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.

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)

It does if you want to change the State Constitution.

For some perspective: Second Ward population < 20K Houston MSA population > 7MM Let's discuss . . .

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

I'm all ears if you want to help me understand!

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.)

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?

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?

He doesn't want the construction because he thinks the resulting vehicular traffic will reduce foot traffic in his store . . . and he's probably right! It's the EXACT SAME reason he was opposed to the Post Oak reconstruction. Standard NIMBYism, and there are plenty of examples of NIMBYism exploiting other "anti" arguments in bad faith. It's how it usually works! None of this is a mystery . . .

I'd still rank it ahead of making repeated blanket statements on the project having no support. Or singlehandedly deciding whose support counts. But, seriously, if you need some assistance gauging the prevalence this concept, you can always Google "vocal minority."

Montrose, thank you so much. 😃

It seems like there are more similar units being built outside of downtown without incentives, so I'm not sure I'd assign any of the "blame" to the tax incentives. I think this has to do with the fact that the Inner Loop area, particularly close in (Heights, Midtown, Montrose, etc.), really didn't have many large multifamily developments to begin with . . . and that dates back to the sewage development moratorium from the 1970s. So I think it is fair to say a lot of this development is "catch up," the problem being the price point for new developments, and the fact that there aren't a lot of older complexes in the area to absorb people priced out. I guess around Greenway, but mainly the Galleria, is where all that stock is. (And the Galleria isn't particularly attractive these days.)

I thought those people called it the "toy train"

No different, really, than someone calling 59 south of downtown "59," the "Southwest Freeway," or (ick) "69" like the New People.

I moved back 7 years ago after being away for 15+ . . . I remember asking myself a lot of times during the first few months, "Remind me again why in the hell am I doing this?" Took about a year . . . it's both a good and bad thing that city is not how you remember. You just need to rediscover it. And I really don't think there's any better place to live in the U.S. (It's ironically a similar process/experience to many people who move here for the first time.) That said, I agree that customer service here (especially with personal and small business contractors) is indeed like being in another world, or a place as you say that's like its own little world. I totally appreciate the "Houston is all about Houston" remark . . . it can come across as pretty insular. There are a lot of other cities that I'd also describe as "insular," but I think Houston has a quality most of those places don't have and that is that the city is extraordinarily welcoming, belonging to none and open to all. Must be all the freeways (joking).

Thanks for the argument in good faith! Isn't the federal share from the federal gas tax? Doesn't FHWA have a trust fund too? Regardless, the general point stands, though. This does not represent $1,000 in real additional tax outlays per Houston resident (under the existing system, at least, which I acknowledge you believe is broken). Fair enough. But if one really thinks about what this idea means politically, well, I don't think it's practical (this is why I think of much of this being an illusion). It is a defensible viewpoint, however. Appreciate the transparency. Are you saying, "Make America Great Again?" 🤣 I don't see why it's so difficult to understand that plenty of people would choose to live in the suburbs because they don't want to live in my neighborhood (Fourth Ward), for example, with two kids in a house half the size at best, have those kids attend a school that is perennially on some state watch list for academic performance, and pay higher taxes. You can describe that as "white flight" because that's indeed how it began, but I don't think the attitudes with Generation X and above is as racially motivated as it originally was. But, again, understood you believe the problem is the system. Entirely defensible. Doesn't have to be that way, but in terms of practicality, it'll take a long time to unwind with plenty of unforeseen (or completely foreseen!) effects. Well as far as I'm concerned the direct cost of living in the suburbs is not even fully appreciated by the average resident, nevermind the indirect ones. I'd again hold that your plan is not workable, given the propensity of suburbanites to vote. Honestly, it just reinforces my belief that these solutions are illusory as they presuppose individuals not voting in their own short-term interests (or not voting at all, really). We're going to have to wait awhile for the inevitable costs to become high enough that peoples' short term interests change . . . and unfortunately, it's been proven time and time again throughout history that humans have to be pushed to the brink until they can no longer wish the risks away. Now, it's all coming together, must be derived from "North Houston Highway Improvement Program District."

Congrats on calculating a ratio. That's not how this works. Fill up your tank, pay into the trust fund. From an economic perspective, we'll continue to pay this gas tax without regard to whether the project proceeds. The real difference is what we get . . . it all may end up going to North Texas or Austin. Well that's a revealing value judgment! No different than any other city. Anyone who thinks Chicago, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Washington, DC, etc., doesn't have similar patterns is blind. Fun fact: The NYC subway drove sprawl, just like it did in London and countless other places!!!!! In any case, it's "natural" simply because it is now endemic to the system. It certainly wasn't 70 years ago. How do you seriously think this "stick-it-to-the-suburbs" attitude will work out positively in the end? There's the implication that there will be some sort of population rebalancing (and we're talking hundreds of thousands of people doing this voluntarily and happily . . . you know, "the market" at work . . .) if this project does not proceed. Please provide an example of that ever happening in a non-centrally planned economy. You can't make up for poor planning (that was accepted as the "standard" at the time) 70 years ago. "Guesses" are always good. And preferring to live in suburbs because of different schools is a pretty big thing, no? Maybe not for you, but I "guess" that the question of having kids and living in the City is way more significant and a bit more complex than you have characterized it here. "I hereby deem that people live closer to their jobs because that's what I want them to do." Maybe we can get HGAC to vote on that. At its heart, this is why everyone's new urbanist dream will never work in a market economy. It is an illusion. You mean CityNorth? (Or is it City Center? Or City Place . . . )

Oh, the irony. At its heart, a "straw man" is not a real argument, but something just put on the table because it relies on people's "gut feel" that it is true, good, or bad. (1) "I'm opposed to this because of the pollution." (Who is for pollution?) (2) "I'm opposed to this because of all the relocated poor people." ("These days, who can possibly be against poor people?") (3) "I'm opposed to this because I don't think we should make it easier for people to get from Conroe to Galveston." ("Yeah, why should we care about these people?") (4) "I'm opposed to this because an HGAC vote showed there is no local support." ("Well, if the board voted against it, it must be bad." That's the substance of your arguments against the project. (1), (2) you have proven in your own words you don't really care. (3) given plenty of opportunities for you to school us on how this is what the project is really addressing, you've supplied nothing. (4) cherry-picking at best, willful ignorance at worst. In none of your responses have you provided any semblance of a logical counterargument, just appealing to the same tropes. Therefore you can go with the Oxford definition of a "straw man," i.e., an argument having no substance or integrity. What, specifically, about the premise (i.e., "people need a way to work and that if the "cost" increases in terms of additional time it may affect business location decisions") do you not agree with? Maybe you don't care or don't think it's worthy of consideration. That's fine, just say so. At the end of the day, I suspect that's why you have "quit responding" (while still, in fact, responding).