woolie

I think this is the single most urbane structure Houston has seen in years. I live close to it and happened to drive by several times today.

There's this thing. It's called human society. As social creatures we are more likely to take action when we interact with others who are taking similar actions, or are aware of their presence. But I suppose in your perfect Woodlands World, every message is mediated by Clear Channel. No unapproved speech allowed in the commons, for fear of being a nuisance to common folk.

Glad to see this thread has cooled off a bit. Can we have trolleybus service on "Signature Lines?" I was in SF over the weekend.

They closed off most of the area around the lake now, for the next year or so.

I would immediately kill myself if I had to spend an hour a day trapped in a car again. Must be nice to have the luxury to spend an hour of productive time a day thinking about maneuvering a car along the freeway. Best of luck to you when the oil stops flowing.

It is not close to Houston. Actually if you wanted a ranch close to town, Manville would be your bet.

Well, how about some numbers Niche. Ellie Lofts type of structure vs. typical 3-story TMC garden apartments. I'm not saying it's going to be 1:1, but in the same neighborhood. ps. some of your attitude lately is a real test against your sig line.

Your right... better to be safe at home, watching a protest on tv. Maybe they'll even get to use their riot gear this time, wouldn't that be a treat. Or the mall will simply have them removed...

You don't need high rises to achieve transit density. The vast majority of the buildings can be 3-5 stories... essentially in a slightly different and denser configuration than the creeping proliferation of "garden apartments" we've seen in the past 30 years. So other than increased land value, I'm not seeing how the construction cost itself is prohibitively larger than what people already pay to construct this type of housing.

it's kindof the libertarian party line. can't say I haven't heard it to death. I don't have a personal problem with adding direct usage fees to the freeways, but I'm wary of selling it off to private firms. And of course as I stated above I think cars are a dead end technology, even hybrid cars, because of the density limits imposed by parking and big roads. So I of course want big inner city transit systems to promote and sustain high density. This is much closer to any "sustainability" vision than a motoring utopia. As far as constructing high speed intercity rail I think this is a no brainer.

You know exactly what I meant.

What a horrifying vision of the future. Oh, wait, these things already exist? Here's what I think about the privatization of public space. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

sigh, right? what's your transportation vision for a metro area of 7 million people, niche. continue expanding at a low density along existing freeway corridors? wouldn't that be a driver's paradise.

I'm against relying on exclusive use of cars of any kind because they set hard limits on density, and this density threshold is well below any kind of "human scale" environment. I think the costs of sprawl are either understated or not counted at all, and it's a real drag on our lives and also our culture. This is the kernel of many people's pro-transit views. There are plenty of things I'd classify as "government waste." Most of the center around a certain overseas adventure. But I think transit is a worthwhile and acceptable use of government money. Transit as an integral part of a complete transportation strategy.

tile ours is tile and carpet on the first floor.

You won't have sidewalk use without density or poverty. btw niche, how do you manage to get into your car while carrying that sig line?

Sure it does, indirectly. It depends on how much of the electricity it uses is generated by hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, or wind. In Houston, it's about 50% natural gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear and other. If we have a complete analysis that takes into account the average kWh energy used per passenger mile for rail and the air emissions per kWh from the generating sources, and compare it to the average kWh used per passenger mile (generated by burning gas or diesel..) used by a car then we can compare air emissions for each mode directly. But anyway the short answer is that rail is very energy efficient compared to auto transit, and with better options for non-polluting energy sources.

Sounds like we need usage fees for sidewalks. Oh, and I'll stand by my $12 vs. $2 comparison until the heat death of the universe, given that it was simply a count of my out of pocket expense for each mode. You can argue about which mode is more subsidized as much as you'd like. Parking is only free when the land values are very low. Everywhere else, it's paid for either directly or indirectly through higher prices. When I take the train, I avoid paying rent on 300 sq ft for the duration of my visit. In most dense parts of Houston, this 300 sq ft costs between $5 and $15 per day. In the TMC specifically, it's $12 for any length over 3 hours.

Oh, right, city roads are paid for by usage fees.... It seems in this case that I am providing an equal or greater subsidy to your own freeway and road usage, since I contribute minimally to their use but contribute my fair share of household income. I wonder what other subsidies I am providing you... well, for one, I offer my labor at far below market rates for someone of similar expertise because my career is basically directed towards public good.

I'm closing on an urban lofts home in a week. Personally the exterior and open spaces inside are the best thing about it.

Good luck parking in the TMC. I'd say the average time for me to take the train to work vs. drive to work and park, desk-to-desk, is the same plus or minus one minute. One cost about $12 per day, one cost $2 per day (not accounting for gas, ownership costs, etc.)

Zero.

Someone needs to explain basic statistics to VicMan. If the frequency is 18 minutes, what is the average wait time. Anyway. I'm in San Francisco right now for a conference. Beautiful weather. Ashame I won't have any time to play before I head back -- the infamous new SF LRT line is just across from our meeting @ UCSF. If you want to have a discussion about cost overruns and lower than expected ridership....

No. If you have a strong preference to not have a gay (or straight) room mate, you can simply get an apartment of your own. If you have this kind of preference, fine, but you should expect to pay more for the privilege. Requiring disclosure violates privacy and rights in the real world. If it's an optional part you can volunteer or "decline to state", fine, no one would have a problem with that. But to make yes-or-no disclosure a requirement for participating in the service is over the line. My question is roommates.com merely like a craigslist for people to find housing arrangements completely on their own, or do they actually participate in the process? I'm imagining the criteria would be more strict in the second case. e.g., if I post on the open internet "white male roommate wanted," is that protected as free speech? where does it cross the line into discrimination in providing a service like housing that has established equality laws.