DNAguy

34 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

If you follow university trends then this wouldn't be a shock. Many universities are restructuring in this way. Less tenured professors and more adjuncts instead. Most of these cost saving measures are due to the fact that Admin staff and hiring has gotten ridiculous. As students ask their universities to cater to their whims and protections more and more universities are having to over-inflate their admin staffs like crazy just to keep up and head off any potential personal, mental, social, or cultural problems that a student might have on campus. These are things universities never wanted to get into, but due to current societal and cultural pressures are pouring money into. Its not a great trend. I'm not one for bashing generations, but this is an exclusive Generation Z issue. Everyone always blames my gen for these issues (Millennials), but its really Gen Z.

Yeah.... I'm going to have to call foul.

Scapegoating the youngest generation for the failings of previous generations is tired trope. As a millennial, you're just falling into the trap now that a new kid is on the block. Tisk, tisk. Like you said, boomers have been blaming Millennials for 10+ years now for pretty much all the stuff they've done. 

The real reason is tax $ and government policy of at least the last two decades. Plain and simple:

As more and more states have reduced education spending and support for universities, the cost of education has gone up to make up the difference.

The ability to take out essentially endless amounts of $ to fund your education has led to no downward pressure on university prices. And to attract this seemingly endless supply of students, an arms race of facilities / amenities took off.... which then caused education to further rise and creating a sort of synergism on rising prices.

In addition, universities (and especially smaller, private ones) began to rely on foreign students who paid the full price tag to cover their increased costs. Globalism and a rising India & China seem to produce an endless supply of these students willing (or at least their governments were) to pay full freight.

More and more people have kept taking out larger and larger loans.... more and more students from around the world came.... until recently.

The debt burden has grown so large that the return on the investment doesn't make sense to people anymore… especially for smaller, private liberal arts schools.

Recent government policies around immigration and the rise in credible educational institutions around the world (like in the gulf and China) has had a chilling effect on foreign students willing to come here …. and pay full way.

That's why St. Thomas has to reduce costs.

They've incurred large amounts of debt w/ the investment of new facilities.

More and more people are asking whether going there makes sense when it cost so much. 

Less people paying full sticker price.

If they don't start getting ahead of this, they will cease to exist.

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 6:48 PM, ekdrm2d1 said:

 

Am I missing something?

Can't there be multiple phases to this property?

I mean there is significant surface lot space that can one day be turned into multi-story residential / office / hotel, etc.

I know it's not in the plan now, and a KBR-site-like complete redesign would be nice.... but what's being proposed is actually WAYYYYYY better than post office.

Two thoughts:

1.) The slow march of the eventual merging of Upper Kirby, Greenway, Highland Village, ROD, and finally the Galleria  keeps progressing

2.) The AT&T building's (or at least its large parking lot) days are numbered.  

27 minutes ago, samagon said:

another reason not to close walker is because the rich people that go from walker to allen pkwy, to kirby to their home in river oaks are not going to be happy hearing they have to be inconvenienced by sitting through 2 more traffic signals. there are already more traffic signals on allen pkwy as it is, won't anyone think of thier needs?

 

a less sarcastic answer, yes, kill the walker access to allen pkwy. also, just kill the direct access from allen pkwy to 45. how hard is it for someone to go down to dallas, turn left on bagby, then turn left on walker?

 

if we're asking why things were done.. there are far more people at all times of day wanting to get from memorial onto 45 (currently) than from allen pkwy to 45. As an example, in the afternoon you have to wait 3-4 cycles of the lights at Houston/Memorial to get onto 45 south. 

 

 

why is there no entrance from memorial onto 45 in the proposal? that is a far greater need than allen pkwy. currently, they're going to have to turn right on bagby, then go through 3 lights, and turn right again on walker, which is currently a very heavy traffic entry to the freeway.

 

the rest of this project around downtown may suck, but for people that currently get on 45 south from memorial, this is going to be a horrifying shit show.

In the new configuration, you'd be able to exit for Houston Ave, Turn right on Houston, then turn left at the Allen Parkway intersection, and then take the cloverleaf on-ramp to the Spur.

I guess in that way, the cloverleaf entrance does have a benefit in that it can serve both memorial AND allen parkway.

Also, Why use the clover-leaf design from Allen Parkway eastbound to the Spur northbound?

Would it be a better use of space to just make that a flyover? Heck it might even add some symmetry. It also allows for an almost city block sized parcel of land to open up for development if sold by TxDOT

Why is the Walker street to Allen Parkway west connection left in the design?

Do we really need this road? It cuts off the Sam Houston Park from the Bayou unnecessarily. If the new, nice suspension bridge goes in which will help to reduce the obstructions between the parks, why put in a street that will most likely have cars driving 35-45 mph on it?

It's not like this street really helps with access or addresses any real traffic need as Sabine St. can be accessed via an intersection with Allen Pkwy now.

You can get on Allen Pkwy from Lamar which is … a block away!

I say eliminate it, reduce the need to keep it up, increase access from Bayou trails-Buffalo Bayou Park-City Hall, and reduce the potential for cars coming into contact with pedestrians / runners. 

I actually don't think this is a bad thing.

Moving the transportation center to Gulfton might actually speed up the BRT expansion to Hilcroft.

Hilcroft to Gulfton TC to the new Bellaire BRT building. That would be a great way to serve a lot more folks with the new BRT line.

Looking at the map, it would actually be nice if they could throw BRT only lanes in the powerline ROW. My guess is that isn't going to fly.

On 9/15/2018 at 3:16 PM, ekdrm2d1 said:

Example

https://www.instagram.com/kirbycollection/

 

Whatever happened to TMC3?

My take:

1.) SB 45 connector does not need 3 lanes past the midtown / Bagby exit. It would seem highly unlikely that there is enough traffic demand for east / west downtown south downtown / upper midtown lanes coming from I10 or 45.

2.) The McKinney to Lamar St road along bayou not needed. Downtown street grid is sufficient. Plus it will add more area to the park and allow for almost unmolested access from the hike/bike bayou trail to City Hall, Sam Houston Park, and the Public Library.

3.) The eastbound Allen Prkway to NB connector cloverleaf on-ramp needs to go. The demand for this direct ramp do no support the real-estate it takes up. Considering that it would take ~ 5 more minutes to require folks to take two lefts (Dallas @ Bagby and Bagby @ Walker), I can't see how tying up real-estate that could be sold to a developer for a skyscraper makes sense.  I would say that a compromise might be that a direct connector from Westbound W. Dallas St to the NB connector lanes. This would add another outlet for western downtown traffic and the folks on Allen Parkway would then just turn right at Clay / W Dallas. It would take some land acquisition from the parking lot, but also

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 3:41 PM, Houston19514 said:

 

I think I agree with you on the Walker St.- Allen Parkway connector, especially the way they show it designed.  The Walker Street traffic would have two right turns to get on to Allen Parkway anyway.  They might was well just use Bagby and Lamar and remove the current Walker Street connection to Allen Parkway and gain more parkland.  That little one-lane connector looks kind of ridiculous and ineffective.

 

This

On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 7:56 PM, VinnyVincent said:

Not in the mainlanes, but HCTRA will be taking control of the center HOT/HOV lane from metro once the expansion project is complete. They're also widening the lane and adding a shoulder.(apparently for emergencies but we all know the real purpose is to post constables there to enforce tolls) It should be similar to the managed lanes on I 10.

 

point is they get their greazy crooked little hands on everything they possibly can in our county and turn it into a beauracracy which o can no longer stand idly by and watch. It's sickening.

This is incorrect.

HCTRA has a financial agreement with TxDOT that they receive a portion of the toll revenue from 290.

Originally HCTRA agreed to contribute ~ $400 mill to the 290 project to speed up its competition. For this $400 mill, HCTRA would own and operate 3 bi-directional managed lanes (HOT/HOV) with 100% of the maintenance cost being the responsibility of HCTRA and 100% of the revenue going to HCTRA.

However, the state's financial situation changed after the agreement was reached. Subsequent bond measures were passed that "freed" up $$ for TxDOT. TxDOT no longer needed the money so badly to get the project completed in the expedited timeframe. In addition, mounting issues with building / engineering a 3 reversible lane configuration led HCTRA to try and find a more tenable deal with TxDOT.

TxDOT and HCTRA came to agreement that:

1.) Halved HCTRA's contribution to the 290 project ($200 mil instead of $400)

2.) Reduced the managed lanes from 3 to 1

3.) Ceded control of the 290 managed lane to TxDOT and therefore shifted maintenance / upkeep to TxDOT

4.) Ensured a HCTRA a percentage of the tolled revenue (IDK what the final % was, though)

In addition / as part of the agreement, HCTRA also:

5.) Ceded control of the I10 managed lanes to TxDOT and therefore shifted maintenance / upkeep to TxDOT

6.) Locked in 1/3 of the I10 managed lanes revenue in perpetuity

So now HCTRA doesn't manage or control any tolled lanes outside of the southern tolled section of 249, the northern part of the Fort bend tollway, and most of the Westpark tollway. And of course the entire Sam Houston and the Hardy tollroads.

I don't think the facts support your representation of HCTRA as being a malignant force or the tollroad offshoot of SPECTRE

On October 24, 2016 at 8:47 AM, cspwal said:

So far no real activity that I've noticed on 288 :/

Looks like they're removing trees / vegitation at the 288-610 interchange as of yesterday.

Sorry no pics. Traffic was actually moving well heading west yesterday at rush hour.

Sidenote: Is there a more mind-boggling bad stretch of freeway in Houston as 610 between 288 and 45/225?

I'm not talking about traffic (but it sure does get bad.... Just not as bad as other stretches) per se, but the design. You can really tell that it was built to older and lower standards of freeway design. The short on ramps and off ramps, the discountinuous frontage roads, the relatively sharp curves / obstructed sight lines, and the terrible 45 interchange all create massive backups everyday that just wouldn't be there with a properly designed highway.

Outside of the 45 interchange, there is some real low hanging TxDOT fruit when it comes to reducing congestion. Maybe the traffic count and the demographics of the area just don't support it. 

VV,

Rail at HCTRA all you want, but as I said before, they only exist because voters allow them to exist.

There's nothing nefarious about its existence. If you have a fundamental disagreement with their mission or actions then I suggest you start a campaign for Harris county to eliminate it.

I think you'd have a tough case to prove that HCTRA is cooking the books, but I learned on Tuesday that your general mistrust in institutions / government is an extremely effective way to politic right now.

I do not agree with 99.99% of what your saying, but your anger is real and government needs to start listening to it.

The appointed bureaucratic institutions like HCTRA, METRO, and TIRZ's need to get ahead of this sentiment and really lobby the public at large, They need to prove their worth and be as open and transparent as possible. It's either that or they'll see to exist.

HCTRA is not a private company.

It's a democratically approved enterprise by Harris County. People wanted / voted for this as the state of Texas was constitutionally prohibited from building / running toll roads.

If you don't like it or disagree with its mission/function, then I would try to start a ballot initiative in Harris county to repeal its existence.

However, as of the late 2000's (I can't remember what year) the state of Texas now has the ability to build roads as tolled facilities by initially floating bonds and using tolls to service said bonds. In addition, the state of Texas can go further and actually give a private company exclusive rights to a tolled facility if they design and build the road in state owned / purchased ROW.

So if you get rid of HCTRA, most likely you'll have less local control and possibly have private companies running the toll roads..... which is exactly what you're getting with 288. That's not a HCTRA project, that's a TxDOT project. The portion in Brazoria county is not, however. That is the Brazoria county analogue to HCTRA.

If you take the state's ability to build, sanction, or run toll facilities then you have no new roads.

So if your gripe is with toll roads in general, then bitching about HCTRA is sort of misplaced. Tolls fill in a funding gaps. Current tax levels cannot support the maintenance on existing roads. To be able to service current roads and build new ones for the growing population would require a large increase in taxes through some sort of increased registration fee, gas tax, mileage tax, or carbon tax of some sort.

If you're not ok with that, then HCTRA and TxDOT have to fill in the funding with something.... like a usage fee.... which is exactly what a toll is. There are arguments that say this is actually the fairest way to fund roads as those who use it, pay for it.

There are a lot of nuances to this argument. "tolls=bad" doesn't scratch the surface.

My thoughts FWIW:

To my knowledge, this is a design-build project much like the southern section of SH130 south of Austin.... at least to the Brazoria county line. After that, its all on the Brazoria equivalent of HCTRA.

Therefore, no concessions were made to allow for HOV's to use the toll lanes. This is a large mistake and is worth derision.

However, I do feel as if this is a good deal for TxDOT and tax payers as they don't have to pay for the upgrade ... the engineering company has exclusive toll rights for like 60 years.

In addition, they throw in upgrades to the 610 and Beltway 8 interchanges. That's a pretty nice bonus. I say its probably the best use of this agreement because there is still a "free" option to drive on that not frontage roads and is actually grade separated highway.  The toll company can't "force" you to use the toll lanes as they could if a new highway was being put in. That reduces the likelihood of huge price increases on tolls and adds a downward pressure on pricing.

Full disclosure: I like trains. I like commuter trains and hope Houston eventually gets them. I like how when I go to Europe, DC, NY, etc that I don't need a car and train + uber seems to work well.

However, trains in the middle of freeways (and this one especially) don't work all the at well. Where would the stops be? How would people get to them?

Right now commuter trains don't make sense for Brazoria county. However, we need to preserve / start movement on the existing tracks along FM 521 and Mykawa Rd / Tx35. Maybe one day, those alignments can be used for commuter rail into the city with spurs to Hobby airport (for Mykawa) or the Medical Center (FM 521).

To be honest, TxDOT, METRO, Harris County, and Houston + surrounding municipalities should be incentivizing train companies to build newer train tracks in areas outside of the suburbs and city if / when possible. If that were the case, then older lines / ROW within the city could be used for commuter service.

14 hours ago, gmac said:

 

You got me. I'm not really very experienced with trains. I have only ridden about 100,000 miles in more than a dozen nations, so I'm pretty much a rookie.

 

I'm fine with this project if it doesn't cost taxpayers a dime and no eminent domain force is used.

So we have to hold the train to a higher standard than any / all infrastructure project.... ever?

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/09/13/167934/controversial-toll-road-project-moves-closer-to-construction/

Oh and due to the objection of local land owner's I thought I'd call the Bryan office of TxDOT to understand why the last alignment was chosen.

One of the main questions / abnormalities that I observed when looking at the final sections' alignment was that it was completely through virgin land and not along numerous existing ROW's.

I specifically called out:

1.) Continuing w/ FM 1774 w/ a Plantersville bypass

2.) Following the UP RR from Shadow Lake Subdivision to SH105 and intersect SH105 east of Stoneham

I also asked if this project had taken into consideration the newly designated I-14 corridor and the possible future tie-ins to that as well as the need to upgrade SH105 from the termination of SH 249 to highway 6.

The response I had can be summarized by:

The current final section was routed in a more westerly direction due to objection from the Stoneham community and the increase traffic along 105 and the elementary school that resides on in if a more eastern intersection of 105 was the option. That is why a routing along FM 1774 or the UP railroad was avoided.

No consideration was taken for I-14 because this planning started back in the 80's / 90's.

SH 105 will need to be upgraded in the future from SH 249 terminus to the highway 6 terminus. However, there's nothing in any planning stage for that.

When I asked if opposition can still affect the alignment the rep told me that due to so many starts and stops for this projects over the years, that he wouldn't be surprised by anything.

Full disclosure:

I think the section from FM 1774 to 105 is a horrendous alignment. The road needs to follow the railroad tracks alignments to SH 105 as there is little development along it and it doesn't take much land from home owners.

If you really want to reduce traffic along SH105, then you could try and follow the UP railroad to the Atchinson & Sante Fe railroad alignment all to the way to HIghway 6 and have a direct intersection w/ highway 6 to avoid dropping traffic on SH 105 all together.

I think that when it comes to objections from the public, that TxDOT does listen. I just think their conclusions are lazy, lack critical thinking, and create solutions that have even more problems. Is putting a tolled facility in virgin country really the best solution for this part of the state? Or is upgrading capacity along existing ROW's really the best solution?

I couldn't find an actual topic on SH 249 (Tomball parkway) and its expansion up to ~ Navasota.

So here's some background for anyone interested:

HCTRA expanded SH249 to Tomball as Phase 1 of a multi-phase extension of SH249. This was completed and opened in 2015.

https://hctra.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=527d9322e2244039b0bc3e93fe2c4fc1

The plan is for SH249 to ultimately terminate at SH 105 roughly close to Navasota, hence the nickname the "Aggie Tollway" or "Aggie Highway".

This extension seems to be broken up between the Houston TxDOT office and the Bryan TxDOT office.

The Houston office is over the section from the current terminus to Todd's Mission.

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh249-extension.html

The Bryan office is over the section from Todd's Mission to ~ Navasota... well actually SH 105 east of Navasota and west of Plantersville / Stoneham.

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/bryan/sh249.html

However, it seems as if there is "significant" local opposition to the last segment of the project from Todd's Mission to SH 105:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Texas-249-growth-proceeding-despite-vocal-6234179.php

http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2015/05/01/59957/txdot-to-move-ahead-with-249-toll-road-despite-local-opposition-2/

https://communityimpact.com/houston/news/2015/12/11/txdot-holds-public-meeting-on-updated-hwy-249-extension-plan/

Here are two more recent articles as well:

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/03/grimes-county-residents-turn-out-against-toll-road/

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/21/rural-land-owner-preps-sue-state-transportation-de/

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

The city tax abatement was on the improvements (construction of 1600 Louisiana).  No improvements === No abatements.

Quote

4. Termination of Abatement and Agreement

 

Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, in the event the Owner decides not to commence the Project, the Owner will provide a written termination notice to the City and the Parties will sign a letter agreement acknowledging the termination of this Agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to both Parties; provided, however, that neither Party shall impose any conditions upon the other Party as a pre­requisite to such Party's execution of the letter agreement. In such event, this Agreement and all rights and obligations of the Parties shall cease and terminate and the Owner shall not be entitled to any tax abatement pursuant to this Agreement. The Director is authorized to sign the letter agreement on behalf of the City.
Also, during the Abatement Period, the Owner shall have the option and right at any time to give the City written notice that the Owner has elected to terminate this Agreement and its right to tax abatement on the Improvements effective as of the year in which the termination notice is given by the Owner; provided, however, at the time the termination notice is given by the Owner, no event of default shall exist which has not been cured. Upon delivery to the City of a termination notice by the Owner and subject to the proviso of the preceding sentence, this Agreement and all rights and obligations of the Parties shall cease and terminate and the Owner shall not be entitled to any tax abatement pursuant to this Agreement for the year in which the termination notice is given by the Owner and for all years remaining in the Abatement Period.

 

5. Representations and Warranties

(a) The Owner represents that it owns the Real Property.
(b) Unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 4 hereof, the Owner represents that it will complete construction of the Improvements on the Real Property no later than July 31, 2017. The Owner further agrees that if construction on the Real Property is not completed by July 31, 2017, this Agreement will automatically be null, void, and of no further force or effect unless the Owner has requested and received approval of an extension. Not later than July 15, 2017, the Owner may submit to the Director a written request to extend the time for completion stating the proposed date of completion. The Director shall approve the request if he or she reasonably believes that the construction will be completed by the proposed date, taking into account all circumstances.

The Owner represents that the execution and delivery of this Agreement has been duly authorized by all requisite actions of its corporate officers that are necessary for it to have force and effect and that the person signing this Agreement on behalf of the Owner is authorized to do so.
(d) Unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 4 hereof, the Owner represents and warrants that the construction and installation of the Improvements described in EXHIBIT 3 will begin after the Agreement Effective Date. The Owner represents that the Real Property is comprised of approximately 1.9 acres of land.
(e) The Owner represents that, to the best of its knowledge, no interest in the Real Property or the Improvements is held or leased by a member of the City Council or a member of the City's Planning Commission.
(f) Unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 4 hereof, the Owner represents and warrants that it will invest a minimum of $576,000,000.00 in designing, constructing, and installing the Improvements in the Zone by the Effective Date of Abatement.
(g) Unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 4 hereof, the Owner represents and warrants that by the year 2020, the Owner will employ, and will continue to employ throughout the Abatement Period, at least 1,752 Permanent Employees in the Center whose employment position on the Effective Date of Agreement does not exist. The breakdown of the job creation requirement is as follows:

1. Eight Hundred (800) jobs by 2017
2. One Thousand One Hundred (1,100) jobs by 2018
3. One Thousand Four Hundred (1,400) jobs by 2019
4. One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Two (1,752) jobs by 2020

(h) The Owner represents that as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, new employment positions will only be counted as new Permanent Employees for purposes of this Agreement if they are above the total number of employment positions with the Owner's operations in the Center (the ''Threshold.") The Parties agree that for purposes of this Agreement, the Threshold shall be Six Thousand Thirty-Six (6,036).

(I) The Owner represents that developing, constructing, installing, and renovating the Improvements in the Zone will contribute to the retention, expansion, and creation of primary employment and will attract major investment in the Zone that would be a benefit to property within the Zone and that would contribute to the economic development of the City.
(J) Unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 4 hereof, the Owner represents and warrants that it will design, develop, construct, and install the Facility as described in EXHIBIT 4.
(k) The Owner represents and warrants that the Improvements will be designed, developed, constructed, and installed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations.

 

In addition, they're not going to meet the job targets that would need to happen.