mattyt36
-
Posts
1,292 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mattyt36
-
-
58 minutes ago, HouTXRanger said:
They'd have to rebuild the stations, all the bridges, tear up all the roads to put tracks in, tear down more trees for the wire poles, etc.
So, if I translate, this means what they didn't do was (1) design the stations with longer platform lengths; and (2) didn't design the bridges (how many are there?) to accommodate the weight of the light rail vehicles? I'm not sure why one would want to tear down trees now or construct utility lines for what may not ever happen in the future?
-
16 hours ago, Some one said:
I never said they should follow major freeway corridors. I actually think its foolish to put rail where the freeway is, especially since a lot of them have stations that are difficult to get to. I'd rather they put them where the people are. That's why the Houston METRO, despite being slow, has about as riders than the DART rail in Dallas. Because Metro was more focused on building rail where the people were (between districts and neighborhoods) rather than where the ROW was.
@Some one I never said you did (note I did not say "you," I said "transit promoter"), I used your comment to illustrate a point about one of the many elementary arguments people make about why people don't use transit today but would tomorrow if one just built rail, i.e., "people just need a choice."
16 hours ago, Some one said:I just wish they were a little clearer about the BRT not being convertible.
I've heard this bandied about so often and must say I don't get it. BUT, I confess I am ignorant on the topic. What could METRO have done differently to make it convertible to LRT? What exactly is preventing it from being converted to LRT in the future? Has anything been constructed today in connection with the Silver Line that would make it more cost-prohibitive than before to build LRT in the future?
-
2 hours ago, samagon said:
@Some one Matty36 has a MO of changing the subject when it's one he doesn't agree with, but can't really refute.
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?)
2 hours ago, samagon said:the higher density developments come. every freeway spurs higher development than was there previously that's without dispute, well, so does light rail, and the density it builds is even greater. look up and down the red line, which has had 20 years to mature, the transformation of density along that corridor is clear. and you can start to see the same transformation along the green and purple lines.
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.
2 hours ago, samagon said:the irony of it all is you have people like Matty36 who are so quick to speak volumes about how one form of mass transit corridor (freeways) can create higher density and serve so many, but at the same time they decry every other form of mass transit as something that doesn't work. it's kind of silly, if you think about it.
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?
-
7 hours ago, Blue Dogs said:
Whitmire is likely going to be the next Mayor in all likelihood!
Yes, yes, we know, you have an absolutely great track record of predicting these things, after all.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, mfastx said:
BRT does not generate the same ridership as LRT, so if you want to have something that competes against cars, rail is the superior mode given that it attracts more riders.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 3/15/2023 at 11:45 AM, mfastx said:
I'm not sure I follow. In Houston, significant development has sprouted around the light rail, particularly in midtown and even in the extremely underdeveloped northern, eastern and southeastern areas of town where the new lines went.
Examples?
On 3/15/2023 at 11:45 AM, mfastx said:How would BRT spur better development in Houston?
How would it not? I mean, you really haven't shared anything stating otherwise.
-
On 3/14/2023 at 2:57 PM, Some one said:
The light rail in DFW fails because DART was more focused on building them in old ROW rather than where the people were. It's the very same reason why the Houston metrorail, despite not covering as many areas as DART does, has almost as much riders as DART does.
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.)
On 3/14/2023 at 12:05 PM, Some one said:What's even more annoying is the fact that the Silver Line, which was supposed to be light rail, was later changed to BRT due to cost. And this was before the Metronext plan was approved. So Metro is really inconsistent with these things. Not to mention that a common complaint about the transit plan was that there was not enough rail, especially on the west side.
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?)
On 3/15/2023 at 8:26 AM, mfastx said:They are only considering BRT due to its lower initial capital cost, LRT is the superior mode, generating about twice as much ridership in a vacuum and would generate more development benefits/revenue generation for the city.
Examples?
-
On 2/9/2023 at 5:03 PM, hindesky said:
https://www.fly2houston.com/ellington-airport
Continental used to have a connection flight to IAH for a couple years.
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.
On 3/14/2023 at 2:59 PM, Pleak said:Many many years ago (Maybe beginning in the 80's?) there was a big proposal going around for a third large airport out west in Katy. Lots of fighting over the Katy Prairie, etc.
I think it finally died in the late 90's. But not sure.
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.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Ross said:
Harris County does not collect sales taxes.
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?
-
On 3/3/2023 at 12:24 PM, Amlaham said:
Fun fact :) Houston and Kansas City are the ONLY World Cup US Host cities that do not have rail transit from/to the airport :)
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?
-
3
-
1
-
-
@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?
-
1
-
1
-
-
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?
-
3
-
-
On 3/4/2023 at 5:31 AM, Amlaham said:
Agree to disagree 😅 yes there is a lot "in the works" but not enough for a city our size. Our rail lines probably reach a fraction of neighborhoods in the loop, let a lone our city; they go down 3-4 streets max. Which in my opinion is another reason why a lot of people don't use it and have negative views of rail; its not very convenient since it doesn't reach most of Houstonians. Again, you made good points, but I stand my ground that theres always room for improvement, especially with a city our size.
Do you have any thoughts on how such improvements would be funded?
-
2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:
I think his point was that the Andrews Street provisions were already planned. This VRA provision changes nothing.
Has it really always been planned as pedestrian-only?
I guess now that I think about it, the renderings have all been that way.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Triton said:
Work has pushed to 2027?!?! What the hell?
NB to the disingenuous detractors . . . when the cost increases 20%+ due to the delay, that is NOT a cost overrun.
-
On 3/1/2023 at 11:02 AM, NB_Brendan said:
More induced demand! Yay!
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.
-
2
-
-
51 minutes ago, steve1363 said:
The Kinders (God Bless them!) have started an endowment to maintain Discovery Green! Donated $2M
Kinder Foundation grants $2M to create Discovery Green endowment
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2023/02/24/kinder-foundation-discovery-green-endowment.html
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.
-
9
-
-
3 hours ago, Ross said:
It all depends on which part of Timbergrove. If the house was built in the 1960's that would be West of TC Jester, which I believe was just vacant University of Texas land.
That's fascinating--why did UT own land in Timbergrove?
-
1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:
Are you in hospice care or something?
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?
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, 004n063 said:
Aerial gondolas from ER to MM and POST, on the other hand...😎
Best idea I've heard since the whole Houston Needs a Swimming Hole people.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, bookey23 said:
No-go on Pierce Elevated
That said, Lionheart Places’ draft master plan might be viewed by some as pouring cold water on long-simmering proposals to convert the Pierce Elevated portion of I-45 near Pierce Street into something that benefits the local community. The roadway is expected to be abandoned if the Texas Department of Transportation's I-45 North Houston Highway Improvement Project comes to fruition.
But some have argued the roadway could be converted into a sky park similar to the High Line in New York City.
Those ideas received renewed attention in recent weeks after a much-maligned McDonald’s on South Main Street was torn down and the adjacent Greyhound bus station went up for sale.
But during the Feb. 22 meeting, Marlon Marshall, director of engineering and construction for MRA, said there are no immediate plans to make any significant changes to Pierce Elevated.
“Like everyone, we are very excited about the opportunities for development created by the Greyhound station going up for sale,” Marshall said. “We have been working with our partners to discuss civic improvement potential under the NHHIP plan. But the purpose of this master plan is to focus on short-term improvements that could have an impact on the community.”
He added that any effort to turn Pierce Elevated into a park or even demolish it would require significant funding and planning by TxDOT, as well as state and local officials.
“The Pierce Elevated will remain in place for at least the next 10 years,” he said.
From the HBJ article on the Midtown plan: Midtown Redevelopment Authority unveils street, parks improvement plan draft - Houston Business Journal (bizjournals.com)
Oh wonderful, the worst of both worlds.
42 minutes ago, bookey23 said:Thanks for sharing, this was an interesting read! If they actually implement this plan over the next decade, Midtown's streets will be unrecognizable!
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.
-
6
-
-
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.
-
5
-
-
33 minutes ago, bookey23 said:
Based on the current map available on the TXDOT website, they will be leaving up the portion of the Pierce Elevated from Brazos to Chenevert. So, as currently planned, they will not really be removing the barrier between Downtown and Midtown.
Lame
-
2
-
METRORapid University Corridor
in Transit
Posted
In other words, you run a transit line through an area with a transit-dependent population and ridership is higher. Quelle surprise.
There's no point in discussing the second point when you totally omit the order-of-magnitude larger capital costs and the associated annual debt service? If you move into a more energy-efficient house which cuts your electricity bill by 25% but your mortgage more than doubles in the process, do you actually think you're saving money? Shirley, you can't be serious.