in the 70s. Now? Boondoggle.
Just my opinion, and I realize I may be the only person with such an opinion. So be it.
Solar Energy:
QuoteThis project would have been forward-thinking in the 70s. Now? Boondoggle.
Wind Energy:
QuoteThis project would have been forward-thinking in the 70s. Now? Boondoggle.
Heavy lift Rocket for manned space flight
QuoteThis project would have been forward-thinking in the 60s. Now? Boondoggle.
Rural Broadband Internet
QuoteThis project would have been forward-thinking in the 90s. Now? Boondoggle.
-
1
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, august948 said:
Plus the population center of the Houston area has been moving slowly west for years. Putting it in a run down area near the intersection of 3 major highways is a brilliant move. The potential for expansion and redevelopment is much higher here than it would be a few miles east in downtown.
.
This is key. Not only population, but workforce concentration.
It's a great location for getting to a large % of the white collar jobs in Houston.
Remember, business folks can easily expense an uber and the station is 10-20 minutes to Uptown, Downtown, or the Energy corridor.
The only real misses are that it isn't convenient to the two large education institutions in the city and that the medical center (a huge employer and economic driver for the city) isn't easily accessible from the location.
-
5
-
-
12 hours ago, gmac said:
No. Terrible idea for a vanity project. If they had been allowed to put it down the I-45 corridor, fine, no additional land sacrificed.
15 hours ago, gmac said:Hope landowners stick to their guns and don't let it happen. Or, get a billion an acre.
This is the kind of forward thinking that helped win WWII and put a man on the moon.
-
On 2/1/2020 at 9:56 PM, ekdrm2d1 said:
Went on 610 tonight, knowing there is a total closure at the 59 spurs. Was not terrible. To be honest it was normal rush hour traffic. Only a 10 minute delay.
-
1
-
4
-
-
On 2/2/2020 at 1:10 AM, Burt-Macklin said:
The third lane on south loop westbound has been closed for over a year and a half. The Eastbound side of south loop has had all three lanes open over that same time frame. There is no reason for the westbound side to be limited to two lanes; there hasn't been any work going on over there in months. At this point I just assume that someone forgot to open that lane back up. Honestly, how much longer is that third westbound lane going to stay closed? It's getting ridiculous - 15 minutes of extra commute time, every single day of the week, for how many thousands of drivers? For a lane that doesn't need to be closed??
It doesn't even seem like they've started building the new westbound span of 610. I don't know how this project is going to be done in 3/4 of a year like the last projection I saw (3rd quarter 2020). Or is 3rd quarter only when the 288 stuff is going to be finished... meaning that the 610 work is even later?
-
Curious that I've never seen a proposal to use the High voltage ROW for the extension.....
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Urbannizer said:
Just make one large surface parking lot.
No shade to worry about and no basket of deplorable renters.
-
2
-
2
-
-
On 9/6/2019 at 3:49 PM, august948 said:
I'm not sure why it would be surprising that there is less development between 610 and the beltway than there is inside and outside of that area. That's an area roughly 3.5 to 4 times the size of the area inside the loop, built mostly after WW2 to the late 60's or 70's. At such an age, the housing stock there is in a stage where it is attracting lower income residents relative to inside the loop. Lower incomes means less money to spend on the things that attract lots of development to an area. And, believe it or not, developers are attracted by higher incomes in the locality of the proposed development. Infrastructure improvements may be warranted and may improve the quality of life in the area, but unless incomes improve, development will be retarded.
I guess that's why my argument is that in a climate like this.... maybe having these areas represented by a more local / more accountable municipality could hold this decline off or incentivize the developers to stem the tide.
My original argument here, which I think is being lost, is that a development like the grid would not have happened at its location in an area surrounded by the housing stock / tax base around it without the fact that it was in a different city than the COH. That's it. Stafford wanted this for the sales tax $... even if it is a little out of place. It's still close enough to Sugar Land in their estimations (developers) to make this work. I looked at Dallas / the metroplex and its development to see if that might be a better model. Somehow I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about.
-
12 hours ago, Montrose1100 said:
“Near Houston’s top cultural attractions, the Galleria (mall), and the TMC (hospital)”.
Houston: Shop 'til ya drop!
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, texas911 said:
Why would you arbitrarily set the boundary between 610 and the beltway? That's selective. 610 is still the city of Houston and a huge area!
Because that's the reality. There is a huge gulf of development and decay between 610 and the Beltway almost 360 degrees around Houston. I didn't make this up. That's what the reality is. The only area where this is not the case is along I10... where it just so happens that there a small, mostly wealthy cities abut. Is that an accident?
The city of Houston is very large.
The out parts of Houston are not growing.
My argument is that regionally southeast Texas might be better served by smaller Houston with more mid-sized cities surrounding it. Cities competing against one another would help to invest in areas that might not get investment if they were all in one large city.
It's about equity and distribution of investment. Having large areas of stagnant growth is bad. The grid is good because it is actually working against an area that is trendy downwards.
That's all I'm trying to say here.
Have you never driven along 59 south, 59 north, 45 south and north, 288, I10 east, etc between 610 and the Beltway? There's almost nothing new.
-
4 hours ago, Texasota said:
Obviously there is, but that's also true inside the loop and outside the beltway. I don't think the issue is "in Houston" vs. "in some other city." I think the issue is that specific localities within those cities are going to develop faster due to immediate existing conditions.
There are other examples between the loop and the beltway, but I have a feeling that you'll argue that they don't count because they're too close to Uptown or Bellaire or the Loop itself.
Anyway, I also don't actually think this development is all that impressive. It's *fine*, but it's it's still a pretty low density- suburban oriented development where the "mixed" uses are mostly actually separated.
Edit: What I'm basically trying to say is: it makes no sense to say that x wouldn't happen in Houston, and then narrow your definition, not just to between 610 and 8, but between 610 and 8 except greater Uptown, greater City Center/ Memorial, Garden Oaks/Oak Forest, and any other neighborhoods that are seeing development don't count.
If it's so obvious I don't understand why you can't give an example.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Look, the parts of Stafford / Meadows Place / Houston that is close by this development aren't all that nice. Heck, you're a 5 minute drive from Beachnut …. where you see actual street walking ladies of night. It's across the street from a Walmart where people have been shot in the parking lot.
Maybe I'm way off, but if this area was in Houston I just think don't think there would have been the incentives in place to develop this plot in the manner they are.
Again, I could just be way off base.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Texasota said:
I stand by my question.
For reference:
And I stand by my statement.
What is your argument? That because of this one development at the Beltway (actually outside but close enough) that there is not an expanding area between 610 and the suburbs that is in need of re-investment / revitalization? This development also doesn't happen without City Centre which I referenced above.
Outside of this one development, please list all the other ones between 610 and @/around the Beltway.
I'll wait.
-
57 minutes ago, texas911 said:
Yea, what's he talking about? Houston is full of repurposed projects all around the city.
Maybe within 610.
Every other major redevelopment is within 610... or at least immediately adjacent to 610.
What are examples of anything other than that?
Town and Country mall? Memorial City Mall area? both of which seem to be one-offs due to the fact that they are adjacent to super wealthy municipalities themselves.
28 minutes ago, X.R. said:I believe he or she is referring to the perceived sporadic and stagnant development that goes on between the 610 loop and Beltway 8. Or in this case, the area between 610 and Sugarland.
This.
What once was the 'donut hole' has now become a 'ring' in the city where older neighborhoods are on the decline w/ minimal development. That's all I was trying to point out. I have a hard time believing this project would have gone forward if this was Houston as Stafford could provide the incentives to make completely redeveloping a corporate campus into a mix-use development.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:
Update on the Grid development, the mixed-use project replacing the Texas Instruments campus in Stafford.
From Fort Bend Star today:
Though it was previously said to be behind schedule, “The Grid” continues to take shape in Stafford. Signs are now up for some of the soon-to-open tenants, such as the Greater Houston area’s first In-N-Out Burger.
Construction of the California-based fast-food restaurant – which is expected to be completed this fall...
...Construction continues on the 192-acre development positioned on what used to be the campus for Texas Instruments between West Airport Boulevard and South Kirkwood Road off Highway 59, which developers hope will help make Stafford a destination city.
...In addition to a diverse mix of retail shops and entertainment venues, The Grid will also include 500,000 square feet of office space and a network of pocket parks, jogging and bike trails upon completion, which developers hope is by 2021. There are also plans for a dual-concept hotel split between Aloft Hotels and Element. Work on the hotels began in June, with a targeted completion date of early 2020.
Chipotle and a Verizon store are already open on the West Airport side of the development. On the Kirkwood side, there are already signs up for In-N-Out and Outback Steakhouse, which also is expected to open this fall. Additionally, the Houston area’s third Whiskey Cake Kitchen & Bar location and the Drive Shack – a driving range and golf shop – are both expected open in November and September, respectively, as Phase 1 of the project takes shape, according to multiple media reports.
Pluckers Wing Bar is another confirmed tenant, while StreetLevel Investments – the developer on the project – remain in negotiations with other tenants for the development, such as movie theatres and craft breweries, according to the project’s website.
More: http://www.fortbendstar.com/inching-along-anticipation-building-for-staffords-grid-projects/A nice upgrade for an area that's on the battle line between suburban and the 'ring of decay' around Houston.
El Tiempo's addition to the Fountains, the Grid, and hopefully the Sugar Refinery develop will create a bulwark against any further progression of the 'decay'.
On another aside, thank god the TI site was in another municipality and not in Houston. If this was Houston proper, the site would have just decayed and the whole area would have suffered. If this particular example and Dallas [ducks!] can teach us anything, it might be that a dominate world class city w/ larger surrounding suburban cities might be a better for development than just Huge city + mostly unincorporated county + only 2-3 major suburban cities + more unincorporated further out county land.
-
1
-
-
On 8/27/2019 at 1:11 PM, shasta said:
Fair and square...lol.
Did you not watch the actual state hearing where they admitted UNDER OATH that everything about the deal was under the table, without the proper approval, without the knowledge of the UT Board of Regents, and that their renderings clearly showed more than just a academic satellite?
It was a Campus and they used PUF money to buy land OVER MARKET PRICE. Undesirable contaminated land and from a UT alum.
Fair and Square...thanks for the laugh..lol
Next you are going to tell me that the PUF is also fair and square and making Texas' "other" public Universities fend for themselves for the majority of their existence is perfectly acceptable.
But I'll go along with your theory that competition is good....Texas A&M should definitely build a 'Texas A&M- Austin' Campus TWO MILES from UT- Austin....Austin should be lucky to support that....right? Where do I sign up?
Well maybe we just be really fair about it and eliminate all other university systems and just absorb them into Texas system and separately into the A&M system. The you can lose all control of UH and it'll just be A&M Houston or UT-Houston.
Go full California. Would you like that? My guess is not.
The PUF was set up as part of the land grant federal bill that was specifically set up to establish a flagship university and a mechanical/agricultural college. That's it.
If you want to talk about fair, maybe you can look at it in this way:
The UT system has a mandate to be pan-Texas. It's in every corner of the state. That's why it's funded w/ a large land endowment that was forked over to it by the feds/state.
UH does not have that mandate. It is a regional city college. A much smaller mandate. There's no UH Laredo or UH San Angelo or UH Texarkana.
They should not be entitled to that money unless the state legislature decides that they need to revisit each system's mandate. But if they were to do that, my guess is they would probably streamline the systems and UH might actually be a big loser in that scrum.
-
24 minutes ago, HNathoo said:
Houston may get it's own version of Wriglyville
As town? 😉
Stros-berg?
I like Stros-berg.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Luminare said:
Yikes. Chill. You obviously didn't read the part where I said that it isn't typical for me to bash one generation over the other. Each generation has its own issues. Some are because of the previous and some are squarely on the current one. What I said before though is a truism of Gen Z just like there are truisms about my generation that aren't great either. Just tone it down a tad. I agree with your points though. The current university woes is a multi variant problem that is from seemingly all angles. In the truest sense of the phrase, it is what would be called a "wicked problem" that nobody has a real answer too, at least to attack the whole problem as a whole. Many know how to change things in pieces, but its a hard one to solve. None of those discussions can take place though if we don't acknowledge faults and some of those faults can be place on Gen Z just like there are faults that can be placed on Millennials and Gen X who are the parents of Gen Z.
Sorry if the tone came across aggressive. In my head it was more snarky than the plain text.
Now get off my lawn.
-
2
-
IH 610 South Loop Widening
in Traffic and Transportation
Posted
This is incredibly long overdue.
For those saying that the traffic doesn't exist here or that it was caused by the 288 Contruction never drove this road before all that.
Back in my day before that construction .... early to mid 2010's .... you'd still sit in bad / bad traffic heading east in the morning and heading west in the evening.
All because on non-continuous frontage roads and antiquated on / off ramps. Not really a capacity problem IMO as much as it is a design issue. Fix the frontage rds to be continuous and have all the exits / onramps be 'X' / reverse diamond interchanges with dedicated exit / entry lanes on 610.
Once this all is fixed, then we can start talking about an even more needed upgrade to the 610 section from I45 -> 225 and the cluster that is. They really need to design it much like 290 / 610 / I10 is on the west side. You should be able to take a direct connection from I45 to 225 and visa-versa without actually getting on 610 at all. In addition, heading east on 610 you should commit to taking either 45, 225. or continuing on 610 well before you actually get to I45. Ideally that should be right after the Spur 5 exit stuff that's going to now get built. South on 610, you should be able to pick 225, 45 N or S, or continuing on 610 before you even hit 225. Probably will need to get lumped in with a rebuild of the ship channel bridge, but good golly that's needed for petro commerce / ship channel commerce that the road serves. Some big $$$$'s lost in the congestion everyday b/c of a bad design.