mattyt36

There's that mysterious "Dock High Pedestrian Path" again. I get the concept from walking around other parts of Sawyer Yards and MKT, but there isn't a loading dock anywhere there, at least as drawn, or I am blind. Does anyone know what it's supposed to be?

"Anecdotally" 90 to 130 major incidents a month Houston METRO launches special homeless team to tackle potential issues along routes amid rise in public transportation crime - ABC13 Houston Houston METRORail violence: Police chiefs vow more officers on patrol after 6th violent incident on or near transit in 2 months - ABC13 Houston

Well, on this subject, all that matters is what the general population prefers.

Well, if you're concerned about transportation modes barely being able to pay for operations and maintenance, I'm not sure why you would look at rosy eyes with transit. Are Texans' property taxes, gas taxes, or sales taxes set to increase if NHHIP proceeds? Nope. And that's all that matters in the minds of voters. The majority of the mileage literally parallels the Central Expressway and the Stemmons Freeway, which must go "somewhere useful," considering the volume. If you want to commute via rail, you literally have the "option" to do so . . . I thought that was what this was all about? Well from a literal sense I mean the riders soaked in their own urine sitting (well, let's be honest) lying on communal seats. But it doesn't matter what I think--I have come to expect it--it matters what all the people you are trying to get out of their cars think.

Depends on the line. If you consider hourly headways outside of rush hour as "pretty great," well, then, I guess good for you? Now go sell that in the suburbs for what it'll cost. I'm not begrudging anyone from riding anything--it's a choice. I ride it frequently enough. If you want to keep your head in the sand and think that it's OK to expect people to choose the light rail (and transit, by extension) when it's not an infrequent occurrence to come across someone who is high, soaked in urine, otherwise smelling not so clean, or verbally threatening, well then, again, good for you. It's generally not how you attract people to change behavior. The light rail goes plenty of places that are not the Medical Center, and, if your prescription is for me just to ride it around there during rush hour so I see middle class people, well, I don't know what to say. Absolutely bizarre logic. "All of the urban planners." Well, quelle surprise. It's like asking economists from the University of Chicago in 1940 what they think of the New Deal. Urban planners are who got us into this mess to begin with. Your link is to a publication by an advocacy group. It refers to costs not directly borne by users (i.e., externalities). Let me put it this way: Joe Q Public says every time I put gas in my car, the State of Texas gets $0.20. The more I drive, the more they get--there is some connection between my use and what I pay, and I have complete freedom in going anywhere I want to. The few times I ride METRO (if any, let's be honest), I have to pay a fare on top of the property taxes I have been paying for something I rarely use because it doesn't go everywhere I want to. If transit is expanded, I'm still likely not to use it and I'll have to pay even more in property taxes. If you don't see the clear distinction between the two, well, then . . . I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I don't know, why don't you go do a nice poll and ask Houstonians if they'd be OK with, say, a $10 billion investment in a commuter rail transit network. Tell them the associated service levels, the fares, the time it will take them to get from their house to their work, how much they'll have to pay for the privilege, and ask them "Yay or nay"? (After all, they're the ones who are going to pay for it, and you did say earlier you were concerned about the voters.) Now ask them to pay $200 million for bayou parks. I have an idea as to how this will work out. You act like people universally want transit. Some do, but most are happy suffering in their personal vehicles. I don't know why this is so difficult for people to grasp. (Regardless, comparing the level of investment in transit with investment in parks (BTW I suggest you check out the City's park budget so you can see how much money we're really talking about here), street sweepers, and homeless shelters is absolutely ludicrous. Your sense of perspective and relevance is nonexistent.)

Well, in fairness, a couple of things: (1) Under the current system, freeways are largely "self-funding" through the gas tax. Transit and commuter rail are not anywhere near directly so, at least not in a way that is easily digestible for voters to understand. Ergo it's not a real leap or illogical to consider it expensive for what it is. (2) There are cities like LA and Dallas that have built commuter rail systems (and I think these serve as the best example of what would happen if Houston built similar--note LA and Dallas are as known for traffic as we are), and they aren't exactly the most useful. With few exceptions, Metra in Chicago isn't even all that great. (3) METRO rail isn't exactly the greatest advertisement against the "great unwashed poor population" bias.

I don't believe the NYT is particularly "biased" except in the sense that they generally adopt the academic consensus view, and this is the academic consensus view. However, it is simplistic in the sense that it does not consider the alternative. The truth of the matter is, traffic or not, most Americans (especially those who vote) prefer to live on large lots in economically segregated communities with good schools. Moreover, living in a city is prohibitively expensive for many that wish to do so (why not consider the affordable housing problem in the same article?). This idea that you can force density in a city without a historical rapid transit network by just making it more difficult for people to drive seems to make logical sense in everyone's head ("Ah, if it took two hours to get from The Woodlands to downtown, then they'd have to take the train!"), but it is 100% unproven--and I'd say it makes no sense on its face. I'd say it's equally logically sensical in a city like Houston that the central core of the city would de-densify with businesses moving out of the core and into the plentiful and cheap land on what used to be called "edge cities," only that these new edge cities won't be on 610 or even Beltway 8--they'll be on the Grand Parkway. So how does that solve the (apparently) stated problem? Invest in transit, you say. Well, the way it stands in this state, at least, Houston would be pretty much on its own with meaningful assistance from the federal government (and this pie is very limited). A meaningful system (commuter rail joined to a transit system with comprehensive coverage and attractive headways) under this scenario is nowhere near financially feasible, and that assumes the voters would actually approve it to begin with. (And, I hate to bring this up as I know all of the Stop IH-45 people's #1 concern was keeping low income neighbohoods intact, but try to build a truly useful system without displacing a lot of people. I know, I know, in this case you will find some way to say "it's A-OK because it's for the greater good" (which really means, "It's A-OK for what I think is the greater good."--need I remind you you are in the minority.) The level of thought that people give to such complex issues is absolutely laughable. There is this sense that one can have one's cake and eat it too with no acknowledgment that once the system changes, you can't keep what you assume you could control under control. @editor says "Blame the messenger" with all the cited facts, etc., etc. I'm not disputing the facts as presented, but what's their prescription to really change how American cities develop? I think if you spend much time musing on it, you'll realize it's all but impossible. As long as there is land to sale on the periphery, it will be purchased and with the expectation that it will be developed in due course. There is no mechanism for development cordons in the State of Texas, and even if there miraculously were, I doubt they would hold up in this Supreme Court. The long and the short of it is that people are going to continue to vote with their feet and pocketbooks until the system changes. To me, this article doesn't say anything about the real problems, it just summarizes symptoms, and, as such, the academic consensus keeps on tilting at windmills. BLAME THE MESSENGER, I guess. This is 100% accurate. 🤣 This would be laughable pretty much anywhere, but given Houston's history with transit and Congressmen putting riders into federal bills specifically to prevent transit in a single county, it is especially laughable.

Great addition, esp if it is more of the Royal Blue variety than the Fannin Corner Store.

If only it were nearly as deep as the "hole" you must feel for thinking: I was inconvenienced + my buddy said he wouldn't fly Southwest anymore, either = Southwest will die like Braniff I mean that's quite the ego trip there. The path to self-awareness can be a long and bumpy one. Do keep us posted on your travel (mis)adventures in the future!

The root problem is land use. Everything else is a symptom. Transportation is a derived demand. I'm not sure what people think they're proving by writing articles such as this.

Another great street name--I can only assume they had a warehouse on this street at one point?

You would've thought by the end of this week some highly publicized mea culpa and "grand plan" would've been announced. Now they risk looking like they're ignoring it.

Interesting synopsis there of what happened. Forget what I explained, or how your story was by your own admission embellished and driven by a desire to "get something off your chest"--what you experienced was explained in full in plenty of newspaper articles, earnings calls, commentaries, you name it. Moreover the "excuses for rescheduling" that Southwest publicly gave that you say "didn't add up" included the very technological limitations that you say caused this mess to begin with. In other words, they agreed with you they needed to improve! From November 30 Media Day, almost a full month before the meltdown: Improving the operation is one the top five priorities Jordan has set through 2026, but at a media day on Nov. 30, the CEO said he couldn’t put a price tag on the cost of slow modernization. At the event, executives discussed the $2 billion being spent to improve passengers’ in-flight experience—wifi systems, power outlets at seats, etc. They also talked about improving airfcraft productivity and flight operations, without much detail on the costs. “We’re behind,” Jordan said at the time. “As we’ve grown, we’ve outrun our tools. If you’re in an airport, there’s a lot of paper, just turning an aircraft there’s a ton of paper. If you took our crews, we have a lot moving all over the country. If they get reassigned, someone needs to call them or chase them down in the airport and tell them.” And it's not like anything nearly to the magnitude of what happened in December happened, in, say, May (when you first noticed something "fishy"), June, July, August, September, October, or November. I'm interested in why you think that was the case? Maybe this was, I dunno, driven by something else just a tad bit different? An unprecedented national weather system during a peak travel period maybe? Can we please abandon this insinuation that there was some grand conspiracy, i.e., "something else going on that wasn't being shared"? It literally was discussed publicly multiple times. Don't you think there's a teensy bit of an arrogance in that attitude (i.e., because I didn't know it, I was being lied to)? (I suspect you didn't really think so at the end of the day, considering being aware of all this "not adding up" as early as May, you still booked a ticket on them in December, but maybe you're way more forgiving than I am.) It's ACARS. (Not an "attack," just a correction for the record.) I'm not sure why you see these things as mutually exclusive. Doing everything they could to get passengers home essentially involved shutting down the entire airline for a period of time in order to stop the bleeding. Only then could they reaccommodate, or the number of inconvenienced passengers would only increase like a tumbleweed to a point at which there aren't nearly enough seats in the system to reaccommodate people. At the end of the day--operationally--they did the right thing (although an argument could certainly have been made that they should have done it sooner). However, they have not come anywhere near close to doing the right thing IMO when it comes to compensating inconvenienced passengers. I recall the logic of our prior exchange, "If they're flying flights 6 months in advance, how can they not find a pilot to fly it?" (when the structural problem was lack of pilots and the time and equipment required to train them, mixed with the lingering effects of COVID sickouts). The logic here seems to be similar, "They said they were doing everything they could to get me home, but I didn't get home" (when the structural problem here was that they didn't have complete backup crews in position to fly people when more than 50% of the operation was affected due to weather). It's not like you can pick up spare pilots on TaskRabbit. But maybe one day! 🤞 (Incidentally, thank God you are not a doctor, I'd hate to be in the ER for a heart attack and all I would hear was "I told you to go light on the French fries." My preference would be to stabilize the patient and leave the diet change discussion for later.) Well, first off, Eastern and Braniff went out of business because they had bills to pay and no assets left to sell (interestingly enough, Braniff sold its Latin American routes to Eastern right before it went buh bye, then Eastern turned around and did the same right before it kicked the bucket--gotta love it when things come full circle!). Secondly, National did not go out of business--it merged with Pan Am. (Again, not an "attack," just another correction for the record.) Southwest is not anywhere near comparable to any of the above airlines--I'd love to hear your theory as to how they will go out of business in 2023 in an environment in which there is still undercapacity in the domestic airline industry (you seemingly predicted this would all happen back in April after all). Southwest's stock has dropped from around $40 around the beginning of December to about $34 today. What do you know that Wall Street doesn't? My advice--don't do what you did in this case (i.e., buy another ticket on Southwest when you're so "on to them," so to speak for being an operational basketcase)--it sounds like it's a great time to short LUV! You can even make money off of it this time. All of the above said, Southwest's operational meltdown cost them at least half a billion dollars, did serious damage to the brand (without a doubt the worst in its history), and I fully expect there to be a major shakeup with plenty of lambs sacrificed. You are 100% correct that they did this to themselves by overscheduling aircraft and crews and stubbornly not updating their computer systems to even 1990 standards. The response to severely and inexcusably inconvenienced passengers such as yourself (the $300 equivalent) is an absolute pittance--at this point it's almost like the people who ultimately get shown the door need to be rehired only to get fired again for their absolute tone deafness. There may be some major near-term network shakeups resulting from the inevitable change in leadership--there will certainly be a continued public desire for blood, theatrical Congressional hearings for sure, and Southwest will be expected to demonstrate meaningful penance to shareholders and customers with at least some restructuring. One of the worst chapters in their history, if not the worst? Absolutely. But I suspect it'll end up being more comparable to post-cyanide Tylenol in a future HBR study than Eastern. As long as they don't charge for bags, they'll have a future. BUT I'm a humble guy, as you know, so I say why not we regroup this time next year and see who was more "right." FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE BEEN GOING WAY, WAY, WAY OUT OF MY WAY TO FLY SOUTHWEST SINCE I WAS FIVE YEARS OLD SO PLEASE DON'T TAKE ANY OF THE ABOVE AS SOME PRO SOUTHWEST RANT. Don't fly an airline that doesn't have interline agreements--it's that simple.

In other news, Santa Claus the Bail Bondsman is running for Controller, along with Dave Martin. Michael Kubosh and Dave Martin plan to run for Houston controller (houstonchronicle.com) I bet somebody's juices are flowing with this early Christmas present. If those are the only two to throw their hat in the ring (I doubt it will be), well, it's a simple choice for me.

Yeah now do that with people who spent their entire life in STATE GOVERNMENT (certainly takes a special kind) and whose leadership accomplishments evidently include banning last meals of choice at the jailhouse. (Granted, I see why that'd be a major turn-on for some on here--you know, the evangelical Christian crowd . . . WWJD after all.) Regardless, if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander. I have zero doubt Bluey was one of those people regurgitating the nonsensical party line, "Biden didn't fix anything during the 40 years he was in the Senate." (Maybe the distinguishing point here is that there has been, of course, nothing whatsoever to fix in Texas since 1973.) But I'll wait and see how the campaign plays out, although I must admit the endorsement of everyone's favorite "Cerulean Canine" is not helping.

You do know the Mayor of Houston has no jurisdiction over the City of San Antonio, right? I was agnostic as to Whitmire but damn, my Blue Dogs Theory of Endorsements means I'm going to have to reevaluate. Well, if you don't see it, that's probably great news for Hollins or Edwards, given your track record picking horses, so to speak. Or being in political office for 50 years (essentially his entire adult life)?

Well, in fairness, they certainly weren't built into the original projections, by definition. But the cost overruns were ultimately funded. Once you start building a billion-dollar project, it typically behooves you to finish.

Man, who came up with the street names over there? What is a seamist? One who seams? I guess it goes with "Seaspray," which is also in the neighborhood. I suppose this area just developed later than the surroundings and got the cutesy suburban street names.

That's unfortunate, especially given the fact that people are paying for the services. Also delays the new property getting on the tax rolls.

Can anyone enlighten as to what the "Dock High Pedestrian Path" is?

So it is accurate it was sold, but so was the JW. So good news for the JW and sorta good news for my memory!

Ohhhhhh Sammy please know I wear your blocking as a badge of honor. It's also invigorating each and every time you bring it up, as I just love to know how much I have "stuck" with you, especially considering the number of others on here who see the exact same thing in terms of your hollow rhetoric. I'll be presumptuous and ask on their behalf as well as mine, "Tell us--what exactly do we not understand?" Enlighten us. All that's been presented is: -You're against it because you fancy yourself an "urbanist" (OK, fine, I guess that's level 1 of an argument--it usually boils down to something like, "Man, I went to Philadelphia and they have a train to the airport!" Or "New Yorkers get around with a car, why can't we?" Or "Man, Europe has trains, and aren't they great"--all true of course, but maybe the next time you're in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, DC, San Francisco, etc. take a drive around the suburbs and tell me how really different they are, at the end of the day, from Houston's) -Why don't we just build trains? (I'm certainly not against it, but please explain your theory of how this is practical given the current composition of State government, not to mention all of the local governments, who residents think that the City of Houston is Fallujah Lite thanks to the local media and Republican political candidates. Also, please cite a single example of a modern transit system that has been built in the U.S. that had material impacts on constraining suburban and exurban development--there isn't one because they don't exist!) -It's going to destroy neighborhoods (this is the 1960s anti-highway cosplay here--the argument is absurd in scale--we're not talking about ramming a highway through thousands of houses in Fells Point here) -It's going to disproportionately affect low income and minority residents (I guess so, but this is not a function of "evil government" going into a wholly intact minority/low income neighborhood and slashing and burning as they did with the first generation of highways--this is a function of where the existing right of way is and what land uses are like along the existing right of way) -It's only going to lead to more VMT (well, yeah, that's the point) -It's only going to lead to more congestion (well, I'd say regional population growth and continued suburban development is more of the culprit there--call me when the State of Texas allows for extra-jurisdictional development cordons) -It's going to increase emissions (not as much of an issue in the long-term as it has been in the past thanks to EVs) In any case, I believe the substance of your argument boiled down to the personal inconvenience of a long construction period. On 5/17/2022, I in fact stated that I totally "understood" such a position as reasonable: "Understanding" does not mean "agree with." What you have never--not once--addressed or substantively responded to (nor has @Texasota here, whose criticism is that one's "refusal to accept that other people actually disagree with [one] is a truly stunning level of narcissism" while also calling people "freeway fetishists"--man, irony is completely lost on some people, isn't it?--it's, shall we say, truly stunning, in fact) is this idea because you are personally opposed to the project that that somehow should automatically result in its cancellation, its redesign, reprogramming of funds to other projects, etc. The myopia is astounding. We somehow have to consider the opinions of the less than 5K people directly affected (many of whom have already moved!) while putting aside the opinions of literally millions of others who are also affected. You continue to insist to pick from a menu of options that do not exist. This is a political process. The fact of the matter is there is very little political opposition to the project. And what little there is is totally incoherent. If you disagree with how the State of Texas funds or designs highways, then maybe an effective political campaign would start there, not at the eleventh hour after an almost 20-year process. Trust me, I'd sign up if it was internally logical and not some circus of entirely misguided progressive protests (that, I still hold were probably being done on the dime of, and at the behest of, very moneyed political interests). I've said before this "freeway fetishist" lives in a household of 2, with 1 car, now 7 years old, with a whopping 32K miles on it. I'm sure Sammy drives circles around me every day on his never-ending quest to stand up for the "little man" himself. (Also, my pronouns are he/him, not they/their, but I'm happy to use that for you in the future Sammy, if you like. I know you have a tendency to project.)

Trust me, I have no illusions about people disagreeing with me. What's narcissistic is to think that because a small subset of people are opposed to freeways, that policy decisions should be made that way. In your words, "the refusal to accept that the VAST MAJORITY of people actually disagree with you is a truly stunning level of narcissism." Who died and made you king? You have said nothing of substance, other than that more concessions should've been made by TxDOT because . . . you disagree? Because that's essentially what you said. (Well, actually you didn't even manage to say that, so I am left to infer . . . as I said, you're the perfect encapsulation of the substance of the opposition. Good thing this tilting at windmills will cost only about $2 billion in the end . . . think of how all that money could've been used for transit.) C'mon, do a little self-awareness meditation, buddy. You're obviously in some strange self-reinforcing mind loop. (Maybe construct a 20-lane bypass up there and it'll provide you with some relief.)

An absolutely perfect encapsulation of the real "substance" of the opposition right there.

Gotta love truisms presented as insight. Didn't the County originate the complaint with FHWA? If the County now has an MoU with TxDOT, doesn't that almost guarantee they will withdraw their complaint, or the complaint will be settled outside of the project proceeding, assuming someone else doesn't make a (or assume the) complaint? If the County withdraws its complaint, surely that withdrawal will say the issues have been resolved to its satisfaction, surely complicating any future complaint along the same lines. I hope there's an honest postmortem to find out who (or what organization) was really instigating this--I highly doubt it was organic from the people actually directly affected. It seemed like 1950s/1960s era highway opposition cosplay. It's also worth noting that Mealer did not make this a campaign issue (at least not that I saw), and I actually think it would've been a great one to convince voters that she was attuned to more substantive issues than the constant fearmongering. But, as I recall at least at one point, Mattress Jesus was against the project, so maybe that's why. Google "Alexandra Mealer I45" or "Alexandra Mealer NHHIP" and you get nothing. Bizarre to me.