Jump to content

mattyt36

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,290

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mattyt36

  1. mattyt36
    You keep saying that, but is it true? Would be nice to see some actual numbers. What about the potential positive externalities of the improved flood control? How should those be weighed? Even more importantly, would it even solve the stated problem? Seriously, what percentage of peak-hour demand do you think this would address? And how many of these people aren't they using this option they technically already have? We're back, then, to the whole crux of this being that the East Loop is re-signed with a 45 shield. Might as well do it today.
  2. mattyt36
    Added pollution around East Loop schools and disrupted East Loop communities are OK then? Not to mention you still have the same problem with segments 1 and 2. And does it really "solve so many problems it's not funny"? If the name of the game is to reduce congestion, how much of demand during peak congestion periods is really thru, outside-of-the-loop demand, people going, say, from The Woodlands to Clear Lake? These people already have 2 choices for bypasses.
  3. mattyt36
    And they can’t do that now because … ?
  4. mattyt36
    Or … just … widen … the … East … Loop? In your scenario what difference does it make if it’s signed 45 or not?!
  5. mattyt36
    I hate to be “that guy” since I’m sure it’s been discussed to death in previous posts, but if the main stated concern of the County and City really is people being dislocated, how many people are we really talking about? For whatever reason the number that sticks out in my head was around 500 housing UNITS, the majority of which were in a single multifamily complex.
  6. mattyt36
    It's certainly a "showcase project" for a new administration to make a national example. Which means bad timing or good timing, depending on one's view. The cynic in me (given how quickly the project was put on hold) says I highly doubt DoT has a view of what they want the project to be, either.
  7. mattyt36
    As far as I'm concerned, "high cost" really isn't an issue because it's not like gas tax rates are going to change if the project proceeds. If we don't want the $9 billion spent locally (tremendous stimulus in and of itself), it'll (happily) go somewhere else. The only major unfunded items that I am aware of is for the cap parks. I, too, hope it proceeds, but the link between freeways and DFW's growth is spurious. The idea that rail will be some panacea to alleviate congestion is also problematic. I hope if it does get scaled back the investment gets redirected elsewhere locally. I agree that Mayor Turner appears to have the most balanced and pragmatic approach.
  8. mattyt36
    The implication being more freeways and tollways=more HQ relocations? Just a tad bit simplistic, don't you think?
  9. mattyt36
    Crime, evidently
  10. mattyt36
    No, but, as described, the funding pie is fixed . . . Well that's a bit revisionist . . . you said it's simple "common sense" to connect an airport to downtown and that a train was needed to have "some level of appeal to visitors." Hmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . Well glad to hear you saying (implying?) that demand is a worthwhile consideration. Sources shared above about how demand for these things is commonly grossly overestimated. You don't have to predict the future, but considering the experience of other cities and other key factors certainly can be used as a reasonably reliable predictive tool, at least in the short term.
  11. mattyt36
    Well it sure seems to be a "feeling" . . . it's simple "common sense," you say . . . you seem to imply that the 4th largest city in the nation=rail transit to the airport must be an option is some sort of natural law, regardless of actual demand, travel behavior, or, dare I say, even the lowest standards of financial feasibility? I do agree that your view is widely enough held, but I think most in the industry would say it's a "common misconception" rather than "common sense." The primary domestic airport for the largest city in the nation (LGA) has had no rail transit in its 82-year history. Granted, it might yet get such a link soon, but take that under consideration. My argument is straightforward . . . it makes no sense whatsoever on the basis of demand or financial feasibility . . . it only makes sense as some sort of vanity project or some warped idea of what constitutes a "real city." And yes, I do know how these are funded. METRO's 2020 revenues were $945MM in 2020 before the pandemic, $775MM of which were sales tax receipts. (Fares were less than one-tenth this, at $75MM.) These collections are at the MAXIMUM RATE allowed by the State of Texas. What of METRO's current operations do you propose to curtail to run this vanity "See, My City Is a Real City" train? (And before you say it doesn't need to be METRO . . . true . . . but there isn't room for any other agency to charge a sales tax as Harris County is at the maximum rate, so the same argument remains.) If actual demand and either financial feasibility (or, better said in the case of transit, the best use of limited financial resources) is not a criterion by which you judge major investments, then I don't know what to say. In any case, we will probably see soon enough the effect of a train on the "appeal to visitors" . . . do you expect HOU to become wildly more popular than IAH as a result of the light rail extension? May I suggest this as a worthwhile addition to your library: TRAINS, BUSES, PEOPLE, written by a local, professional transportation planner, and a former METRO board member. Yes, true commuter rail would be a much better investment.
  12. mattyt36
    Providing options at any cost? Travelers do have a transit option . . . do they have to have an option for a train, too? And why would Harris County consumers be interested in subsidizing (through sales taxes) a small number of visitors from out of town, essentially so that these visitors leaving "feeling" that there is a "better sense of connectivity"? Seems like a pretty high price to pay for feelings. Are there not better, more critical uses of such monies? You can do that (and METRO is doing that) with an express bus, with much shorter headways due to lower capacity and, more than likely, providing faster transit times and the possibility of multiple terminals downtown. Aside from that, air travelers as a demographic group are more affluent than the general public and don't really top many lists of groups needing to be subsidized (at least not mine). If you said to help airport employees, the majority of whom are low-wage service workers, well, then a case could certainly be made for that. But I'm sure almost all of them would choose a 30-minute express bus operating every 15 minutes than a 45-minute heavy rail train operating every hour.
  13. mattyt36
    Agree that passenger rail sharing the freight rail lines in the Hardy Corridor would not be a recipe for reliability, but I disagree many people would miss their flights because no one would be taking it in the first place! Best case scenario is a 45-minute to an hour ride with headways of an hour . . . at best. Add a bus connection for the vast (99%+) majority of the market that won't live in the immediate downtown area, and it's probably 90 minutes. Transit to airport works best for employees. The data below are from 2008, but I assure you little has changed . . . this is pre-Uber. Top airports for transit ridership (all modes--rail/bus) / Annual transit ridership (per day) / O&D passengers / New York JFK / 2.2MM (6,027) / 11.6MM / 19% Los Angeles LAX / 2.1MM (5,750) / 16.4MM / 13% San Francisco SFO / 2.1MM (5,750) / 8.9MM / 23% Las Vegas / 2.0MM (5,480) / 16.3MM / 12% Atlanta / 1.9MM (5,205) / 13.7MM / 14% And since the question is bound to come up . . . Washington Reagan National / 1.2MM (3,288) / 7MM / 17% See 2020 study at (PDF) Use of Public Transportation by Airport Passengers (researchgate.net). In the United States, there appears to be limited market for public transportation (rail, bus, and shared-ride vans) at airports. The ceiling on public transportation use in most U.S. cities appears to be about 10% to 15%, even at airports with rail service. At most U.S. airports, the primary, potential market for rail service is passengers with trip ends in the downtown area (or other geographic areas well served by rail), travelling alone and with little or no baggage, and familiar with the rail service (and schedules). Compared to European and Asian cities, there appear to be a relatively small number of U.S. cities that have the airport user characteristics, the appropriate airport configuration, and the existing or planned rail network that are required to attract a large share (more than 5%) of the airline passenger market. At least the HOU lines will have a primary demand base of serving neighborhoods, as opposed to commuter rail down the Hardy Toll Road to IAH, which would be a tremendous misuse of money that could be more productively used for other transit solutions that people would actually use.
  14. mattyt36
    First Lloyd Jones Brewer, I think second was actually Pelli.
  15. mattyt36
    Hopefully they didn’t kill anybody.
  16. mattyt36
    Wow, who knew Montrose hadn’t gentrified yet? 🤔
  17. mattyt36
    This is the website I found ... operator of Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants. The Seaside Lounge across the street sure is busy. https://www.sparkhou.com
  18. mattyt36
    HBJ article on permits being issued Conversion of State National Building into Moxy by Marriott hotel moving forward - Houston Business Journal (bizjournals.com) An effort to convert a historic downtown office building into a Moxy by Marriott Hotel is preparing to move forward, according to building permits issued this month by the city of Houston. Houston-based LMG General Contractors received a permit from the city for a $9 million commercial alteration at 412 Main St., the former State National Building on the block of Main Street between Prairie and Preston streets. . . . While most of the building’s exterior will remain, Campo’s proposed changes included removing and replacing some of the nonhistoric decorative features, including a section of wall above the main entrance, according to Campo’s 2019 application to the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission. Other proposed changes in the application included swapping out a mezzanine window with one that resembles other surrounding windows, adding new lighting along the sidewalk, installing a “Moxy” sign composed of channel letters on an aluminum pan style background and replacing the existing canopy with an aluminum-faced composite one. Campo’s application was approved on March 21, 2019. Documents filed with the city appear to show that the developer behind the project is Pharr, Texas-based Oceangate Hotel and Development Co. . . . While it is unclear what the timeline for the project is, the building permit seems to indicate it is moving forward. On Campo Architect’s website, the company says that when it opens, the Moxy by Marriott hotel will feature 119 guest rooms, a main lobby and a bar.
  19. mattyt36
    Seems pretty inefficient
  20. mattyt36
    Does anyone know what's going up at the site of the old Hefley's that burned down (138ish W Gray?). It looks to be a 2-story steel frame structure.
  21. mattyt36
    WOOF WOOF
  22. mattyt36
    For all intensive purposes, could you have meant dog-eat-dog world there Monarch? 😛
  23. mattyt36
    Well the writing is as soulless as the community will inevitably end up being.
  24. mattyt36
    C Baldwin signage installed this week and now functional. Can't say I'm a fan . . . looks a bit cluttered spread out over two lines (C Baldwin / Hotel) instead of one line like the Doubletree. Seems to be a similar font. It lights up at night.
  25. mattyt36
    Highly doubtful interest rates for a hotel development (whose business is predicated on conventions, no less) at this point are lower than what they were at the beginning of the year due to widening of credit spreads. It's a common misconception that just because the Fed Funds rate is low doesn't mean it translates 1-for-1 to borrowers, or that borrowers can get credit in the first place.
×
×
  • Create New...