TheNiche

Quite a few? Any such buildings of significance could probably be counted on one hand. And as for the parking lots...you know, I kind of define the edge of downtown according to where the buildings are, not where the buildings aren't...even if some vacant land is encompassed by the same inconsequential freeway loop. (After all, when we think of the inner loop, nobody thinks of the tank farm north of McCarty and south of the North Loop as qualifying for that designation. Ever heard of Pleasantville? That's inner-loop, too. Did you know?)

Yeah, I'm sure of it. This is my pipe dream. The funny thing is that if you replace the gas tax with a congestion-priced toll, then gas prices appear to go down and people spend less time sitting in congestion, thereby lowering their out-of-pocket costs and saving them their time (even before they realize the effect of market-priced infrastructure and begin factoring in the full cost of a commute into their lifestyle). It works out in so many ways... Oh well... Each segment of roadway would generate a stream of revenue. A regional transportation authority could own it and administer congestion pricing, then, once the process has been established and stabilized and a revenue-appropriate MTFP agreed upon, the rights to those streams of revenue could be sold off to private investors. I'd suggest that those rights be limited to something like ten-year increments, but bids could be solicited for many different terms; we'd sell to the bidder with the highest spread between our forecasted rate of return and returns on treasury securities. As for rural Texas, if there will no doubt be many roads for which revenue cannot possibly match the costs--at any pricing scheme. When there aren't bidders, the state should yield responsibility for upkeep to the counties. (I do think that there are many rural highways that should never have been paved. Gravel should've been well enough.) ----------------- Kinkaid, why didn't you look over where I specifically identified there being a problem in the afternoons, at Fannin & 610? Why didn't you look at Almeda & OST this morning? Subdude, since there is no coherent proposal, I stick with the theory that traffic congestion exists in certain places at certain times (as is my direct observation), that that is generally undesirable, and that a study of the circumstances and the alternatives would be worthwhile. Also--I actually quite like the idea of a toll road through Memorial Park, properly implemented...meaning that it'd probably be very expensive, and probably wouldn't fly. It's still an alternative worth thinking about.

I really don't care how much traffic there is. If the cost of the infrastructure will be paid for directly by users and can be externally financed, then by all means, build it. THAT should require a referendum. But...yes, and I'd even be willing to implement that idea as it pertains to surface thoroughfares. This would replace the gas tax (and then some). I believe that it would encourage commuters and companies to adopt more flexible schedules, spread out the peak traffic load, encourage carpooling, bicycling, walking, and transit use, and the geographic matching-up of workplaces with households in terms of distance. If you stop socializing the high cost of transportation, people will live more efficiently. But the other part of it is that by defining each segments within the regional Major Thoroughfare & Freeway Plan as individual candidates for toll financing, a HUGE amount of money could be raised very quickly from the private sector. I'd like to see that money put into as an endowment managed by the state and allocated to the localities impacted by the toll conversion on the pro rata basis of revenue. Let the localities figure out what they want to do with the money. Perhaps they want transit, perhaps they want parks, perhaps they want flood control improvements, perhaps they want aid for the poor, perhaps they want lower taxes. Whatever. Different parts of Texas have different priorities; it should be up to them.

Honestly, I'm confused about this too. On multiple levels. This was not a very clear article, and it goes against my understanding of toll road finance. (Not that I couldn't be wrong or anything. Its happened before.) And please don't construe my statement about infrastructure as only applying to highways. It could just as easily apply to light rail lines, water line replacements, or flood control projects. Financial analysts have to make quantitative estimates to justify a project. Sometimes they get it very wrong. I'd like to see HCTRA changed up a little so that each toll facility is operated and financed independently as separate bankruptable entities, whereby the risk is isolated and obtaining external financing requires the harsh scrutiny of an investor exposed to project-specific risks. On the one hand, I think that that would increase HCTRA's cost of capital; on the other, it would make their analyses more trustworthy relative to an entity that is financially backed-up by the entire county's tax base. As for referendums, I question their appropriateness in many many circumstances. Unless we're fundamentally changing a system of governance, I'd much rather leave these kinds of decisions to elected officials.

I still feel like we're not speaking the same language. (Never mind that the word "putrid" is a rhetorically loaded word strongly implying an offensive olfactory sensation, and was inappropriate in that context.) You're telling me that I always find a way to leave the status quo, and yet you seem intent on aligning me with establishment figures, "dinosaurs," like Bob Lanier. Isn't that a contradiction? In the same spirit of things, I could turn around and label fixed-guideway rail-based transit as being a "dinosaur" technology, declare Park & Ride service, HOV/HOT lanes, and vanpooling as innovative and successful projects that have been spearheaded by a forward-thinking budget-conscious METRO. And actually, that is my opinion. I do not pretend that mine is a popular opinion (and it certainly is not very sexy, as these things go), however it is also not one that a lot of people have considered or researched. Nevertheless, it is an opinion that I would promote as being worthy of consideration. So let us consider it. What's so wrong with having a discussion? What's wrong with weighing the options? What's wrong with educating ourselves regarding public finance and attempting to quantify and optimize the burdens of taxation?

"Either you're with us or you're against us." -George W. Bush ------------------ This is a logical fallacy called a false bifurcation (or sometimes, false choice). There is a third way; there is also a fourth way, a fifth way, and so on to the nth way. Ordinary people want lots of things. It's good to want things. The hard part is balancing what is wanted with what can be afforded, and also the mechanism by way of which it will be afforded. (Property taxes have hugely distortional impacts, after all.) Public finance is a poorly understood subject matter. Debates are worth having. If we just impulsively and hedonistically approved everything we wanted, it wouldn't last very long. Greece has national sovereignty that the City of Houston does not; and even Greece eventually gets its come-up'ins.

I would respectfully disagree. There was congestion. The TMC has grown since then (both up and out). Aside from the Cambridge bridge, there are no new roads. (To be clear, I lived there both during the construction of light rail and after it began operating.) Therefore, I would think that there should be more congestion. This logic should be fairly straightforward. Perhaps our disagreement relates to what is a reasonable or unreasonable amount of congestion. To that end, I would suggest that an unreasonable amount of congestion exists when people caught in the congestion become willing to pay out of their own pockets for infrastructure to abate congestion and the externalities generated by that infrastructure. I would think that the value of the externality caused by cutting through Hermann Park would be extraordinary and insurmountable, however (instead of going on a tirade against developers and commuters, the 'nefarious other') I am suggesting alternative alignments (to an alignment that none of us has actually seen). By statute, neither TxDOT or any other transportation agency can be granted revenues generated from a toll road except to the extent that HCTRA can quantify that a third-party agency's project would improve the marketability of the toll road such that it would generate additional revenue in excess of the revenue signed over to the other transportation agency. HCTRA is also not as limited in terms of their budget because they use revenue-backed bond financing to pay for the up-front capital costs. TxDOT does not have that option, and so their budget is far more constrained and their priorities must reflect that. HCTRA has learned a thing or two about the folly of building spokes that parallel easy alternatives. It's true that they are not infallible, but that is a criticism that would apply to any transportation agency. The possibility of making an error in judgment is not an excuse to give up on the development of Houston's infrastructure.

Are we even speaking the same language? To simply characterize people as pro-transit or anti-transit strikes me as an exaggerated misnomer, a sinister element of rhetoric. There's more to it than that. Likewise, the word vendetta implies revenge-seeking behavior. I wasn't there, but when I've been to similar events, I'm more likely to describe input (from both sides) as "concerned" with valences for "reasonable/unreasonable" or "passionate/dispassionate". This kind of rhetoric concerns me deeply. It signals that we're to a point where one or both sides have characterized the opposition as inherently unworthy of consideration, that it has more to do with winning the argument or saving face than with being correct in the first place. ----------------------- On a slightly off-topic note, I've seen these same attitudes crop up on HAIF and Swamplot lately, as well as within my own professional discourse, wherein people have become polarized and defensive toward their way of life. On here, its usually affluent urbanites that resent suburbanites; offline, rural residents are resentful of urbanites. Suburbanites are a mixed bag. Some of them are quite uppity and socially cloistered; others just live where they do because it provides them an affordable lifestyle that would be unaffordable to them in the City and unavailable to them in the countryside. These are just my observations. Your mileage may vary. But that's not the point. The point is, there are all kinds of different people with all kinds of perspectives. But we all pay taxes, we all have a say, we all can have flashes of brilliance and reason, and we are all subject to human frailties. We all try to make the best of our circumstances within the scope of what we know and how we feel. I would hope that as we have these discussions, we can all try to understand where the other person is coming from, drop the defensiveness, narcissism, and toxic rhetoric, and try to relate to each other to arrive at some kind of reasonable and equitable compromise. It isn't even as though such a compromise has to be wholly distributive. Granted, there are dishonest people and special interests seeking to usurp property rights and the democratic process. There are also highly effective trolls lurking in the darkness. (The Heights Wal-Mart thread and the Ashby thread come to mind.) Let them speak. Shine the harsh light of reason and truth upon them. They shall wither and melt away. They can only win, however, when people become so highly polarized that the arguments become personal, and not real. There's been so much controversy in the past couple of years, I'm afraid that damage has been done to that balance of things. And frustratingly, I'm not sure how to heal these wounds.

What do you suppose their holding costs would've been for enduring each additional month of litigation? Sounds to me like they just needed to remove this additional barrier to the project getting financed and moving forward. And besides, how many of these kinds of lawsuits actually go to trial? I'm betting, not many. Trials are extraordinarily expensive and the outcomes can be risky and unpredictable for both parties, with the outcomes subject to appeal by either party and creating situations wherein there exist contingent liabilities for many many years. Coming to a negotiated settlement is usually preferable to that, whether guilt is an issue or not. (If that offends your sense of justice, BTW, then you're certainly not alone. But the alternatives suck, too.)

Your noxious rhetoric reminds me of anti-semetic propagandistic political cartoons from a century ago. The concept of the 'other' always seems abnormal.

I've never had occasion to be caught in congestion on the Woodlands Parkway in the morning, but I am satisfied that it exists because people tell me it does. Consequently, I am hesitant to second-guess efforts (or at least the preference) to alleviate the congestion. So, I just told you that congestion is an issue. I described where and how; it is a problem in some places, not as much in others. That right there is evidence that congestion exists. It can be hard for a fashionable affluent opinion-leading city-dweller to even notice it; those people just aren't going to live near the Astrodome or along other inconvenient approaches; but that doesn't mean anything, either. From your response, I am led to believe that either you did not read through the thread before commenting or you simply do not trust me. Either way, that's asinine. And especially considering that this would be a toll facility paid for with user fees! If externalities are not your concern and people are willing to put their money where their mouth is, then get out of the way.

Wait a second... Is the proposal that a tollway should be built within the floodway of Brays Bayou? That would actually be a fairly interesting proposal. That'd be a fairly interesting concept, adding to stormwater throughput, detention capacity, and increasing speeds while reducing road noise through the area.

In the long long ago, when I lived off of Holly Hall and had morning classes at UH, I would have to put up with congestion along Almeda up until OST, where the signal thinned it out. Using Cambridge as a work-around to Almeda and then crossing 288 using Dixie, I could bypass a lot of the congestion. But...there was congestion, even then. Another bad spot was trying to go outbound on Fannin to get on westbound 610. The at-grade light rail crossing disrupts a right-hand turn and causes backups in the afternoon. A flyover would be appropriate right there. But this was when the TMC was smaller. I'm sure that it's worse now, even if KinkaidAlum doesn't experience it where he happens to live because the signals have thinned out the volume of traffic at that point. It's nothing personal against him, though. I'm sure that there are congestion points that I wasn't aware of when I lived there due to my own commuting patterns. I don't think that it is necessarily fair to say that there isn't a problem. I witnessed it myself. The TMC has grown since then. It will continue growing. All other things remaining constant, I can't imagine any outcome other than that there should be more congestion. To that end, I don't particularly care who is backing ideas to improve commuter access to the TMC. I don't have anything against suburbanites or land owners in Brazoria County. I just want to make sure that the TMC can retain its competitive edge and continue to grow within the central city, being a desirable place for as many people as is practical to work and to seek treatment.

I'm going to suggest some middle ground, here. What if there were flyover ramps from 610 to Fannin and/or Cambridge that were fed from both directions of 610 with another direct ramp from 288 northbound? Then, one more flyover ramp from southbound 288 to OST & Holcombe. I think that improving freeway-to-street connectivity to these four thoroughfares (Fannin/Cambridge/OST/Holcombe) could be done affordably enough and with minimal impacts to urban amenities, and that it would certainly help TMC commuters get to the biggest parking facilities more expeditiously. It would also help keep traffic from backing up from surface streets onto freeways, so that'd be good in general for anybody that has to use the freeways to get pretty much anywhere at all (city-dwellers and suburbanites, alike). This may require some modification to each thoroughfare, too, just to keep them flowing. In time, I think that underpasses similar to those along Holcombe at Main and Fannin could be built that would be helpful (although personally, I prefer the scale of the Wayside & Lawndale underpass). If we did that for Fannin and Cambridge at Holly Hall and OST, and just for Fannin at Braeswood, that'd do wonders. And the same could be done for OST and Holcombe at Almeda. Like it or not, I think that city-dwellers must understand that we need commuters. If traffic gets too bad and impacts their quality of life, then we'll lose out on employment growth to the suburbs. Likewise, when traffic created by them is that bad, it detracts from our quality of life. It's not something that we can just ignore without suffering these dual implications. If toll roads are a mechanism by way of which they can pay for their own infrastructure, then that's just awesome. The impacts of accommodating traffic shouldn't have to be that insufferable.

The idea of one or more direct connectors to the TMC is not inherently objectionable and would probably be embraced by most people. On the other hand, approaches from the north or east would certainly impact Hermann Park or other sensitive areas of the city. An approach from the south would be the easiest, but lengthy. I doubt that there is any alignment that will be without protest. On some level, we all know that this should happen. But where and how?

Yes, that's it. It's being retrofitted in some kind of a medical office venture. Had lots of deferred maintenance.

Dallas' Victory teaches us that it is possible for a development to have retail, a stadium, high-end hotels, expensive architectural finishes, high operating costs, and still be bland.

Los Angeles is the best example there is of where Houston is headed, but it is only a fair comparison whereas all others are poor or very poor. The only great comparison to Houston is an extrapolation that is somewhat linear, I think. We will grow upward and outward and in every direction. Los Angeles was hemmed in by mountains and the sea; our barriers are trivial by comparison. But there's something about Los Angeles. Did it actually achieve greatness, or was it merely the intersection of geography and climate that thrust greatness upon it? Perhaps there is nothing we can do but to sit back, enjoy a beer, and watch.

I don't have the slightest clue what specific restaurants or stores are planned. However, I am forever amazed at the resilience of Houston's restaurant scene. I don't buy anchor-worthy status, but they're doing well. (Was at Hay Merchant, then Underbelly on Monday; both were doing exceptionally well. And on a Monday.) I'm sure that there's an upward limit on what can be supported, but it may take a commodities price bust to discover it.

I'm pretty sure that I am the target of the "bully" comment. I don't mind, of course. I stand by my criticism as being constructive. I'm not completely sure of his vision or purpose, but that's just the thing. The message was ineffective. By tweaking his content and presentation, the message can become more cogent and effective. Of course, if no lesson is learned and future videos are posted in the same style, I'll either stop watching them (which probably is not his intent because he's bothering to make them in the first place) or I'll watch them and get annoyed because my time is being wasted.

I've encountered some recent speculation that due to a shortage of land in the northwest submarket (the largest industrial submarket in town), opportunities for the development of bulk warehouse space have become exceedingly limited. The few parcels that are left just aren't large enough or aren't priced right, putting them in more of a situation where service centers and even low-rise office buildings are better suited. And as you go out along US 290, most of the large tracts are either spoken for and slated for residential and shopping centers. And besides, US 290 is so congested that it is no longer that desirable of an amenity. Hines seems to have bet on the north Beltway 8 area. McCord has put their money on the northeast Beltway 8 area. And then there's Cedar Crossing Industrial Park in western Chambers County, which petered out a number of years back. I suspect that the southern sector of Tomball ISD and the northern sector of Katy ISD may capture some of these facilities once the Grand Parkway is completed, however probably not many because those areas have no rail service and so they are less likely to develop industrial agglomerations. The area of south Waller County that's right along I-10 might also be a contender. It has rail service and some developmental momentum in the vicinity of Igloo Road. But...it's really far out there. For my money...I'd think that Hines and McCord made a solid bet with Beltway 8. Anybody else have thoughts? Are there realistic opportunities in the southern sector to create an industrial agglomeration? Are east and northeast submarkets really so undesirable and far-removed that employers would pass them over? (I ask because the other side of the coin is that these facilities will influence where people live. Office buildings in the urban core are not our only venue for employment.)

I don't have the same problems that you do (maybe its your settings?), but I agree that it has peaked in popularity in the United States market. Can't speak for international markets. For lack of a viable competitor, it is monopolistically buffered from the chilling effect of its many blunders. The quantity of user data that Facebook has is vast. They know ridiculously too much about a huge number of people. Their largest problem is that they have so poorly deployed that data to its advertisers as a means of enhancing their value proposition. Consequently, I have recently-married friends complaining that they're overwhelmed with ads for dating websites, etc. I see the same ads, however that would be appropriate. I am the target market, not them. Shareholders would probably do well to install a new management team. Then, inside of six to twelve months, I would expect to see a huge re-vamping of the guts of Facebook. (Or perhaps I won't notice any direct changes, merely their indirect effects.) It's about monetizing the user database, and I'm sure that it can be done. The Facebook IPO was a great opportunity to short sell. It may still be, as confidence in its business model continues to erode. But confidence is a fickle thing. Watch for a resurgence at some point next year.

Nailed it.

Yeah, I had been looking at how many restaurant pre-leases there are in the project. It seems like a red flag. I've heard retail brokers talk about how stunning it was when they realized that a restaurant can serve as an anchor store...but I think that they're full o' crap, personally. Brokers can be like that. It's in their job description. On the one hand, West Ave is the superior development. On the other hand, OliverMcMillan probably doesn't need West Ave exit caps to make this project worthwhile in the first place. I just hope that they don't sell themselves short on apartments and office space...but especially apartments.

If it's the older portion that is spalling, then it's pretty much par for the course. It's just what reinforced concrete does, eventually. If it's the newer stuff, then there's no excuse for that.