TheNiche

Texas Tower Lot is 3/4 empty still, right? Thats right on Main and one block from the junction with the other two lines.

While Metro hasnt mentioned using existing heavy freight lines, I agree, keeping that option open for the future would be good. But digging one 1/4 mile subterranean tunnel with space for 4-6 lines from an inner downtown terminus to an access point to the North of downtown near those freight lines wouldnt eliminate using those freight lines as a future option.

I thought current discussion had the commuter lines as the same gauge as LRT, right.

Also.. I don't care how many bus lines eventually connect to the Red line at the LRT. If it connects CRT directly to only 1 LRT instead of 4, like it could by moving it 1/2 mile down the track, that is not a successful ITC.

I think your criticism of the current ITC site has merit, however I think that a more realistic solution is to use the Post Office site, which is adjacent to an existing and underutilized rail yard, is practically adjacent to the existing AMTRAK facility, is where the nicely landscaped trails along Buffalo Bayou end, is closer to downtown, and sports a terrific skyline view. The USPS has been trying to get rid of it, too. The terminus of the Southeast Line is currently set at Bagby and Capitol/Rusk, however it could be extended the short distance to Franklin, which sets us up for an easy shot down Washington or Center St. in the future.

Another idea is that we could also set aside some of the land on the post office site (and there's plenty of it) for large public parking garages that could be directly connected to from freeway flyovers in the next iteration of freeway construction. By concentrating many thousands of parking spaces in one transit-served location and running shuttles from that location all over downtown, we could probably get away with reducing parking requirements for new structures, making it easier for new development to pencil out.

If we really wanted to get wild, then we could propose that the I-45 and I-10 merger be sunk and topped off with a landing strip for corporate jets. The runway, which can be shorter, could take up the opposite bank of White Oak Bayou. As a plus, it'd piss off the Heights NIMBYs, assuring that much civic hilarity would ensue.

What is landlust? To own or to know/experience the land?

Yep.

It's a list of European capital cities and their largest trading partners.

Not very relevant.

Back on topic, my suggestions for the Uptown Line:

I like your suggestions, personally, as I think that they'd be a boon to business in that area. But the improvements need to be financed in large part by the Uptown TIRZ and Management District, even if it means that the management district's tax rate has to go up, and even if it requires legislative approval.

Otherwise, I think that some grade-separated intersections, at the very least, need to be paid for by the usual suspects (TXDoT, City of Houston, METRO, FTA). Not doing this at Westheimer and San Felipe, at least, would be extremely short-sighted.

And I have a question on the Route description here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptown_Line_%28METRORail%29

Is that correct?

It was correct at one time. I don't think that it still is.

Making the drive to Dallas this weekend.. and its about as boring as can be once you get past Corsicana.

Boring and flat.

Dead grass.

Ugly Driving Range in Ferris.

More sheer nothingness.

More dead grass.

Prison

The Trinity swamp bridge... ( which actually is quite pleasant with the trees, but its presence helps contribute to the complete lack of civilization until Boom, you're only a mile or two outside downtown. )

Jeez, if that's how normal people size up the geography of a city, can you imagine what people from San Antonio think of us?

Ramen won't make you as gassy.

It shouldn't, but does. And fairly consistently, too.

one time freshman year when ramen went on sale for 10 for $1, my roommate bought $30 worth

Yeah, but it just seems like in the past several years they must've changed the recipe or something. Nearly every time I try to enjoy Ramen, I end up burping up a kind of stale flavor that just isn't appealing at all. I'd rather just eat rice and beans.

I stay inside the loop for the most part as well... Just easier from a mobility stand point and we have everything we need within 2 miles from the house, including all our fave restaurants.

Most cities and towns are like that, where everything that someone needs is within a couple miles. It just doesn't speak very highly to your sense of adventure, is all.

Except good ramen, which Houston doesn't have.

Uh oh! We have it, but you must be willing to travel outside the Beltway to get at it.

Oh well, too bad for kylejack. Life's a b|tch, ain't it?

Not many hills in these parts, but at least there is a definite change in scenery in SE Texas which is more than can be said of North Texas.

I have to disagree with that, first of all because we do have hills. Going north, they start in the vicinity of Conroe and are characteristic of the Willis and Fleming geologic formations.

But I also disagree with your comments about north Texas. Go west from Fort Worth and by Wise County, you find yourself in a landscape that is drier and more arid, somewhat resembling the Hill Country. Go east from Dallas and by Van Zandt County, you find yourself behind the pine curtain...even if their forest canopy isn't quite as thick is it had been historically. Dallas/FW has a total of eleven different geologic formations within its paired-up freeway loops. Houston has barely three within the entire Highway 6 and Highway 146 loop...which is a vastly greater land area. That's not to say that there aren't changes of scenery in our area, just that it's more subtle.

Sources: Texas Water Development Board, Google Earth, and my own driving experiences in both regions

Speaking of missing the point. You take my response to another poster's unsupported statements and claim that it doesn't cover all of the issues you find important. Well, no sheet! Good job catching that. Do you want a cookie?

That's pretty much how these light rail threads work, if you hadn't noticed.

And yes, I'd like a cookie. Thanks for offering.

I will let everyone else read your posts and decide for themselves what you attempted to say, as well as its accuracy. As for the guage, you appear to be engaging in the citykid lament of heavy rail versus light rail. While I could point out the number of European cities using the German built Siemens S70s currently in use in Houston, or the future CAF USA trainsets, I believe a more useful and eye opening discussion would be to concentrate on US cities, since that is what we know and use.

Let's compare Houston with Atlanta. Comparisons with Dallas, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver and many other cities is pointless, because they use the exact same light rail class trains that you denigrate as "mini-trains" (even though they weigh in excess of 90,000 pounds). Atlanta uses the traditional heavy rail trains that you suggest are the answer to all of Houston's "problems". Best I can tell, your main gripe is passenger capacity, due to small light rail trains, inadequate stations, inability to link more than 2 cars, and I suppose, that our trains run in the streets. But, the question needs to be asked, do we NEED heavy rail? I assume that your concerns are more realistic than citykid's desires for an "urban" system (whatever that means). Atlanta's system was built nearly 40 years ago, when heavy rail was the only mode used. Light rail was designed for use in areas without crushing densities such as New York and Chicago. Looking at Atlanta's density and its ridership numbers, it would do well with light rail.

MARTA has daily ridership of 260,000 on 47.6 miles of track. This equates to passenger load per track mile of 5,462. Houston has current daily ridership of 40,000 on 7.5 miles of track, for a passenger load per track mile of 5,333. It has been as high as 44,000, or 5,867. Houston's light rail already carries as many people as Atlanta's heavy rail, and sometimes more. What value is achieved by spending much more money just to have a heavier train?

Let's look at capacity. Houston's capacity in its current configuration is 4,820 passengers per hour in each direction, or 9,680 total. This is achieved by using two 241 capacity trains running on 6 minute headways. New trains carrying 282 passengers will bump capacity to 5,640 per hour, or 11,280 total, a 16.5% increase with no other changes. Headways can be increased to every 3 minutes, doubling capacity to 22,560 per hour. Remember, the current ridership is 40,000 per DAY.

Now, let's add the new track. Upon completion, the Houston system will have 38 miles of track, running 282 capacity trains on 5 separate but inteconnected lines. Each line would have a capacity of delivering 5,640 people per hour, or 11,280 in both directions. That equates to 56,400 passengers per hour. On 6 minute headways,and travelling at 18 miles per hour, there could be 42 2-car trains running at once (both directions), or 23,813 passengers simultaneously.

So here's my question to you. Using real figures, as opposed to your extremely low guess, exactly how is Houston's light rail system inadequate for carrying HOUSTONIANS? Because Houston will never look like Paris (which uses the same trains we do), we don't need to build like Paris does. Where do you see inadequate capacity for Houston passenger loads in Houston's future system?

I think you're missing the point. Houston definitely has more potential for fixed-guideway transit than does Atlanta (smaller) or Dallas/FW (more spread out w/smaller CBDs & edge cities). And that is already reflected in our transit use statistics. What is not reflected is the opportunity cost of sticking with our less expensive at-grade system as compared to a more expensive partially or fully grade-separated system where trains can operate at higher speeds and without interference from traffic or faulty signal prioritization. Our Red Line runs at an average of 19mph. But what would the ridership be if the average speed were twice that? Granted, there are significant additional costs, but they are not without benefits.

Furthermore, your ridership-based analysis fails to account for other economic benefits incurred by a more fully grade-separated system, perhaps most notably a reduction in rail-induced traffic congestion at high-volume intersections or as a consequence of disruptions to signal timing. Reducing congestion in the central city saves peoples' time and vehicle operating costs, increases regional mobility, and thereby makes the central city more competitive for office tenants as compared to suburban office submarkets. This becomes an especially important consideration given that such infrastructure will continue to exert adverse impacts decades after it has been built; even if bad planning doesn't result in congestion initially, it may very well after 30 years go by. There are also direct benefits in the form of time savings to transit riders, partly reflected by the marginal increase in ridership, but also indicating an greater amount of consumer surplus.

Of course, we've been over this issue using the same tired talking points probably dozens of times, now. Neither of us has adequate data, I don't think, to come to a conclusion that is definitive, however clearly the issue is more complicated than the number of miles, the number of riders, and capital cost...even if that's all that the FTA really cares about for the sake of allocating federal funds. It takes a holistic approach. And yours is myopic.

QOL != surface aesthetics

EDIT: Nevermind. It just occurred to me that the exclamation point before the equals sign was programmer jargon for "not equal to".

Good comeback if not for the fact that I've talked openly about living back in Houston for over a year now. In fact, it's been exactly 13 months now since my move back to town.

Psst...your location and geogroup still reflect you non-local past. Might want to update that.

the im's say otherwise.

My IM's about you say otherwise.

you don't understand what is going on.

obtuse. nobody understands you.

Whoever told Kay Bailey to run as more conservative than Perry is a moron. Her only chance was to pick up moderates, Country Club Republicans, and switchover Dems.

The Chronicle analysis argues it the other way around, that she tried to appeal to moderates, etc., and that that was her undoing. Granted, I don't watch very much television or listen to much radio, but what I'd seen of her was reflected in the article IMO.

Or is there some kind of legality preventing that from ever happening?

TMC's expanding at a break neck pace and running out of room. Peering into the future, if it continues to expand as such, I wonder what the landscape will look like in another 20 years.

Whether such a thing would be legal or not, it's not politically feasible. First of all, the Texas Medical Center, Inc. likes having the park there. Secondly, the TMC is expanding southward, beyond its traditional boundaries, and has another couple thousand of acres that it can develop/redevelop.

What have we become, culturally, when a whole generation not only mistakes marketing for beauty, but longs for the visual blight of ads to 'liven up' public spaces?

What is architecture, in practice, but an attempt by a developer to enhance the marketability of an otherwise commoditized asset?

It is interesting that so many metrics of demography paint Houston and Dallas in such a similar light...and yet their respective cultures are distinct. I attribute this to the two cities' relative economic strengths. Whereas Dallas' economy is more tied in to finance and high tech industries, Houston's economy is more engineering- and heavy manufacturing-based. In general, we attract and cultivate a different mentality. There aren't too many other cities like Houston, pretty much anywhere...and those that are similar tend to be smaller.

So I do tend to agree with Pei. You shouldn't design for Houston what you'd design for Dallas or NYC. But you should design for Dallas whatever could be sold as being Manhattan-like. Because, as we all know, Dallasites really respond to that...and not just the inexperienced youth of Dallas, but the grown-up children, too.

What about Houston's oil money? Is it no match to Dubai's? Are they now the oil capital of the world? Also I saw a video the other day on Oklahoma City's building boom and how it is claiming to be the new Oil Capital.

You're confusing advertising slogans for truth and opinion for fact.

Tall buildings are monuments unto the phallus; they serve no noble purpose. There are some investors that are able to luck out by timing the market, however the longer the project schedule and more out of the ordinary is the scope of work, the less likely it is that they will be financially successful.

Yet, many otherwise intelligent individuals are arrogant, greedy, impulsive, egotistical, narcissistic, and yet feel inadequate. In the deep recesses of their animal mind is the prospect that if they associate themselves with something unique and glamorous, they'll be able to achieve better mating opportunities, both qualitatively and quantitatively. And so investing in a gigantic penis statue makes sense to them. The poor suckers don't realize a simple truth, that money is most effectively made when it is not worn as though it were a suit. As someone who's been there and done that, this is my advice: Aim low. Be competent; be unimpressive and also unimpressed. Only profit is sexy. Foreclosures are not.

One supposes that just as there are no atheists in foxholes, so there are no libertarians in unemployment lines.

One would suppose incorrectly on both counts.

It does seem implied from your assertion that I am in an unemployment line. This is false, on account of that I was a full-time student last semester, attempting to re-tool myself to suit the new economy. But if you're a full-time student, they stop sending you unemployment checks. That doesn't necessarily mean that financial aid is forthcoming...it certainly didn't in my case. It also does not follow that a more in-depth academic background in accounting will get you anywhere in this economy. I can't even get interviews for bookkeeper positions.

The city of Juneau, Alaska covers over 3,000 square miles to support a population of around 30,000 people. The city limits include sheer mountains and glacier fields where it may be possible for only a house or two to stand for several miles in any direction. If no crime occurs in those houses, is it then reasonable to say Juneau contains the 100 percent safest neighborhood in the US? You know, besides the crippling meth problems and rampant pedophilia plaguing the rest of the residents in the city, the ones who actually live in or near the city core?

I would suspect that this data are limited to what might be considered "major" cities. ...or it could be flawed. There are lots of stupid pseudo-urbanists out there.

I guess the word "in" is now relative.

No, it's a fairly absolute term. The area is within the city limits of the City of Houston. Since that's how police jurisdictions are demarcated, it is nothing if not a consistent measure, at least.

Still, I agree that these data are not especially useful on account of that political boundaries are irregular and frequently senseless. On a certain level, if Houston didn't have among the safest neighborhoods in the country, I would've been surprised. We just encompass so much land area that surely there has to be a safe spot.

After last year's drought, is there even any water to put your kayak in?

They keep water levels in Lake Austin pretty high. The Colorado River is also up; it was even at flood stage as of a couple of weeks ago, ruining a planned 'freeze trip'.