DNAguy

Spirit just keeps growing out of IAH.

 

By September, there will be 15 daily non-stops out of IAH. They started with just two daily flights to DFW less than 2 years ago. Here's the fall schedule;

 

DEPARTURES

 

6:00 am Chicago

7:00 am Detroit

7:05 am Minneapolis/St Paul

9:25 am Kansas City (new flight)

10:30 am Orlando

11:20 am Las Vegas

12:15 pm Atlanta (new flight)

2:00 pm Fort Lauderdale (new flight)

3:32 pm Chicago

4:15 pm Los Angeles

6:03 pm New Orleans (new flight)

7:55 pm Denver

9:05 pm San Diego (new flight)

9:15 pm Los Angeles

10:30 pm Las Vegas

IDK why. The single worse experience I've had on a plane has been on spirit. It even trumps the time that the toilet broke on a transatlantic flight.

 I mean, there is no better motivator to do better in life and make more $ than flying Spirit b/c it's cheaper than United or Southwest.

Just came across this, probably not an actual proposal.

 

http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Berkeley-2028a.pdf

IDK how you do it, but once again, you've found some pretty cool renderings.

I know this is a Houston forum, but I didn't see any topic about the ongoing saga of Austin getting light rail (although they're calling it urban rail b/c it'll share the road w/ cars while in downtown).

http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/central-austin/austins-urban-rail-plan-could-cost-1.4-billion/

Here's some more literature that I've found:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-12-13/urban-rail-which-way-to-connect/

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2014-04-18/project-connect-central-corridor-options/

Ben Wear does a good as the transportation writer for the Statesman and I'm sure he has lots of articles about this. However, ever since the pay-wall went up for that paper's site, I haven't been able to read any of his stuff.

Here's another resource:

http://projectconnect.com/

Unfortunately, honking or flashing lights at chowderheads often instigates road rage.  I did so yesterday (mind you, just a tap) to a jackass who blew a stop sign and nearly clobbered me who then locked his brakes, turned around, and started to give chase.  So I led him to the constable parked a couple blocks up the street.  When the doofus screeched up and began yelling, the constable waved me on and invited the idiot to have a moment of prayer with him.

After the Super Bowl, Houston's next big event can be hosting a MMA cage matches on the roof!

[Movie trailer voice]

2 men check into the Marriott Marquis, 1 man leaves!

I'm sure the neighbors will miss this.

 

This picture alone should win a Swampy award. IDK what category, but it needs one.......

'Best farewell of a structure to be torn down'

Winner: Skylane Central Apts. / Elan Heights 

We all share your frustration, but the problem is that many drivers simply don't understand the concept of slow traffic keeping right.  Seriously - they are just unaware of the concept or in too much of a haze to remember it.  I see this every morning on the way to work.  I think the only way to handle it (on freeways) is to issue special license plates that would restrict the driver to a designated speed.  This would be not only for vehicles that were slow, but for ones such as 18-wheelers that lack agility and the ability to accelerate relatively rapidly.  The same plates could be issued to elderly drivers, for their own protection as well as others.  

 

Europe has a good model.  In congested areas you are always under notice to yield to pedestrians, regardless of "rights-of-way".  This is common sense and I'm on board with it.  On the other hand, on major arterials and freeways enforcement of passing laws is MUCH stricter than in the US.  There, if you lag in the passing lane I can guarantee you there will rapidly be a queue of angry honking drivers behind you.  Drivers are held to a higher standard and don't forget it.  You would be surprised at the amount of effective road capacity they are able to get from what are typically two-lane motorways simply by segregating fast and slow traffic.  

Interesting.

Another issue that I think has been ignored is the fact that I, like many others who have a DL, have never actually had a driver's test.

I took the driver's ed when I was 15. I got a certificate of completion. I passed a computerized test at the dmv. BAM! I'm a licensed driver.

No where outside of the driver's ed coarse was I evaluated on HOW I drove. And even that was a murky assessment at best. I mean, you're paying for the class. What incentive does the guy have to fail you?

So here I am, some 10+ years later and all I have to do is just fill out a form and pay $ every so often to keep my DL. If it hadn't been for the defensive driving courses that I've taken over the years (b/c of tickets mind you) I would have never had to keep up with driving education. And I've still never had to PROVE how well I drive.

Hair dressers go through more rigorous training that I did and they can't kill anyone by cutting hair.

If you want to reduce traffic jams and make roads safer, make it harder to get DL's, require continuing education, and require a real road test when getting / renewing a license. It's actually pretty simple.

I've bicycled and walked through the park a few times in the last week, and I'm impressed by the progress so far. There is still a lot of work to be done, but I can see the vision coming to fruition. I really like the separate paths for runners to help break up the traffic, and also the use of native grasses and wildflowers along the section just west of the skate park next to the bayou. 

 

What most surprises me is just how popular the trails have suddenly become. I've been using this park for well over a decade and remember times where nobody else was visible on the trails. Now it feels like the running trail at Memorial Park, except with a mix of cyclists and runners doing a fitness circuit. Part of me misses the solitude and peace of the old park, as it feels like an outdoor gym now, only much prettier and with nicer trails.  

 

 

I haven't noticed this, but it's strange that they would ride golf carts on the paths. Given how busy the path is during peak times, I'd think they would ride bicycles or even Segways.

I notice that as well. LOTS of people were out on Saturday.

My guess is that the park will become a lot more solitary the higher the mercury goes...

We've been blessed w/ unusually cool weather this year that's lasted longer into the year. 

I could go on but you get the idea.

This is all on the NOAA's website. Always a cool resource if you're into that kind of thing... nerd.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/hgx/?n=climate_graphs_iah

 

Here's a photo of the area from yesterday. Excuse the poor photo quality of my cell phone.

Isn't FPH Summerfest in like 2 weeks? After walking the park last weekend, IDK if the park is going to be ready.

That thing is going to be a dust bowl.

So is downtown going to have a 'monkey wrench' district?

There's no reason to chase off homeless people unless they're doing something illegal. It's a public park.

Is camping in a public park legal?  

@kbates2

My thoughts exactly. I'm pretty sure you can't camp in a public park.

this supposed new security is definitely a game changer in this project that continues to be a game changer...

Truly game changing comment. 

IIRC, 99 will never ever be a full loop anyway. Remember, according to Wikipedia, it took 60 years from Beltway 8 to go from planning to full completion.

True. However, never underestimate the power of developers and the access they get by giving lots of $$$$$ to politicians.

The sections of the Grand Parkway from 1-10 south to 59 and 290 east to 45 make sense to me. !10-290? I've driven it. There's nothing out there. Blatant developer welfare. The 45/Hardy to 59 section sort of makes sense. The Baytown section (I think's it's given the I2 section designation) seemed odd to me. Instead of building a road in a field, why didn't they just upgrade 146 to highway standards to I10? Oh yeah, developers. 

So now we have a section of the loop from 59 south all the way to 59 north and a stub from 146 to I 10.

I really think that that's all that's needed. 

Who is clamoring for a road in the middle of nowhere in Northeast / east harris county and liberty county? What is the traffic count for those needing to travel from the Woodlands to say Mont Belveiu. Is highway 6 from I45 to 288 and 288 to 59 so overloaded that we need to build a tollway from 45 to Alvin and from Alvin to Sugar land?

Really? Those billions would be better spent on making our current roads better. An example is the highway 6 I mentioned. Why not upgrade multiple sections to be grade separated?

The answer again comes down to $. Developers have politicians int heir pockets. Politicians in addition don't want to raise taxes. Therefore, the only new $ for roads can only be had by floating bonds and to get that you'll have to toll lanes to pay back the bonds. By state law you cannot toll lanes that already exist. So what do we do?

We've actually set up a system that incentivises toll roads and developers exploit it. 

Crazy.

If we routed it down 59/10 there'll be more traffic on that section unless you wanted to widen that area. Texas Avenue and 59 has the tightest ROW unless you want to take out the Lofts at the Ballpark (one of the buildings) or if you wanted to double-deck the highway entirely. As for lanes, notice that north of downtown I-45 has four lanes, south of downtown I-45 has four lanes, but Pierce Elevated only has three.

The problem with getting rid of the Pierce Elevated is that a partial reconstruction was done in 1997 and like the short-lived five-stack at Beltway 8 and Interstate 10 it's not recommended to dismantle things that aren't at the end of their functional lifespan (other freeway removals, conversely, were). Making walking under it safe and attractive should be the first thing focused on. The second thing is rerouting trucks to another path, though the problem is Interstate 10 on the north side is curvier and fewer sight lines. Plus, trucks would have to also navigate two exits.

If dedicated truck bypass lanes were built along Interstate 10 and 59, that might solve part of Pierce's problems without destroying ROW or infrastructure.

If the issue is that we shouldn't dismantle things until they've reached the end of life, then we probably don't need to go through the exercise of the 45 project at all. However, that prevents us fro making almost all the freeways in Houston better due to the fact that almost all highways have been redesigned since the 90's and we get roughly 50 years out of them (right?). 

I'm not a fan of truck bypasses. I get the idea of them but I don't see it as really enforceable. If you have to police them, you don't help traffic b/c the sight of a police car increases congestion. Just the sight. Crazy. I also don't really think it'll do much to relieve congestion.

The 45 along 59 idea as TxDOT presented it sucks. It's almost as if they were late turning in their homework and thought something was better than nothing at all. I understand your objection. I object to it as well. But if done right, it can be very beneficial. From the 45/59 intersection to Polk, TxDOt has a full block-wide of ROW to work with. After Polk, you're right, the ROW is tight. You can work with this by doing 3 things:

1.) Trench 59 up to Franklin

2.) Cut Chartes to 2 lanes and / or have it overhang the trench

3.) Deck 45 over the trench

After Franklin, the 45 deck would have to split to the east and west side of the 59 elevated freeway. Additional ROW would have to be acquired there. So the section of low income housing project on the bayou west of West Dr would have to be purchased as well as the Star of Hope on the west side of 59. Both of those actions would be a tight rope act of politics.

Riding on Sunday and yesterday evening, I saw a few security guards on golf carts on the path. I wonder if that is going to be a normal thing?

I saw this too! However, I also saw a couple homeless guys who 'washed' his shirts in the Bayou and had them hanging on a clothes line. 

I've seen him b/f and his little camp seems to be a semi-permanent addition that wasn't necessarily on the master plan.....

So whatever the guards are doing, they're not running off the homeless (not that they should, I just assumed that's what they'd do).

Luckily we still have the time to change it. From what I saw just adding more lanes is actually not the favorite concept. Adding more lanes never solves the problem. Looking at the option for moving 45 to 59 they have plenty of room to do it and they have plenty of room to trench it. Got tied up with some stuff at work, but I'm working on some sketches and then maybe a sketchup model to show the general idea.

 

As for the Boulevard I don't even know if we should do that either. Lets just simply reconnect the existing roads. Then turn those blocks into a greenbelt or more of a pedestrian promenade. This way TxDOT doesn't have to spend money building a new boulevard. Then they can sell all that ROW back to the city to help recover the costs. 

As in the previous cases, I agree. However, getting rid of a freeway will already cause a fire storm. This is Houston. People think more lanes = better traffic.

An option kind of middle road option is what I proposed b/f: Instead of a blvd, I think you can tie Houston ave to the depressed section of 45 (the part that goes under W Dallas) and then tie the depress section back into St. Joseph's parkway / Pierce street. This accomplishes the same result as a parkway and it uses existing streets. And it's possible to get a nice signature bridge over BB that's right next to downtown! Heck, maybe even cap that section of depressed freeway w/ some green space!

The problem w/ the selling the ROW back to the city / developers is that (from my understanding) TxDOT's process doesn't have a way of capturing that in the costing of a project. So while we intuitively know that getting rid of the Pierce elevated would free up land to sell or that the properties close to the PE section would be more valuable w/out it, there is no value capture that is taken into account when grading / costing / vetting these options.

The traffic on the Pierce doesn't come from lack of lanes. I don't know how txdot doesn't see this. It comes b/c everyone on the Pierce elevated aren't staying on 45. Hear me out. If you're SB on the Pierce, most people aren't going to stay on 45 toward Galveston. Most people are actually trying to go to 288 south / 59 south. If you're NB on the Pierce, people are most likely going to get on I10 west. So the issue isn't really lanes at all, its the CONNECTIONS w/ the other freeways in the area. Re-routing along I-10 and 59 makes a lot of sense b/c of this. Having straight aways merging with longer site lines from freeway to another helps the merging of traffic / reduces back ups / reduces congestion.

The issue comes down to the fact that west downtown has less direct access to 45 (and subsequently I10) if we get rid of the downtown section of 45. Even though north downtown has direct access to both freeways, people will resist the removal of the freeway b/c it will take them 10 minutes longer to get home by having to travel 8 blocks north on the downtown grid rather than 3 blocks west. for those 10 minutes, people are willing to put up w/ a less overall efficient and uglier freeway option that costs us more and cuts off downtown from the gem of Buffalo Bayou park.

6. Use this rendering.

Meanwhile, back at the........

Thanks for posing the links to the study recap.  Very interesting reading.  They didn’t consider my favorite idea, which is to tear down the Pierce Elevated altogether.  The “Identified Reasonable Alternatives” are

-          Widen the existing road (predictably enough)

-          Realign 45 along 59 and convert the Pierce section into a parkway/boulevard

-          Modified directionality with northbound traffic on 59 and southbound on existing Pierce 

 

To me the idea of widening it sounds like an absolute nightmare.  It is already dangerous enough with the left exits for Allen Parkway and McKinney.  Just adding more and more lanes on the Pierce is ultimately a fool’s game; but I’m afraid that kind of solution is so deeply ingrained it will be hard to ever move beyond it.  They at least don’t rule out the boulevard concept, although it’s probably too radical (and simple) an idea to make the final cut.

TxDOT isn't doing their job unless their answer to the problem at hand is acquiring ROW and adding lanes....

Oh and tolling said lanes.

Since everyone is hating on this thread ignoring me and would rather complain like old ladies with their perms drying about other boring stuff. Let me tell you something... whatever you think about Ground Floor Retail DOES NOT MATTER!

 

The market will dictate what it wants! You are a small part of the market! You are only one person and complaining on this forum does not help your one vote! Get a bunch of people to think like you and you MAY change the market reality, more than likely you will spend your time typing away at HAIF and if you actually get people to listen you should run for office. Very few people vote.

 

Rant over but seriously, guys this is off topic slightly and feel free to delete. 12 beers = a seemingly beautiful rant that I am sure I will shake my head tomorrow.

 

This is an exciting piece of property soon to be free of most things that will give you cancer, next to some section 8 housing that won't last and I am excited to see what comes. Drive down Dallas St and you will be pleased. New apts, new dentist office GFR they sell toothpaste!!!!

 

Keeping my eye on this one and all of you out there at HAIF.

 

Time for another beer , Maaa the MEEEatLOAAAFFF!

In terms of redesigning the Pierce Elevated, I thought about "working around what we have", since it's going to (and SHOULD) be here for a long time. One thing I thought was building a Galleria-like skylight around the elevated portion to reduce visual blight as well as having a semi-enclosed area for cars to drive on in inclement weather.

Adding a sky light enclosure over a freeway essentially turns it into an elevated tunnel.

So you have the downsides (such as reduced access of emergency vehicles like Life flight) of a tunnel w/ the blight of an elevated freeway. Literally, the worst of both worlds (I say that with all due respect). Remember, the Pierce elevated already suffers from skinny shoulders that don't allow for emergency vehicle to drive along.

Although, I wouldn't mind seeing that in a conceptualization. Would be pretty cool looking actually.

I think that while zero fatalities is an admirable goal, I don't think it's fair to immediately start pointing fingers at automobiles and blame them for traffic fatalities--yes, cars ARE involved in the most accidents, but while it's the largest automobile that "wins" (because no one actually "wins" in an accident), it doesn't mean that it's always their fault. In other words, drivers can't be babysitters at 20 in downtown streets because Baby doesn't know when/where to cross the street.

Before you respond, it is worth noting about my own experiences with this: a pedestrian-heavy (bars mostly) district did some work in the area so the end result was that the main road had a speed of 35-40 (can't remember exactly) with a wall (the wall replacing some parallel parking, which became a wider sidewalk) and pedestrian signals that announced "Wait" and the time left, while a side street (two way) has a speed of 20 mph. The area is also crawling with cops due to the increased crime at night.

I don't know the results of any deaths or not, but there's some things done to make things safer.

i like the approach in the second post. Engineering a solution to a problem w/ a common sense approach. People are less likely to cross a street w/out protection if they know how much time to 'Wait'. Walls to protect pedestrians, etc.

And I don't think I'm assigning blame to automobiles exclusively. I'm blaming the attitude and status quo we've come to accept. We (I find myself doing this too so I'm not above blame) feel entitled in cars. What we need to remember is that pedestrians have the right to cross roads and bikers have the same rights as automobiles to said road.

It all comes down to culture, and culture is extremely hard to change. Any CEO will tell you this. The government (fed, state, local) has to step in b/c people don't naturally change or if they do, its WAY to slow. We can engineer solutions to help people make the right decisions in vehicles, as pedestrians, and as cyclists. There is no invisible hand when it comes safety.

I will probably just start off with sketches first. We should probably create a new thread for this imo or one which ties all of these together. This whole thing could literally change the way Houston functions for the next 2-3 decades and I don't understand why TxDOT is being so blah about it. Looks like I will have a fun project on my hands to do after work this afternoon

 

This actually kind of ties into a project I'm thinking about starting up later this month which is essentially a massive sketchup file archive of the city of houston. I will probably provide details later. Still working on a game plan, but this area of town could be an important place to start.

Can we stay on topic please? ^^1-45 or freeway construction should be a different thread.

 

Thanks

You're right. It'll need a new topic. 

Sorry for going on a tangent like that.

I actually plan on being at this next meeting.

 

I might start working on a sketchup model to help illustrate a possible alternative.

 

No question that they are trying to do it the cheapest way possible. What I have a problem with engineers today is that they are exactly this. Lazy and always about the bottom line instead of looking at how to innovate which could save money in the long run.

 

Apparently they said that going under ground would cost about 700-900 million per mile!!! Seriously? I would understand if we were digging into actual bedrock (such as the case as the Big Dig or Seattle burying the Alaskan Corridor), but we would be digging through nothing but clay. It would probably be the fast dig ever because of our geology. The only real cost is depth between we would probably have to bury it pretty deep here.

 

I was actually wondering if those charts where TxDOT's opinion on the options or the actual public, because I would assume that the public is actually in favor of either burying or diverting I45 and even trenching all of it.

 

Would certainly like some more info on this.

From my conversations with the engineers, this is what they came up with. It doesn't take into consideration what the public wants.

Take for instance the idea of the street level blvd that would replace the Pierce elevated. [From what I was told by an engineer] The city engineering office voiced concern about increased street level traffic if this were to come to fruition. TxDOT took note. And thats how we get an 'U' under vehicle miles traveled on city streets. I mean, where is the proof? What models show that this will actually take place? If anything, our downtown grid can absorb traffic. We have streets WIDER than the freeway downtown. This traffic will also not be passing through. It will be trying to get somewhere like midtown, Eado, the Spur. I don't buy what they're selling.

And what's up with the 'U' for constructibility? What are the metrics? How is that 'U', but expanding the existing Peirce elevated is a 'neutral'?! Come on. Both would take significant ROW (although the re-route option wouldn't have to). Are they talking about cost? Who knows. Better to use vague semi-technical terms to distract us while they go with the option that they've already chosen. It's obvious that they either will expand it or go with a 'split' option.

If you're truly going to mock some alternatives, I'd like for you to take some things into consideration. 

1.) The Spur 5 elevated freeways on I 45 south. 

These weren't taken into consideration b/c the boundaries of this project end at the 45/59 intersection. However, these can be a real asset - either as direct 59 connectors or downtown exits (as they already are). The thing is though, if 45 is rerouted along 59, why would we need them as DT exits. The freeway would most likely route along 59 w/ a DT exit right there at 59.

2.) [Like you said earlier] Widen and continue the 59 trench withing its current ROW (can accomplish b/c walls are sploped currently or have Chartes 'overhang' the trench) past the GRB. Have 45 re-routed withing that trench ROW as an elevated section. This would lessen land acquisition cost. 45 exits to I10 East can then tie into the current 59 to I 10 east ramps as well.

3.) Urban blvd. / DT exit from the SB I45 north.

Instead making a whole new street where the Pierce elevated is, why not just use St Joseph's prkway and Pierce. TxDOT can re-coup some of the projects cost by selling the ROW it owns / is being taken by the elevated freeway for development. The trenched section that's on the west side of DT needs to be tied into Houston Ave. with a bridge over the Bayou. 45's DT exit ties directly into Bagby and .... well I don't know exactly how to preserve the west side of DT to I 45 north I 10 access right now. Thoughts?

I feel that Houston is underserved in the high-end luxury hotel market.  Which seems strange.  I mentioned this to a developer I know (who does other stuff here) who is active in Houston and he agreed.  The St. Regis here is nice; although I have not stayed in one of the rooms, people have told me it is nice.  Frankly, I think the other hotels in the Galleria area -- mostly from the 80s -- seem a bit run down and not up to snuff.  A friend from NYC stayed at the Four Seasons downtown a few years ago and was not impressed, either.  So ... I think there ought to be an opportunity here for investors who want to fund a state-of-the-art high-end hotel.

The St. Regis is very nice. However, the location sucks.