TheNiche

When did that happen?

Granted you're talking about Midtown, but it seems like in the East End they embraced the light rail, moving from a location on Cullen/Polk to a location at Harrisburg/Lockwood. CVS wouldn't have done that if they didn't see value in LR.

I suspect that the move had a lot more to do with them satisfying the goals of being on a high-visibility hard corner with a higher traffic count, and where they had enough space to build a freestanding building in the corporate style that included a drive-through. There are only so many sites in that general area that could've been a good fit, and I happen to think that they chose well for their business model.

How long has the CVS on Elgin/Main been there?

One CVS location decided to build right next to some upscale apartments, rather than a greyhound station (which considering the crap that happens near that bus terminal, probably would have netted more shoplifting traffic than regular shopping traffic.)

IMO, CVS is a bad example of new development that shunts LR, since the CVS on W. Gray seems to be the exception, rather than the rule.

It was built several years after light rail was completed. I want to say that it was 2005 or 2006. There's a lengthy thread about it on HAIF somewhere. It's fair to say that CVS doesn't care about promoting walkable urbanism. But that's my point. Most developers shrugged, built to the west until land was exhausted in the westerly direction, and gave it lip service.

Granted we're nearly 10 years after LR opened on Main, but I think it's just too soon after to say what impact it is having, or will have. Especially considering 4 of those nearly 10 years were not a strong economy.

It didn't take particularly long for Discovery Green to spawn new development. Finger pretty much had his finger on the trigger for One Park Place, just waiting for the City of Houston to commit to the park's development. New office and hotel space followed shortly thereafter. When something is perceived by developers as a strong amenity, you'll know it because they'll do more than give it lip service. They'll build stuff!

Camden Property Trust makes its own decisions about what to build on the Superblock. That has nothing to do with anything. Venue Museum district is Transit-Oriented Development. The rail line was a major progenitor in its development and in other residential units. They all list rail as an amenity. So you can declare fail all you like, but it doesn't make your logic any less flawed. The rail line has made a positive economic impact on Central Houston.

Oh, so the CVS Pharmacy that turned its back on the light rail is only the second largest example of new development in Midtown (if Midtown goes where Midtown isn't). That's so much more convincing.

Yes, apartment managers list light rail as an amenity. They also list other amenities. For instance, Venue Museum District lists their parking garage as an amenity. 2222 Smith Street lists berber carpet as an amenity. They list anything that they can think of that will entice even a small segment of the market to visit them.

The soccer stadium isn't in Midtown either, but you can be damn sure that they brought that stadium to central Houston in large part because of the planned rail line. They could have built it out in the burbs like many other cities, but they chose to put it in Central Houston. That benefits EaDo, Midtown, the Med Center and everywhere in between.

Centrality was generally important to the Dynamo, but access to the parking lots for Minute Maid Park was more a lynch pin than light rail access.

When there are only so many viable sites for a type of development, you can be assured that some of them will be near a light rail line and that a few will eventually be developed. A few isolated occurrences of development do not necessarily indicate a pattern. On the contrary, in fact, the pattern seems largely a negative one where Midtown is concerned.

The rails look nice. About 80 percent installed along UofH

Indeed, and the pond appears pure and refreshing.

Whatever benefits are received by the death of a criminal are far outweighed by the loss of order through anarchy. And, as power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, allowing the unfettered killing of civilians by government agents will quickly turn into genocide.

That's a slippery slope and a fairly loose definition of the term, 'genocide'. If I were so inclined to play my words so fast and so loose, I could probably figure out a way to say the same thing about Heights historic districts or the property tax appeal process.

Actions have consequences. When police shoot at civilians, some of them will shoot back. Further, the dramatic rise in drug war SWAT raids increases the chance for violence. Police should look at their own escalation of violence when looking for the cause of last year's increase in deaths. And you should quit falling for their propaganda.

By the way, in 2008, 40 officers died by gunfire, the LOWEST number in over 50 years. Homicide rates are also at their lowest rates in 50 years. Your statement is a fabrication.

Do you suppose that there might be a causal relationship between civilian deaths-by-cop and a reduction in crime rate?

I mean, personally I'm on board with the 'Freakonomics' explanation that much (albeit not all) of the long-term decline in the violent crime rate can be attributed to abortion, which culls a segment of the population that is disproportionately prone to commit crime. However, if a disproportionate number of civilians shot dead by police are criminals, then can't we think of such occurrences as having the same general effect of abortions? So it's basically post-partum abortion, albeit typically involuntary and brought about by the actions of the state.

Further proof that people need to arm themselves against this urban street trash...

Agreed. And we need more affordable options for shotgun pistols.

It was one robbery, not one per day. I was robbed in the middle of Rice Village, and it survived. Of course, that was back before the internet existed to blow things out of proportion. A quick glance at HPD's crime stats shows that this appears to be the 5th robbery in that area this year. For comparison, the White Oak/Studewood restaurant row has had 6. Montrose Blvd. has about twice as many robberies as both of these areas.

It is not the end of the world.

Actually, it is the end of the world for white people and attractive Asian women under the age of 35. And that's the only thing that actually matters in life. Or weren't you aware of that?

Seriously though, I think that the rate at which crime is reported has a lot to do with ethnicity (a given), that people don't think of Montrose or the Heights as being as shady as they are and therefore are less cautious or outright avoidant of the area, and that when a crime does occur in a 'safe' area, there is a sense of indignant outrage...whereas if someone gets mugged in 4th Ward, that's expected to be pretty much par for the course. So yeah, I don't trust the crime stats as a predictive indicator of whether any given pedestrian walking 500 feet through a neighborhood is likely to be a victim of violent crime.

Anybody can be sued for anything, but someone with a large non-homesteaded asset is especially likely to be a target. And who wants to be the unfortunate defendant to set a precedent by losing their case? Nobody, that's who. Settlements are expensive, too, and so if marginally effective means of deterring crime might be more effective at deterring legal frivolity, then that's what's going to happen.

Having a real HPD officer would be more reassuring

If you want to be more assured of your safety then move out of the 'hood, Slick. No matter their badge looks like, a guard can only be in one place at any given time.

It appears the complex has hired security now. That's more a deterrent than anything; what is one lanky security guard going to do against six thugs?

The guard is for the apartment owner's safety, not the tenants'.

It's just the management company making a show of things. If this sort of thing were to happen again (which it will by virtue of its location) and management had not provided notice to you and upgraded their security presence in some form or fashion, then the victim may have a good case against the apartment operator for negligence. When a suit of this nature is victorious, damages can come in at utterly ridiculous amounts--tens of millions of dollars. And yes, even if the tenants should've known that their neighborhood was unsafe, the landlord is still exposed to this risk. There's no accounting for incompetence on either side, only for the landlord's 'reasonable' efforts to stem a known problem.

According to Contour's site, the project is supposed to start late this year, early next year.

http://www.contourentertainment.com/

Still not getting my hopes up.

Yeah, it looks like they're only engaged in a planning capacity, not a development capacity. Their client would be the developer.

Has anybody seen or does anyone have a map of Houston showing the original 4 Wards?

There were six wards.

To view a map, you can click on the link in post 3 of this thread or you can Google the term 'map of Houston wards'.

If you'd had the Korean BBQ goat and dumplings, you'd have given it five stars.

Here are some actual numbers, although they're weighted for sales. The domestic car companies are well over 50% domestic content overall. Honda is the only non-US based carmaker listed with a majority American-made content for vehicles sold in the US. http://blogs.cars.co...automakers.html

You can also look up data for individual models on the NHTSA site (http://www.nhtsa.gov... (AALA) Reports).

This shouldn't be a consideration. The concern should be cost and performance. If foreign companies can meet expectations more effectively, then let them. And let domestic companies figure out how to catch up by competing legitimately on a level playing field.

It'd be one thing if the police could operate in a military capacity or if a particular vehicle had too many parts that were manufactured in 'unfriendly' nations. The potential for supply disruptions toward fleet vehicles *should* be a consideration. A minor one.

A combination of things led to the poor timing. General procrastination, combined with financing (had a sizeable tax bill to deal with) pushed it to May. I also spent some time putting covers on several electrical boxes and spraying foam around several holes and can lights. Then just as I was getting ready to start, I cracked a tooth, and needed to deal with that. I waited until my mouth was all better before starting the attic. Pure bad luck meant that right as I started, temps shot up from the low 90s to near 100.

It really wasn't the worst thing in the world. I would install several rolls in the morning, and once it got really hot, I would stop for the day. By doing that, I was able to do the install myself, saving $500 or more. Sure, it spread the install out to about 3 weekends, but was worth it. Total cost was less than $700.

It's funny how that works, isn't it?

Let's take a house in the City of Houston valued at $270,000 in 2011 as an example. The tax rate is 2.52%. The bill is $5,315 per year. Figure that you could've made a real average rate of return of 5% per year if you were to invest that sum in stocks and bonds (rather than illiquid real estate). The value of that stream of payments in perpetuity is $106,300.

If local taxes were based on income or sales taxes and about 25% of household income (or tax savings) went toward housing and were taxable, then we should figure that the effect on property values of this property tax scheme is to reduce them by $79,725. (But this ignores that people would demand more real estate than they presently do, due to market distortions.)

Individuals subject to increasing property taxes may have built a great deal of equity for themselves, yet still be cash-poor. (And this would be especially true during periods of low cash income.) The consequence is deferred maintenance and deferred capital improvements, even if that corresponds to lower energy consumption. Is that good public policy?

Perhaps Texas should follow North Dakota's example, or at least dial things back.

If you want to improve both rail and bus service then I don't even know what we are arguing about, or why you say "pro rail" like it's an epithet.

Hell, I'm pro-rail. I'm pro-water and pro-arsenic, too. Very nearly everything has a time and place.

But there's being absolutely pro-something (like arsenic or light rail) and being relativistically pro-something (also like arsenic or light rail). The thing is, genpop is presumptuous, unimaginative, and lacks intellectual curiosity. This thread illustrates my point. Look at how much I get beat up on just for suggesting that analysis is necessary. Look at how much I have to brow-beat someone before they'll admit that light rail works sometimes in some circumstances, but not all circumstances...before huffing and puffing and storming out of the room.

Having said that, I don't get laid often. You win, I guess.

Whoa, whoa, whoa..... WHOA. So you'are telling me that an effective transit must be planned and funded properly..... I had no idea. So all that bus talk early was just bullflurf because rail can in fact do things better than a bus when properly planned and funded. How about that.....

Improper funding may be construed to mean underfunding or overfunding. Funding should ideally be commensurate with an optimal system, and optimality should be a function of both capital and operating costs among other factors.

Presuming that light rail is a component within an optimal system that is undefined is skipping a step: thoughtful analysis.

Haha, you've found us out.... But seriously... bias much?

Just as I believe that light rail is usually (but not always) a suspect proposition, I also believe that the sky is usually (but not always) blue. I am biased in favor of the notion of a blue sky and that light rail should be evaluated with scrutiny. So what? Do you mean to imply that I am not brain dead? Is that intended as some form of a put down?

We need a better bus system, plus bus rapid transit, plus rail. Anything less is unacceptable.

I think that we need vacuum-sealed maglev running levitated vehicles at 400 mph between downtowns in the four big cities (plus Galveston) and a single gigantic airport in the middle of the network that would replace all major commercial passenger airline service to DFW, IAH, HOU, LUV, and AUS, thus creating the world's busiest and possibly best connected airport, multiple hubs, more competition, lower fare prices, central-city airport access (making transit more effective), and providing global air connections to Austin and San Antonio. This would also take air- and noise-pollution-creating air traffic out of our major cities and free up capacity for regional commercial, air cargo, and general aviation.

My advice to you, having had this idea fall on the deaf ears of otherwise intelligent people, is to prepare yourself to redefine your definition of 'need'. I find that food, water, and shelter is an easier sell.

Anyone know why they chose not to continue 225 into the city?

Ostensibly, it was public outcry and the emergence of 1970's activism that dealt the death blow to the Harrisburg Freeway.

On the face of it, however, I think that building it along any alignment through the East End would've been fairly expensive relative to additional accessibility or mobility. (Let's face it, that route would've been fairly redundant to I-45.) In addition, someone probably realized that long-term population and employment growth out in the direction of La Porte was limited by the amount of developable land, as well as that traffic patterns were a fair bit more local rather than serving as bedroom communities to the central city. If and when there was more demand on that corridor, it would've been about time to reconstruct and add capacity to I-45 anyway.

An alternative that I wish had been considered was turning Navigation into an express route. They should've added east-west grade separations to Navigation via Broadway, then at Wayside / Sgt. Garcia, Lockwood, York, and then into downtown via Jensen / Canal. This would've been good for locals, too, and the costs would've been fairly low since the ROWs are already pretty wide. (Instead, the management district seems to want traffic slowed down along Navigation. I don't get that.)

I am looking at a combination of ridership and efficiency. Not everything is as technical as you make it out to be. Sometimes you just have to step back and look at the big picture. You are overanalyzing things.

Your analytic approach is superficial.

I am a proponent of deep analysis; it should acknowledge that transit is for people rather than urban aestheticists. And that is my final word to you on this subject.

I got the sarcasm, I was just explaining that your sarcastic comment didn't apply to what I posted they way you thought it did.

That's because I wasn't responding to what you posted. I was responding to Samagon.

Haha alright, I take full responsibility. Let me reiterate: I am referring to efficiency by analyzing what mode of transit carries riders at a cheaper cost per rider.

That is vague. If all you're looking at are operating costs per rider per year (as I suspect is the case), then actually I think that vanpooling just blows everything else out of the water.

How are you defining riders? Whole trips? Vehicular boardings? What is the economic value of a trip or a boarding? Should that value vary, given the circumstances of the transit user? What if they traveled ten miles instead of two miles? What if they're wealthy or poor; what is their opportunity cost of time on each particular route? Do riders twenty years from now matter less than riders next year; by how much should they be discounted?

How are you accounting for project costs? Are you accounting for operating, capital costs, and costs associated with debt service? Have you accounted for both positive and negative externalities (for instance, truncated bus lines vs. increased transfer times, disruptions to signal timing, or construction disruptions)? How are you accounting for the time value of money?

So, stop speaking in vagaries and tell us your thoughts. On a different thread, please.

Well I am also asking questions. I have provided my reasoning for believing the way I do, and I have backed it up with numbers. While you have provided more than enough reasoning for your beliefs, you have yet to provide me with statistics. You haven't proven that buses are more efficient and work better than rail.

Your questions are horrible, your numbers suck. I do not assert a brightline opinion that buses are more efficient than rail, except that that will be the case some of the time.

Well I am seriously considering building my career upon that endeavor so I will report back with the results of any future analysis I do.

God help us.

You should know that pretty much every METRO thread devolves into a bus vs. rail argument, regardless if I am involved in the off topic posting or not. I still maintain that I am in favor of METRO getting their full tax back.

You're involved in most of them, and you drag such arguments out in a manner that can only be described as prolific.

I found it telling that you skipped over the comment I made about reforming METRO. That was my attempt at steering the conversation back 'on-track', as it were.

Well you have not made that clear in any of your posts so far. Yes I have. Go back. Read. Nor have you made suggestions on how rail can be implemented in Houston other than suggesting grade seperation (something I also suggest). I've been trying to remain on-topic. So far light rail has undeniably performed well in Houston. It has performed well (as expected, given the route), however is still suboptimal and exerts negative externalities on traffic fow. While you suggest otherwise, I know that many people utilize the line and the vast majority consider it an improvement over the bus lines that were there before. I know many people that would disagree; and I suspect that they don't hang out in your circles or ride rail frequently. Anecdotal evidence and sample bias sure is fun, isn't it? Sometimes it seems like you refuse to acknowledge the Red Line's success due to an apparent anti-rail bias you have. Nope, it's just that I refuse to extrapolate its unique success to dissimilar proposed routes. It is not an indicator of anything except what it is.

I am in support of BRT as well as light rail. But realistically, if METRO wants to provide a good transit system (whether it be BRT, light rail, heavy rail, local bus, whatever) they need a lot more funding than they currently recieve. I want METRO to provide a good service as much as anyone else. I just think that investing in a core rail system will do more for METRO down the line than just simply improving the existing bus system.

I suppose that depends on how you define, "good." Here am am, yet again critical of your vagaries. FWIW, I think that their service is already good. It could be better. On the other hand, our local streets could be better, too.

Something I did find interesting about this comment was that now you're advocating for a core rail system, rather than just for rail in general. Should I construe that as a strategic argumentative victory on my part?

Alright fair enough. Just want to point out that one of the benefits of rail is that it's easy to recognize and navigate, which means that stragglers like you can easily navigate the system.

Just remember that your rail fare is less subsidezed than a bus fare!

That assertion would depend on the thoroughness of your cost accounting.

I do advocate for better local bus service. We need better bus shelters and displays indicating when the next bus will come. I have tons of ideas on how to improve local bus service. Those improvements can only do so much and it is my experience that transit systems work better if there is a core high capacity system (rail) that smaller local bus routes feed into.

Would the quarter-cent sales tax pay for all the light rail you want, AND all of these other things? It's all fine and well to advocate for something. But what will you advocate for on a budget?

Rail on a bad day has been better for me than buses on any day.

Then perhaps bus service requires improvement. We should examine that as a possible alternative, wouldn't you say?

Was it even possible to spend the federal money on those things? Wasn't the money allocated specifically for the rail project? Is the federal government likely to give the same millions for LRT BRT vanpooling?

Federal funding is available for BRT and vanpool programs. It was also made available for the Woodlands Waterway water taxi. I think that it's most important that we just know what we want and are asking for from our congressional delegation and that they be on board with the idea.

Makes no sense. The cost per rider would be too high to justify it. Just because something is larger doesn't mean it's more efficient. Ridership has to be there for it to be efficient. And riderhsip would't be there on an A380 flight to college station.

Obviously, yes. You missed the sarcasm in a response not directed at you.

No that's not what I said. When did I say the number of seats per vehicle? Did you actually read my post? Address my point and don't put words in my mouth.

You speak in vagaries. If I misunderstand what you mean to say, it's your problem not mine.

LOL, alright big guy. I already told you that I have not done your analyses that you came up with and therefore I do not know the answer to your question. Can you give me a straightforward answer to your own question?

No, and that's why I'm winning the argument.

My argument is that questions should be asked, so I'm asking questions. Your argument is that you want something more or less specific to come about, but you can't explain why (except in vagaries).

Hmmmm so explain why you think that investing in buses would improve our transit system. Where is the proof that investing and beefing up the bus system would generate the same ridership and have the same positive externalities as light rail? I don't deny that ridership would improve, but I'm skeptical that it would increase at the same rate as it would with rail, and I am also skeptical that it would have the same positive externalities that rail does. Convince me that buses can do that, and provide examples.

No. A career could be built upon that endeavor. Its not my job to develop a specific system-wide plan for optimization across five dimensions (space, time, budget). That is the subject of this thread, and you are off topic.

Uh ok. I am opposing you in this case because you don't believe that light rail (or rail in general for that matter) works in Houston and I disagree. You also oppose giving METRO more funding and I also disagree with that too. I am straightforwardly answering your questions and addressing your points.

Accross the world, rail is proven to carry more riders and have more of an impact than a bus line. This is purely an observation of mine looking at ridership numbers, and efficiency numbers. It has nothing to do with what mode of transit is 'cooler' than the other or which one I personally prefer (although I admit I personally prefer riding rail over buses due to personal experience).

You are mischaracterizing my input and are not addressing my points. I think that light rail can work in a limited capacity in Houston, but not if we carry forward as it has been implemented to date. It will not always work in every instance along every alignment or in any configuration. And moreover, it performs differently in different cities. But again, my point is that we should seek system optimization; not that there should be light rail or BRT or water taxis or whatever.

I propose that any additional funding for METRO should be tied to reforms within its organization and to its charter. I say this because I have increasingly come to believe that METRO is obsolete as an entity. A regional transportation authority should be considered, perhaps under the umbrella of H-GAC or as its own separate entity. In either case, its leadership should be voted for by constituents. And since the effects of efficient transportation are directly influenced by land value, I would also suggest that such an organization should receive non-farebox revenue through property taxation of the land value component of appraised property values.

Let me ask you something. Why did you try to take the light rail home? Why was it your first thought to go to a light rail station as opposed to a bus stop? I'm sure that you could get home using a bus.

I was on foot downtown and I live in the Museum District area. I was exhausted and it was there, albeit nonfunctional. I've ridden it twice this year because that's about how frequently I travel back and forth between destinations on the route. And besides, I usually just prefer to walk, get the exercise, and not pay. I'd rather buy better beer (then walk it off) than buy better transit...even if the fare is already massively subsidized.

I define efficiency as the ability to carry more riders at a lower cost per rider. That's a simple and widely used definition.

The number of seats on wheels irrespective of ridership, distance, velocity, frequency, or systemic impacts, eh? That is a simple definition. But very well then. How much capacity would've been brought to muster had we invested the capital and operating costs of LRT in local buses, BRT, or vanpooling?

Can you give me a straightforward answer? No. And that's why I'm winning the argument.

I am a proponent of analysis, of asking questions as a matter of strategic public policy wherein the optimal outcome might be vanpools instead of light rail, or light rail instead of water taxis, but wherein the project is presented as a system rather than as a route, and wherein proposed uses of funds are understood in the context of financing sources that are lawful and realistic. (This is a stance that is consistent with the topic of this thread.)

You are an apologist for your technology, and therefore you oppose me. You do this by using a multitude of red herrings to steer threads off-topic and into a dark place. If one of your red herrings doesn't stick, then no worries...there are a half dozen more that surely will appeal to someone. And so the conversation devolves into the most simplistic of drivel...and lots of it. You're an LRT troll. Troll, begone!