HoustonIsHome

together just between those three districts, the area in/around the loop has around 110 million sq feet of work space. surely we could have a couple successful commuter rail or hybrid LRT lines.

and so true (though some people will argue that connecting work zones isnt the way to building a successful system).. its definitely a great start.

What makes you think just creating lines will make people ride the raid and made it a successful system? You think that kust because the red line connects business centers that any line connecting to a business center will have riders? Talk to DART on that one.

Listen. The red line is successful because it replaced a taxed bus system. That area was already overflowing with riders. All Metro did was put those preexisting riders on rail. What DART did was create new transit corridors and just expected new riders to abandon their cars and use these new corridors instead. You have the same flawed thinking.

If zero people are boarding buses in Katy right now, what's gonna make them board after you spend 2billion on a rail out there?

I wonder what the percentage of jobs are inside Loop 610? Would be interesting to know. I would think the total percentage of all workers in Houston is quite high inside the Loop. So the need to connect the work zones together via alternative means over the next 2 decades is there - and will continue to grow.

Downtown had between 150,000 to 200,000

TMC has 100,000

The colleges has about 40,000

Greenway should have over 40,000

Uptown had over 100,000

Considering the hospitality workers and the other smaller employment centers I works say the workforce in the loop is about 800,000to 1,000,0000

This is why we need an urban rail system. This is why we need more affordable housing stock in the loop. This is why we need more housing stock on the loop. This is why we more grocery,/retail in the loop

while i agree, you dont think it would make sense if we just put "starter" commuter rail lines down some of the more congested/populated corridors first, like 290, 45N/Hardy, and 45S, before we go all out running lines out to Baytown, Tomball, ect. Houston doesnt exactly sprawl evenly in all directions.

i dont see a need for commuter rail down i10east, 59n, 59s, 288, 249, or the other freeways/rail corridors. at least not in the immediate future, though i think it would be smart to reserve ROW along some of those routes so that we can more easily install rail in the next few decades when Houston has over 10 million people.

but a line from an intermodal station in downtown or Hardy Yards up to IAH, The Woodlands and Conroe; a line from Cypress into said intermodal type station at the post office site downtown, or the Hardy Yards site; and a line from that same station out along Highway 3 to a stop at Nasa/Kemah (with streetcar line along Nasa Road 1, to serve those touristy attractions), before going on to Galveston (maybe with a couple other stops at densely populated areas along the route). i dont see the galveston line having as high of "commuter" ridership as the 290 or 45N/Hardy lines would, but it would be a great addition for making Houston more tourist friendly by providing rail out to some of the more popular tourist attractions in the city (and the potential new SpacePort at Ellington Field).. there could even be a branch down Broadway for an express route to Hobby. it could make less trips than the other routes during the week days when the line might not be as busy, and ramp up the number of trips on the weekends when more tourists are visiting and/or Houstonians want to make a trip to the beach.

while that is true, we would hopefully be getting a couple subway lines like we have been discussing in this thread, to provide more shorter distance inner city "express routes".

why cant we re route the busses that would be replaced by these trains, and have them spiderweb outward from each of the new commuter rail stations, serving the populations in the areas around these stations? i understand your point, but there are ways around that. the localized spiderweb bus networks are one idea, larger or new park and rides at the stations are another idea. B-Cycle sharing programs and bike racks are another remedy for people who dont live within walking distance.

i dont see a need for quite a few of those stops/places you mentioned. we definitely cant have commuter rail running on a similar system as the LRT with stops every half mile. and i think a lot of that route would easily be better served by a "hybrid" LRT (light rail doesnt need as dense of areas as commuter/heavy rail) line along the Westpark corridor, which theoretically shouldnt be much of an issue to build since the ROW is already owned by METRO.

To answer your question you would have to look at my second worry for houston. I said houston

1 had uniform density fit as far as the eye can see

2 nothing to keep it in check from continuing to grow out in this manner.

A web would help somewhat but how long do we need to keep thus web going? That is why I suggested we focus on improving the core and let the burbs develop their own transportation system. If a core develops in a certain burb then we can connect them to our system. But this unchecked suburban sprawl is not conducive to rapid commuter transit.

Also, I didn't mention all those placesto imply each needed a stop, all I portrayed was the uniformity observed travelling down a particular road

1. TW density is dropping even though its population is booming because even TW is sprawling.

2. Houston was never a singular city surounded by sprawl. Houston was built in between preexisting small cities. It grew out to them and swallowed them in. Harrisburg, Acres Homes, and countless others were separate cities. Now if these had remained separate and each developed into individual dense pockets then yeah, all of these would simply be connected by rail. But there is no difference in density between the center of Cypress and the area between cypress and Houston.

3. I never said a grade separate rail down wherever would be out of the question. Nor did I say it didn't be fantastic. Stop painting me out to be a rail hater.

4. We have different definitions of commuter rail. To me a commuter rail could be light or heavy, the major difference being less frequent stops/ longer distances. To me the red line is urban rail, a commuter rail would be Hardy Rail yard to Greenspoint with one or two stops inbetween.

5. I disagree that any line connecting a person's work to his job us useful. Useful to him but to who else. The red line is great because it is fed by 75% of metro bus lines and it connects to important business centers.

Light rail is perfect for short distances with our type density. When you start talking 20-30 miles, it starts getting less useful. Try riding one of DART lines from end to end that green line is what? An hour and 15? And they have far less stops than we do.

6. Our density has not changed much in the last 20 years. In the loop the gains made on the west were countered by the loses in the east. Overall as a city the density went from what 3800 to 4000ppsm? In the next 20 years don't expect anything different. Families are fleeing the loop for the burbs and singles are taking their place. simple math, you buldoze a single family home that housed 4 people, you put up 4 town homes. Each one gets occupied by a single person. On first glance you say write this area got dense but truth is The building density change, population density stayed at 4.

I've always found it interesting that Houston's "tallest" (by floor count) residential high rise is 40 stories while other, much smaller cities (Charlotte, Austin, etc.) have 50+ story condos.

austin and Charlotte are smaller cities but both have bigger downtown populations. Austins is two times as large as houston. Maybe when we get to that level we will start having 50 and 60 floor residential towers

Have you been to gulfton? The area by 59 between 610 and beltway 8 is the densest part of the city.

Also the rails have to go down corridors people already travel, like westheimer and bellaire.

The reason I said why I think commuter rail will work is if light rail is in the city then when people take commuter rail then they will have a way around once they get into the city. Otherwise it's another DART.

yes I have. Rail of any sort would work well in gulfton. And I agree an urban system is needed in conjunction with a commuter system

Arch its not how far the metro sprawls it is how it sprawls.

Do this for me. Go to google maps. Switch over to satellite or Google earth. Pay attention to Houston and keep that in mind.

Now compare it to DFW, ATL, DC or anywhere you want and then tell me what you see.

In Houston apart from a major park or flood zone, the density keeps up for 30 miles in each direction. In DFW it drops off for no physical reason and picks back up again as you encounter another city. In ATL the drops are more stark. You have the airport then lots of green, you have downtown then lots of green, you have sandy springs surrounded by lots of green.

Now I am not saying the development in the area drops to zero, what am saying is that there are ebbs and flows. In Houston the ebbs and flows are not noticeable. You hop unto Westheimer you drive for 30 miles and its constant development. You hop on Shepard, or Veterans Memorial and its miles and miles of similar density development. Houston is developed without breaks.

As for LA it makes my point too. LA has a lot of sprawl but it has quite a few areas where the density spikes above 15,000 or 20,000 people per square mile. So in LA a good commuter rail would connect these areas.

For your 4th point. The issue of density pockets is that you are connecting points. Sandy Springs is a small area, you connect that area to ATL. In Houston the sandy springs area would not be discernable from its neighbors. Downtown blends into midtown, midtown blends into montrose, montrose blends into upper kirby, upper kirby blends into river oaks, River Oaks Blends into Afton Oak, Afton Oaks blends into uptown, uptown blends into gulfton, Gulfton blends into Briar Meadow, Briar Meadow blends into Sharpstown, Sharpstown blends into Westchase, westchase blends into Briar forest, briar forest blends into Westside, before you know it you are in Clayton Trace hitting George Bush Park.

Without these breaks in the neighborhoods it is hard to imagine serving a lot of people because you don't have the drop off on population as you go away from the station. In the town's surrounding England if you go a mile or two away from the station you will be surrounded by sheep. In houston you travel 1/2 a mile the density is 4000 ppsm, you travel 1mile the density is 4020, you travel two miles the density is 3980, you travel 3 miles the density is 4400. Where is the drop off? You travel from the station in Harrow and go 2 miles in any direction and the density goes from 20,000 ppsm to darn near zero

I gave LA as an example - not Vegas. Don't get angry! Don't yell - use big words to convey a point but not a whole sentence. And why would we want asses in the seats? We want people in the seats not donkeys!

Obviously Light Rail here has failed (that's a pretty clear statement you made - did I miss the point?).

You ignored my MARTA start-up question. Clearly there are dense pockets in ATL now, but when Marta started how many pockets were there? Houston suburbs will be prime areas for transit orriented developement. A commuter rail line to Cypress needn't have 30 stops, more like 5-7 so how hard would it be to restructure transit to feed into that line? Probably so hard we should just turn transit development over to NASA. Would it be impossible to have a rail station in/around the current park and ride stations?

I think of a lot of things everyday - I seem to have trouble grasping how hard it would be for a metro area of 6.2+ million to have rail transit? That's one of the things I fail to see. I'll ask this: How many of DC's METRO riders actually walk to the stations versus driving or taking a bus or carpool? Speaking about the "suburban" stations. Because if transit only survived off of commuters who walked to the stations then it would fail in 95% of the cities that currently have it. NYC and maybe Inner Chicago would thrive, everything else... fail.

Part of my job is to be creative and imagine possibilities... transit isn't about getting riders on it today but building so that when tomorrow comes riders/commuters have other options. A heavy rail/commuter rail system in Houston might take a decade to reach full ridership. It might? I'll bet if gas hits $5 a gallon and people have a chance to use it rather than spend $150 dollars per fill-up on the vehicles they will gladly use it.

Look, if you really love rail you would be clamoring to have it here even if you and I were the only people to ride it and we held each others hands in jubilation every day. How many of Metro's Red Line South riders use the park and ride lot? I did. It was almost always full when I had the ability to use transit to get to/from work.

Ok where did I say light rail failed? I can see you are just thinking I am a rail hater so go back and read my comment. I said Commuter RAIL I do not see being successful.

I did but ignore MARTA. I told you ATL is built different. Both cities sprawl. ATL sprawls with major drop off in pockets. We sprawl with uniform growth from MonTrose to San Antonio. I never said we needed 30 stops to cypress. My question is the 5 stops you mentioned, where would they go? Would you just throw them up anywhere like Dallas?

The park and ride set up is set up for bus prices. You are running away from the fact that you can't expect a smooth tranfer of those existing customers if the price change is not the same. People paying $5 now might drive all the way if the price jumps to $10

You fail to see how a metro of 6M doesn't have an extensive system because you are assuming all metros are built the same. Fact of the matter is Houston is not built like metros with a successful transit system. Too much area to cover, not enough people per mile to support costs.

As for DC its not a matter of how many people walk versus taking a bus or driving to the stations, the question is what are the options. For Houston the easiest and cheapest option is driving all the way. Come on man, DC is one eighth the size of Houston. Its satellite employment centers are connected by drops in density. It is a perfect candidate for commuter rail.

Stop acting like I said that walking to the stations were the be all and end all of successful rail. The point I made was that around each station the development extended out a mile or two so that people COULD walk if they wanted to. But the point isnt walking the point is being close to a station.

Again in Houston there is no gap between development. The density is low, but it is consistent throughout.

IronTiger, on top of all those problems you listed we would still have to consider funneling people to the system.

My definition of rail is rail in the broadest sense. Any rail.

And even thought people prefer rail over bus, if the price is not right their asses will be planted in their cars to work.

Again you are operating under the assumption that I am against rail. I won't mind if I'm the only one riding it.

As for the natural boundaries comment. The bay has done nothing to curb sprawl. You mention Denver, Chicago and Las Vegas, last I checked all three are sprawling. And that is not my point. DFW and ATL are sprawling too but neither has the uniform density that Houston has. If you read my post in whole instead of picking out parts to disagree with you will see that the important part of what I said is that HOUSTON IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION FOR COMMUTER RAIL BECAUSE IT HAS NO DENSE POCKETS TO COMMUTE FROM. INSTEAD IT HAS UNIFORM DENSITY FROM THE CORE TO GOD KNOWS HOW FAR.

Where do the stops go if you have no drops and rises in density. And if the ridership on the park and ride isn't busting at the seems, what justifies an upgrade to rail of any sort.

Are we going to have a system like Dallas where we increase the local route prices to subsidize the commuter routes. Are the commuter routes going to be $15 bucks per day plus parking.

HAVE YOU EVEN THOUGHT OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN HIS LOVELY IT WOULD BE TO HAVE COMMUTER RAIL?

They need to go higher but go easy on the luxury. I think way more than 5000 people would move to downtown if they could afford.

If you finish light rail then commuter rail would make a lot of sense

Ok look.

I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for rail of all sorts here. I want subway down westheimer, bellaire and other busy corridors, I want light rail on less busy streets. I want commuter rail on all major thoroughfares. But I just don't see it.

Stop grilling me for not seeing it. I never said one thing against building the darn thing. I JUST DON'T SEE IT BEING SUCCESSFUL.

It's like a supertall here. Yes I would like a 3000ft monster that you can see from Lubbock, but common sense tells me that it won't happen because of market and finances. Same with commuter rail. The market and finances IN MY OPINION do not justify commuter rail on any corridor.

You can disagree with me. You can try to offer figures to prove me wrong ( I would love that actually), but all of y'all need to stop acting like I'm crazy for for not being able to imagine commuter rail being successful here.

I have a sneaky suspicion that they are going to want to make this building a floor or two taller than OPP.

Would one or two floors taller than OPP make it taller than OPP? I'm asking cause the proposed height for Hines residential seems to be really short. At 362 ft Hines seems to be about 11 ft per floor. Since the Architect for block 98 I am assuming the height per floor would be similar. That would give block 98 a height of 441ft for 39 floors.

I am hoping that the estimate for Hines is off. If the height per floor of this building is closer to OPP then this building would top out at 507ft. Either way this and the 40 floor Market Square residential both make it on the tallest 50 buildings in Houston list. Hines MS and Marquette will barely miss the cut off. They need to bring Hines up to 41 floors just to be king. Lol

really? not even one along the Hardy Tollroad to IAH, The Woodlands and Conroe, a line along Hempstead Highway/290, or the Westpark corridor?

Yeah really.

I don't see it.

Not even those three lines.

I think ridership would be piss poor on the first two and the third would have issues taking people where they want to go.

Again, how many people more than those who ride park and ride right now do you think would ride the rail? How much more than park and ride would the rail cost to riders and to operate? I don't see it

Pardon me for not being able to imagine it but I simply can't imagine a successful commuter rail here.

As for the natural boundaries you mentioned, you cant corral a bull by fencing off its left hip. Houston is unchecked in almost every direction.

I never said the buildings don't look good. The failing is in regards to the creativity of the architects. To come up with one design style and spread it around town is failed creativity.

Btw, your examples are mid rises, can't really compare. Sky house, Hanover towers, Chelsea st and OPP are all good looking high rises, yet they have very different styles.

I never said you said they were ugly.

I offered that they were beautiful, and that if beautiful building are failures then I welcome more failures.

And I most certainly can compare midrises. The very fact that those suckers are squat midrises make them much better examples of failures than those you gave.

Again, my point is if I were to point out short comings in residential buildings, the two market square buildings, The Marquette and Trammel Crow buildings would be late on my list. Alliance, The early Camden renderings, Fingers and the one on St Joseph would all get a tongue lashing before the other 4

Lmfao.. I agree though, I think I like it better

But I thought urbanizer said it got 30ft shorter.

I like the latest renderings too, but what an I missing.

As per the height I mean

Who knows.. Two 21 story towers is all I care about. Heh

I wonder why they released that hideous 6 floor rendering one month then the next they say they are going for two 21 floor buildings. That's a huge change. A total of 42 floors instead of 20 is a huge difference.

Hopefully it means they are moving away from the garden style look that they previously released to a style more in line with what Hines/ Trammel Crow/ Marquette is building in downtown.

I hope Alliance would change their mind too. Right in the shadow of Houston House and skyhouse they are building that?

The number of units keep changing.

Are you playing with us Camden?

Fail? Compare those to what Camden released for that block near root square and that crap that Alliance is throwing up north of skyhouse

If Marquette, Hines MS and block 98 see fails then I don't mind Houston failing that way.

All three buildings are lovely. I like the other MS residential tower too.

How do they taste?

Finally!! Major scars are getting filled in this area

The thing with Houston, there is nothing to compare it to.

It is not quite built like Dallas.

It looks like it is developing like LA, but still not quite. LA has old dense pockets and natural boundaries, we do not have either.

So many projects going up on empty lots. YES!!!

Yeah. I think walkability is the factor here. Big differences won't occur unless stations are near the bulk of the population and our city's are just not built that way.

We have uniform density so either we have thousands of stations and stops every thirty seconds or we only catch a small portion of the population.

It's difficult to imagine commuter rail working here. After years thinking about it it hard gets harder and harder to imagine.