mattyt36

Everything I wrote is literally directly in response to something someone else wrote. maybe if i did it all in lowercase it would register, sammy. (BTW, I thought you were ignoring me?) Give me a break. The type of development you see along the light rail and mistakenly attribute (well, wholly attribute to it) is the same type of development you are seeing in other major Inner Loop corridors. The Heights has to be one of the most densifying neighborhoods and it doesn't have an inch of light rail. The East End is developing because of its proximity to downtown and the price of land. It's one of those things you learn in elementary school, sammy--correlation does not imply causation. Or, perhaps better stated in your case--just because you write it doesn't make it true. I have not once, ever, made an argument about a freeway causing higher density. All of the arguments have been one of practicality. You can't build something that most people don't want, or stated better, don't want to pay for. Freeways are popular. That's a reality. Put a comprehensive transit system and the associated price tag here to a vote. I can assure you it will never pass. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand. How about trying to refute that simple fact? Moreover, there's this pipe dream that if you just put people in traffic they'll somehow all move into the City center to homes they can't afford or otherwise don't want and have their kids go to schools that they deem to be severely underperforming. That is juvenile, Mickey Mouse logic. What is more likely is that businesses and eventually people move OUT. If you want a great transit system, move to DC, NYC, or Chicago and pay the associated price. There you can pretend that these sprawling metro areas don't have freeways and suburbs. Or maybe LA or Dallas . . . ah, wait, I forgot they didn't do it right, right?

Yes, yes, we know, you have an absolutely great track record of predicting these things, after all.

That's at least somewhat spurious, isn't it? I mean, surely there are planning guidelines for which mode is more appropriate given forecast demand. To the extent BRT is determined to have a greater benefit-cost on segments with lower demand and therefore is the mode of choice for that particular segment, have you proven BRT attracts fewer riders or rather that LRT is not cost-effective for lower demand segments? Not to mention, is it really in the best interest of citizens to say, spend multiple times the amount of capital for a project that is ultimately subsidized simply because they have some sort of rail bias? Seems like if similar levels of service can be realized in terms of travel times, the hundreds of millions saved on the front end could be used to offer service in more corridors and run basic PSA campaigns saying "bus is just as good as rail and here's why." You'll still get the same dedicated transit riders you always would--the only people you are losing are middle-upper income people who probably aren't that jazzed about using transit anyway. (I mean the implicit statement, "I'd ride transit in Houston if only we had a real subway like Washington, DC" is just beyond ridiculous. I don't even think the statement should be taken at face value.) In other words, all these people who say they have a rail bias don't seem to be willing to pay the fares associated with ensuring the perceived higher level of service comes even close to breaking even.

Examples? How would it not? I mean, you really haven't shared anything stating otherwise.

Yet they literally follow major freeway corridors, therefore providing the literal "choice" that transit promoters say people supposedly want and will supposedly use in large numbers if given to them. "If only people had a choice . . . ", right? (Incidentally, yet another persistent example of transit promoters saying even when transit is built that it doesn't work because it just wasn't done perfectly, which as far as I can tell basically translates into, "If money were no object and you didn't have to worry about any political considerations, everything would be perfect!" This way of thinking would definitely give me a migraine--not sure how it doesn't give others the same.) Well the referendum had a dollar amount associated with it, right? Are you suggesting METRO should have risked going back to the voters? (That assumes they even had the bonding capacity to begin with--did you consider that?) Examples?

More than a couple years, from 1990 to 2004. The EFD flights over IAH were sold at the same price as the IAH nonstops, which made them pretty attractive, especially considering parking was free at EFD and FFs could earn additional miles. CO (well, Emerald as the Houston Proud Express) flew DC-9-10s from IAH-HOU earlier in the 1980s. CO resumed IAH-HOU service sometime after the EFD flights, I believe when AA started SAT-HOU-LGA and AUS-HOU-DCA. For a very short time, the UA HOU-IAH flights were flown by 737-700s and continued on to LGA. In any case, Houston does not need a third airport from a capacity perspective, although I can see an airline like Allegiant (read: Avelo) starting EFD. CXO just really restricts your market reach. Draw a 30-mile circle around CXO and a 30-mile circle around EFD and you can see the significant difference in the population of the catchment area--EFD has about 4 times the population and isn't as "proven." TKI (McKinney) is seriously considering building a 4-gate terminal to become Dallas's third airport: McKinney voters to decide on $200M airport bond to lure commercial air service (dallasnews.com) It would require the airport obtaining Part 139 certification to accommodate scheduled passenger service. Of airports in Texas without commercial service today, only AFW (Ft Worth Alliance), DRT (as of last month), EFD, FTW, and LBX (Lake Jackson, I guess due to Dow charters) have Part 139 certification. RJs are on their way out, and airlines are cutting cities left and right due to lack of pilots (this point has never seemed to register with OP, even when it has affected him personally multiple times). Note as well UA doesn't serve HOU, AA and UA don't serve MDW, AA and UA don't serve LGB or OAK. Chicago has talked about building a third airport for years. It's just not cost efficient. It's totally possible that a third airport in the MSA gets service, but it's not going to be for capacity relief. More than likely it will be for cheap flights to Florida and Las Vegas, which could arguably be accommodated at IAH or HOU. That's correct--the City did own land for the proposed westside airport and AFAIK sold it. The City of Atlanta IIRC only sold land it had acquired for a new airport in Paulding County even more recently. Paulding County residents, county settle dispute with deal not to commercialize local airport. (ajc.com)

Well METRO (aka the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County) certainly does, and at the maximum rate allowed by State law, which I assume is what he was referring to. Anything else?

BTW, don't you think the waaaaaayyyyy more interesting "fun fact" here is which World Cup US Host cities don't have rail transit to the venue? Do you think Dallas and Fort Worth are going to be scoring major points for their hour-long train rides from downtown to the DFW when the stadium is in the middle of nowhere?

@Amlaham several things: 1) You are indeed correct on State/County funding being key to any major expansion of transit infrastructure. 2) In theory, absolutely you can reprogram State transportation funding away from highways and towards transit like commuter rail. However, doing so would require legislative action. So, with this in mind, how likely do you see the current State legislature voting to do such a thing? 3) The County's main source of revenues are property and sales taxes. Any additional County contribution towards transit would be subject to a bond referendum that would require voters to agree to increase property taxes to pay for such infrastructure. For the type of comprehensive system that people typically think about when they get all dreamy about these things (e.g., the immensely expensive "must-have" rail to the airport, which passengers DO NOT use widely in the U.S., with few exceptions), we're talking multiple billions of dollars in investment and probably a minimum of two decades' worth of construction. Do you see Harris County voters volunteering to increase their property taxes to cover the multiple billions of dollars of investment in addition to the probably additional multiple millions of dollars for operating expenses? The typical answer to the above is something to the effect of "other cities do it, so why can't we?" The answer to that is that most of these places have legacy transit systems that they didn't rip up and they continued to fund along with highways. North Texas has invested multiple billions into a rail system that seems to fit the criteria some on here are looking for, yet they have freeways that look little different from ours, and their ridership statistics per mile are dismal. We literally can drive four hours up the road and see a real-world example of how what we think will work just doesn't. Few seem to acknowledge that we have a pretty robust and reliable commuter bus system with decent headways. Moreover, these systems can typically be improved at a fraction of the cost. Which leads to a couple of other points: 1) Let's say there is a plan out there to build a comprehensive transit system and it is put to a vote. 2) Would your perspective change at all if the vote failed, which it almost certainly will when people see what it will do to their property tax bill? Especially considering such a system won't directly benefit most of the people voting? Sure, such a system could be a coup for Inner Loop neighborhoods where less than 1/10 of the MSA population lives, but to think you could have any meaningful coverage outside of there is a pipe dream. And, sure, people in cars would benefit in theory from less vehicular traffic (although all transit boosters seem to universally acknowledge that if there is a square foot of concrete, it will be eventually occupied by a car, so I'm not sure how this theory really works, either, to be honest), but I'm sorry, voters just aren't that nuanced. I suspect the answer to the question posed in (2) is your perspective would not change, which, at the end of the day, basically means that you want to impose your will on voters because you "know better." Do you think voters would really take that attitude sitting down? It seems to me the best and really only option for major investments in transit is for the State to increase funding. And, I just don't see that happening. I personally wouldn't be against it, but, yeah, anyone who thinks that is going to happen anytime soon is just living in La La Land considering the current composition of State government. The lesson, though, should be that instead of blaming the County or the City for not doing something (seriously, neither can afford it--it's as simple as that), I think your efforts should be consolidated on achieving major reforms to State government. Finally the comparison to toll roads is just totally unfair. HCTRA literally can issue millions of dollars of bonds secured solely by the tolls paid by users. There is no way in hell METRO (or any transit agency) could issue bonds to fund a project secured solely by fare revenues because no transit agency comes anywhere close to breaking even. Believe me, if they could, they would. I used to think in a similar way, we just need trains, and people will ride them and then Houston will become a "real city." It's just such horrible logic. Well, stated better, wholly illogical, at least under the current system. I love not having to use a car as much as the next guy, but I'm increasingly convinced that your typical transit promoter is simply just another person with a hobby (liked playing with trains as a kid, likes to travel to Europe without a car, etc.) happy to impose their hobby on others (I get why some anti-transiters call light rail "toy trains"), no matter how impractical--they have become irrationally convinced that you can just lay tracks down and it will somehow fix everything. It's very juvenile, in a way. Most enthusiasts don't even have the first clue as to how the funding works, and, more often than not, end up blaming the wrong people. How is it the County's fault if the voters don't want to jack up their property tax bill for someone else's hobby and inferiority complexes about not being a "world city" (whatever that means) because you don't have a train to the airport? If Harris County jacks up property taxes, it's not particularly difficult to move to Montgomery or Fort Bend, two counties that really haven't shown much interest in all in transit. Is it the County's or the City's fault that the State does not provide near the level of funding that other states do? Can't you see these challenges as the absolute "dealbreakers" they are?

Outstanding! Looks like a concept for a new performing arts venue and three residential or hotel towers. I wonder what the low rise is in the east-most residential facing the new venue? Maybe some sort of mixed use pavilion?

Do you have any thoughts on how such improvements would be funded?

Has it really always been planned as pedestrian-only? I guess now that I think about it, the renderings have all been that way.

NB to the disingenuous detractors . . . when the cost increases 20%+ due to the delay, that is NOT a cost overrun.

When it comes to the proposed highway projects in the region, I really don't think this one is a poster child for the induced demand argument.

God bless them indeed. Personally responsible for Discovery Green, BBP, and Emancipation Park, in addition to everything else they have done. Houston is so lucky to have such a great and non-flashy tradition of philanthropy.

That's fascinating--why did UT own land in Timbergrove?

Maybe he's Jimmy Carter.

I'm sure it's been discussed before but does anyone know the origin of the whole "West Main Street" nomenclature?

Best idea I've heard since the whole Houston Needs a Swimming Hole people.

Oh wonderful, the worst of both worlds. There was some pretty interesting stuff in there, like I did not know the Midtown TIRZ has this exclave around the Menil. Also the street proposals are pretty game-changing if they proceed--Fannin, San Jacinto, and Crawford going two-way. And McGowen getting the Bagby/Caroline treatment. I guess that leaves only Smith, Louisiana, Milam, and Travis as the main "drive-through" streets. I wish they weren't 4 blocks in a row, though.

Below is a link to the Midtown Parks and Public Space Master Plan that I believe came out last week, which does not refer to the SkyPark as anything more than an option. https://midtownhouston.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Midtown-Parks-and-Public-Space_DRAFT_230216.pdf

Lame

Conceptual rendering. 'Nuff said.

Oh goody, it’s like deja vu … all over again.

Deflation an economic no bueno as secondary effects will likely be more pronounced on wages. Wages are just not going to remain the same in a deflationary environment--it's hard enough to get producers to increase wages in an inflationary environment, so the thought that they'd leave them unchanged in a deflationary environment is pollyannish--wages are linked to the price level, certainly not perfectly and certainly not in lockstep, but they are tied very closely. "Crushing market demand" will result in another housing crisis--more foreclosures as mortgages go "underwater" and wipe out of a lot of middle-class wealth (sure, it may be on paper, but that's not how people think of it). Disinflation, fine. What Is Deflation? Why Is It Bad? – Forbes Advisor