Jump to content

mattyt36

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,292

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mattyt36

  1. mattyt36
    J, why don't you help us understand your point? There seemed to be two in your original message: That there are a "bunch of businesses nobody cares about"? I guess that's accurate. Pretty much anywhere. Do you "care" about businesses in Conroe? Seems like a weird blanket statement to make, unless you have a history with these guys and they are your preferred opticians. Or, are they just "great" because they agree with your position on NHHIP? Again, seems to be a pretty weird way to develop a position about small businesses. Perhaps what would be most instructive is if you tell us how the position of this business should be weighed against the positions of others. There must be some "system" in your head, something like: 1) Small business=weighted more than big business because . . . ? 2) Business located close to freeway but not in right-of-way=weighted more than business that may use the freeway but not adequately "near" it because . . . ? In re (2), how close do they need to be to get the special consideration? Do you envision it as a simple veto on any prospective project? Assuming you fly out of HOU, if residents of Glenbrook Valley are opposed to a couple new gates at HOU, does the same standard apply? Help us understand.
  2. mattyt36
    Optics, good one!
  3. mattyt36
    What was here 30 years ago? Was walking through the neighborhood last night and realized I have no memory.
  4. mattyt36
    I believe the old maxim is don't look a gift horse in the mouth, so I'll take loving the positives versus not caring at all about them. PROGRESS!
  5. mattyt36
    J, we are talking about the CAP PARKS between the GRB and the East End (you know the tripling of the highway width by Minute Maid Park being put to a referendum straw man). The City has pretty much said it supports segment 3 with minimal changes. WHY?! Because this has been the plan for YEARS. NHHIP Segments 1 & 2 Facilitation Group Meeting #2 (houstontx.gov) (credit to texan for supplying link in prior post) City's vision on page 13: "MOVE FORWARD NOW" And I don't believe the City has sued anyone over NHHIP, but I can't keep track. Actually none of us seem to be able to keep track with all of this misinformation.
  6. mattyt36
    J, there's a hell of a lot of difference between CONCEPTS and a demonstrably feasible project that has tacit support from the State (yes, the State!), the City, the Chamber of Commerce and Central Houston. It's exactly where you'd expect it to be at this phase. It's only going to get worse, I'm afraid, before new coalitions can be built with all of this pathetic, know-nothing posturing to the lowest common denominator. But let's see how 2022 turns out. (And it's jibe, not jive.)
  7. mattyt36
    No funding sources for construction of an actual park planned from TxDOT (because they don't do it anywhere). There's a tremendous difference. The initial drawings of Spaceport Houston were CONCEPTUAL (i.e., pretty pictures with no basis in reality). The cap park between the convention center and the East End is likely most accurately described as being in PLANNING. The next phase will be DESIGN, and, yes, guess what, it won't be in that phase until Segment 3 is permitted. The cap park is exactly where you'd expect it to be at this phase. The City, Central Houston, and other organizations are all planning for the cap park and have been for YEARS. You've got a city of philanthropists that have been absolutely committed to funding parks over the past decade. You think they could get funding for Disco Green, Lynn Wyatt Park, Buffalo Bayou Park, and Memorial Park and wouldn't make this a priority, when funding options are arguably more expansive with HOT, convention, TIRZ taxes, and now the Infrastructure Bill in a Democratic administration? Not to mention that TxDOT is funding structures and other enabling work. Somehow, you accept the park rings around downtown as possible, but not this? Give me a break. The cap parks between Midtown and the Museum District? Well, those are anybody's guess. But even in those cases you've got people working. I seriously never thought I would find myself advocating as much as I appear to be for freeways, or feeling any sympathy for TxDOT, but if they have to deal with this nonsense, I probably would be throwing up my hands, too.
  8. mattyt36
    OK Sam, so tell me your legislative theory of having that pass the Texas Legislature with a simple majority and be signed by the Governor, with the composition of the Legislature including plenty of R-The Woodlands, R-Frisco, and plenty of other equivalents before we even get to the likes of R-Vidor and R-Rusk. Mask mandates have a plurality of popular support and look where we are. Perfectly happy with people dying in the name of "freedom," and you think these guys don't associate cars and freeways with "freedom"? (HINT: Consider the etymology of the word FREEway.) Surely you saw that question coming. At the end of the day, I just don't think you're a very serious person.
  9. mattyt36
    Not disingenuous at all, Sam. Please outline your theory for getting a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature and a simple majority of Texas voters to decrease highway funding in favor of increased funding for transit that will largely benefit residents of hated cities? What tea leaves are you reading that says that this is anywhere near feasible given recent political trends. We can't even enact mask mandates. Maybe if we just tell people it's "less archaic" they will happily subjugate their personal preferences? (I suppose it's more realistic than forcing them to move into cities wholesale, which has also been suggested on here.) What's the phrase? Out of touch? (Maybe even galactically so?)
  10. mattyt36
    Well, sure, if you phrased it that way. Why not add the word "ugly" and "polluted" to the question, and then were completely disingenuous by adding, "Have you ever parked your car for an Astros game on the other side of 59? Think how difficult it will be to cross now!" I'll give you the under on the percentage of respondents believing that means they'd actually need to dodge cars on two freeways. Now ask the same question with the caveat, "You won't see anything because you'll be walking through a park." What would they say? So I'm not sure what this proves, other than leading questions can be, er, misleading. "What's your opinion on the increase in crime, sir?"
  11. mattyt36
    The design concept seems to be to serve the routes down major arteries, no? Just like the CTA lines down the Dan Ryan and the Eisenhower. Not that that makes it better . . . those aren't exactly the most hospitable stations. Such are the difficulties in designing transit routes in a city with relatively low density. A Rapid spur down Shepherd/Durham seems like it would be a no-brainer, though, although it would increase headways to the Northwest Transit Center. Maybe a separate Rapid line down Memorial that turns on to Shepherd. Oh well, can't have it all.
  12. mattyt36
    That piqued my interest. Actually Amtrak-specific: Text - S.1500 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Rail Passenger Fairness Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress But appears right already exists: 49 U.S. Code § 24308 - Use of facilities and providing services to Amtrak | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
  13. mattyt36
    It does if you want to change the State Constitution.
  14. mattyt36
    For some perspective: Second Ward population < 20K Houston MSA population > 7MM Let's discuss . . .
  15. mattyt36
    It's not cyclical at all. You are the guys tilting at windmills saying the money should be spent elsewhere when it's not even legal OR part of what's being evaluated here. Before you can effectively advocate for change to the system to get us out of this "cycle," you might as well understand how the system works and start there, no? I'd say the lack of any understanding there has led to pretty "mindless" arguments. That and the unbelievable arrogance that simply by not supplying freeway capacity the city would densify as people happily move from the suburbs into the core, when it's way more likely it would result in the exact opposite of what you want . . . decentralization.
  16. mattyt36
    Thank you. In re the park funding, not sure the problem is that TxDOT isn't funding because they don't want to fund necessarily, but rather because they statutorily can't, so that'd be a mountain to climb. Let's see what the City can squeeze out of the Infrastructure Bill.
  17. mattyt36
    That thought also crossed my mind, but from how she's governed the past couple of years, I think she's way smarter than thinking some 1960s anti-freeway coalition (when miles of freeways were literally being cut through fully intact neighborhoods) is worth anything winning today. I don't see how the headlines "30-Year-Old First Term County Judge Kills $10 Billion in I-45 Improvements and X Thousand Jobs" would create anything more than a political death sentence. There are two kinds of seats she could grab . . . solid D or toss-up R. In solid D districts, she wouldn't need these voters. In toss-up R districts, it would only work against her. Or did you mean like a Cabinet-level position?
  18. mattyt36
    A question that I hope those in opposition will consider in good faith. If TXDoT adopted the alternatives developed by the City, would your position change?
  19. mattyt36
    Solicitation in a government context typically means advertising to procure contracts, eg design and construction. You don’t issue RFPs or “solicit” for land acquisition. And to the extent TXDoT would be expecting to be reimbursed for federal share of the project, I think it’s pretty clear what it means.
  20. mattyt36
    I agree with you 100% in re transit (although I'm not as wedded to rail as I was 20 years ago). My car is 5 years old and doesn't even have 25K miles on it. I hardly use it during the week because I generally walk to what I need. People talk about "inside the loop," and I may go west of Shepherd once a month. Christof Spieler helped me understand that the City actually does have a pretty good transit system. And that, when it comes to people without cars, they almost always would prefer a more reliable bus route closer to their origin and destination than a rail route serving a slice (often a privileged slice) of the population. The commuter bus system is actually very impressive when you think about it--even better than commuter rail for many commuters. The NHHIP does include meaningful transit improvements. And I've come to have a better sense of what is within reach and what is a more of a pipe dream. (This is mostly my opinion, but it is reinforced by my understanding of how existing funding systems work, transportation demand patterns, and just a general sense that Houston, just like Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Seattle will never be Chicago or New York . . . and I think, on the whole, that's probably a good thing.) Several pages of posts ago, someone literally wrote that he didn't care if people were forcefully moved from the suburbs to the City because he felt the suburbs were not sustainable. That, to me, is a transparent and genuine argument although obviously to implement it would require a completely new and authoritarian governmental system, and I'm pretty sure I don't want what comes with that. Arguments made about many people getting relocated, there being "no support" for the project, etc. are just so flimsy, even though they "feel right" IMO. That's why I try to dissect them.
  21. mattyt36
    This makes sense. I can't think of a politician saying no to $10 billion in what really can be thought of as free money to appease a very small constituency that won't be material in an election, especially given the support from Central Houston and downtown business interests. I'd really like to hear the "real story" of how we got here. And, while the City may be proposing alternatives now, what was it doing 5 years ago? I can understand TxDOT frustration with an about-face. I also don't understand why TxDOT would take a "take-it-or-leave-it" approach for any reason other than posturing. I feel like I follow it closely enough, but the Chronicle articles haven't been particularly enlightening. As a former State Rep, Turner has a history of working well with the State (which I feel is a tremendous asset). Can't say the same about Hidalgo, though, and with Abbott going full DeSantis, who knows, maybe his next move will be to pick a stupid fight with someone the GOP recognizes is a rising Democratic star over a highway project just to try to torpedo her in 2022.
  22. mattyt36
    I'm all ears if you want to help me understand!
  23. mattyt36
    J, you've made it very clear what you think in this and prior posts. Actually, "think" is probably not the best word . . . "feel" is probably more appropriate. We had plenty of back and forth on transit ridership for U.S. airports. You have not supplied your theory as to why IAH would be any different. You've just said you like having the option at other airports because you drop a couple more bucks at the 7-11 in Rittenhouse Square, as if that somehow balances a structural transit operating deficit. That's fine! But that's not "thinking"--it's "feeling." More "feeling." There is a very detailed technical report that very specifically COUNTS who/what will be displaced. It's been referenced in this very thread. But "feel" away . . . it's COUNTLESS! Well nice to know "COUNTLESS" relocations are OK if it's for a train. Have you noticed none of these arguments are internally consistent? Please, please, please explain your theory behind this one. Especially in the context of why no other airports but SFO, JFK, and DCA have airport mode shares above 10% with much better developed transit systems? How? Because the University Line that wasn't built would feed passengers into an airport commuter rail that hasn't been built? More "feeling!" You can't just write something and it be true. It's limiting options in the context of a limited funding environment and the existing funding system. And, remember, you care deeply about budgets! If the NHHIP were put to a referendum and won (which I think would be a pretty safe bet), what would that tell you? (Note use of CAPS above for emphasis . . . I'm adapting my writing style to the reader's.)
  24. mattyt36
    I find it difficult to believe you sincerely care about "going over budget" when you want to build a heavy rail connection to IAH that it is abundantly clear people will not use because, well, "London and New York have one" and "gotta do it for the tourists." True! Not sure if that was meant to be the self-own it so obviously is. How is it "clear," nevermind "plain and simple"? And what new "options" does not building anything provide?
  25. mattyt36
    Is it now? Are you really that naive, or should we file this under Sam's Laws of Convenience/Willful Ignorance? If Joel Osteen comes out for it, how should we weigh that opinion? If only I thought you actually believed half of what you write, but it's clear that your rhetorical technique is of the "just asking questions" variety. Recently, you claimed the project shouldn't proceed because "no one supported it," citing Turner, Hidalgo, etc. It's now clear Turner, and by extension the City, supports Segment 3, (see Texan post above). So I guess score one for at least part of the NHHIP. Or is there another "Law" that we should be aware of? It doesn't count if Harris County doesn't say the exact same thing?
×
×
  • Create New...