Big E

First of all, before I address JClark's post directly, some corrections and clarifications. I did in fact locate the NHHIP website and, via said website, the most up to date schematics. Based on those schematics: 1. The Leland crossover has in fact been turned into a two way crossover, vs. the one way it currently is. The second crossing leading into Bell Street has been removed, but the reason for that is... 2. There is now a freeway offramp leading off of I-69 that directly connects to Bell Street, thus giving direct freeway access to downtown. This is the real reason that one can no longer go from Leland directly to Bell. 3. I was mistaken and there is no crossover as Dallas. However, instead of that, the crossover at Lamar has a dedicated U-Turn lane, so traffic coming down Polk can easily U-turn at the Lamar crossover and continue on to Polk without having to sit at an additional light (assuming there is no light at the Dallas junction, which there shouldn't be since Dallas only meets on one side). Thus, connectivity between Polk on both sides is preserved. What I'm telling you is that there is no Eastbound traffic on Polk past Avenida. Most eastbound traffic heading into EaDo already defaults to Leland unless its specifically coming down Avenida, based on downtown street patters. So, for Eastbound traffic in most of downtown, nothing really changes. Traffic coming down Avenida can just take Jackson down to Leland, which is only three blocks. Westbound traffic can use the new crossover at Lamar to reach Polk with minimal difficulty. In other words, the actual inconvenience to local traffic is minimal. This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

Ok, so, instead of scouring the internet for the schematics, I decided to go back and take a look at the 3D presentation of the NHHIP that TxDOT posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUFK6KcBbGA Its six years old at this point, but I don't think any drastic changes have been made to the project since to render it obsolete in regards to the portion of the project we are talking about. Going by that video, yes the crossover at Polk is being removed. Also being removed are the crossovers at Ruiz and Runnels. But, according to that schematic, new crossovers are being added at the streets that run between Polk and Rusk (Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker). This will be achieved by extending Hamilton around the back of the convention center and cantilevering it over the freeway, thus reconnecting the two disconnected portions of that road and creating one long continuous frontage road, and the new crossovers will tie into that road, with the freeway cap being built between the crossovers. So, for the connectivity that is lost, new connectivity is gained. @JClark54 One thing that bothers me about your claims regarding Polk, however. You claim that the loss of this road will negatively effect traffic. But Polk is a one-way street going westbound when it runs downtown beyond Avenida. So anyone trying to go Eastbound, back into EaDo will have to take Leland regardless, unless they specifically come down Avenida. Most of the traffic probably already defaults to Leland for that reason alone. The only people who will be possibly inconvenienced will be those who crossing from EaDo to downtown, but by the time they have to make the decision, the train tracks are a non-factor. Firstly, you appear to be correct that the Leland-Bell connection is removed, but this may be mitigated if the new Leland crossing carries traffic in both directions; the only thing that would be lost would be a direct connection to Bell. And regardless if it doesn't, it's further mitigated by the fact that the Pease Street crossing remains, allowing one to still crossover into downtown, while a new connection is added at Dallas, allowing traffic to crossover and come back down to Bell or Polk. Second, whether you personally consider the Preston connection "useless" is irrelevant. It is a connection between Downtown and EaDo and it will remain after construction is finished. Third, I doubt you are more "in tune" with the effects of this project anymore than anyone else here, regardless of whether or not you even live close to the area. Anyone can look at what's added, what's lost, and come to their own conclusions about this project.

I looked at a map. No I haven't actually checked the most recent schematics.

St. Joseph Parkway Jefferson Street Pease Street Leland Street Bell Street/Westbound portion of Leland Polk Street Rusk Street Capital Street Texas Avenue Preston Street Congress Street Franklin Street Commerce Street Ruiz Street Runnels Street That's 15 cross streets. Not 10. I said "Assuming your correct", genius. I didn't concede anything. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

That top parcel actually is owned by a developer that was planning a massive development, but they've not done any major work there, and nobody's seen any current plans.

Considering the close distance between the two cities, its not even remotely economical to build high speed rail there unless it was was part of the large Texas Central Project, and was merely a connector between the Dallas-Houston route and a theoretical Forth Worth-San Antonio route, linking the two main stations together on a single trip to create a "loop" between the cities involved. Just building the connector alone would make no sense.

The only thing I said is that I didn't bother to double check your claim. Since you bothered to dispute the point, I considered that you were responding in good faith, so if I was going to clap back on it, I would have brought up the schematics and either conceded the point, or pointed out you were wrong, Simple as. Since I didn't have time to confirm one or another, I didn't concede or dispute the point. Don't get your panties in a twist. Been a long time since I looked at the plans. Assuming you're correct, its possible I simply forgot or overlooked the fact that Polk was closed. Oh gosh, I missed that a single street will be closed out to the 15 cross streets that cross under I-69 between the bayou and the interchange with I-45. Sue me. You claimed that traffic would be pushed onto Leland with the closure of Polk's crossover at I-69, necessitating them dealing with the rail crossing. This is simply not true. For local traffic, nothing functionally changes regarding whether or not they can take Leland or Polk due to the train tracks. The exact same configuration that currently exists there will continue to exist. The only change will be that you can't take Polk itself between downtown and EaDo, which would require a minor detour at best. Local traffic is already aware of the crossings in the area, and if they really want or need to detour down Polk, they will still be able to do so effortlessly. Non-local traffic will most like use a Map app, like Google maps, navigate. If a train is idling or holding up traffic on Leland, their app will redirect them to Polk. Otherwise, they might very well simply default to Polk. Either way, there's literally no material difference for either local or non-local traffic in regards to the streets, outside the loss of the crossover. They are the same either way, and the same problem of non-local traffic getting caught by a train at Leland persists regardless. The real answer to this issue would be to put an underpass at Leland similar to the one at Polk. Not even sure if that's doable. If these problems already exists and persist, then the loss of the crossover at Polk won't matter much either way; the problem is already a known and persistent one, and will be a known and persistent problem whether or not the crossover at Polk is removed. Either way, its the loss of one street out of the many that crossover, assuming it is in fact removed by the project.

I did not dispute the fact that Polk would be closed in my follow up statement, and in fact, I didn't even address your claim that Polk would be closed because I did not actually check the design plans to see if your claim about Polk being closed was even true. What I did address was your actually erroneous claim that traffic would be forced to use the rail crossing at Leland instead of crossing under at Polk, which just isn't true. And why wouldn't non-local traffic make the jaunt from Polk to Leland or vice versa? Nothing is stopping them from doing so, just like nothing is stopping them now. Its literally a difference of a few blocks.

Polk and Leland are literally only a few blocks from each other. The rail crossings are like half a mile's worth of blocks away from downtown. Traffic can still take Polk under the tracks, then cross to Leland at any of the other cross streets.

Its going to be a nightmare either way because there will be years of construction. Using the expanded footprint in the East End just lowers the amount of disruption to local traffic and streets. Connectivity in the East End will not be negatively effected; all currently existing cross streets will remain after the realignment and sinking of the freeway. The lack of connectivity doesn't come from the existence of the current highway, but from the existence of the convention center and Toyota Center. They aren't going anywhere, hence, the lack of connectivity isn't going anywhere, no matter what TxDOT does. Have you considered the fact that it would cost more to double decker the freeway? Or the fact that they would have to tear down the Pierce elevated and completely rebuild it regardless because its at the end of its service life, adding even more to the cost? Have you considered the added cost and difficulty to bury the freeway in place without disrupting the existing freeway and road traffic above? I'm sure TxDOT have actually considered all of those options. There is a reason they are going with the option they going with now.

Seriously. Fact of the matter is, there is limited space to actually work with due the Pierce Elevated being sandwiched between major development. It would be a nightmare to work in the current corridor, not even getting to the issue that because the street network is still very much intact underneath the Pierce Elevated, they would have to workaround not messing with traffic on the both the highway and the cross streets while they work on it, or the difficulties they would face trying to rebuild the interchange with I-69/TX-288. There was a lack of development in the East End, making land acquisition, clearance, and construction easier, and the street network was already broken due to the presence of the Toyota Center and the Convention Center, meaning not as many cross streets to worry about, and rebuilding the interchange would be easier.

If Texas Central is still committed to using Shinkansen, they'd have to use their own lines anyway, making it a moot point. I don't see Amtrak building any new trackage in Texas.

Great. The sooner they finish this, the sooner they can get started on the others.

Considering the age of the Toyota Center itself, Tillman may consider moving himself. Though I would consider this proposal in particular an attempt to woo an NHL franchise, like the floundering Arizona Coyotes.

No business would agree to give up a portion of their profits (twice, since they would have to appease both organizations) to operate a business that going to be in the middle of a no mans land ocean of parking lots 80% of the time, and then wouldn't even be able to operate during game days or the Rodeo because neither of the two tenants would ever okay them disrupting their operations. There's no boon in it for any potential tenant. That's why no private group has ever attempted to do anything with the Astrodome.

It definitely should be demolished. But I don't see anything requiring year round parking being built here because it would interfere with parking and such for the stadium and convention center, which the rodeo and Texans would definitely say no to. More than likely, it would just be redeveloped as more parking lot. However, doing so might allow some of the outer parking farther away from the main structures to be redeveloped.

Would you care as much if Houston had just annexed The Woodlands already like it was supposed to? I'll go out on a limb and agree with others in that: a) There won't be a follow up hotel portion because The Woodlands is so far away from everything else in the Greater Houston era it makes no sense to put such a posh brand there. If they were building a hotel, it would either go downtown or in Uptown. b) The building design is nothing to write home about.

Most of that is older office space, a lot which probably hasn't been renovated recently. Big companies like Chevron tend to build their own spaces for their workers, because they want newer, top of the line office space for their employees to draw top talent. Older buildings built in the 80s won't cut it.

According to information posted by @august948 in the abandoned Astrodome thread, that proposal is just part of some annual competition that held to reimagine old structures. No sign that this is actually any kind of serious proposal.

Because any attempted redevelopment of the Astrodome is immediately vetoed by both the Texans and the Rodeo, the two biggest tenants. Its been that way for years.

Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out why the street abandonment is even necessary. This appears to be a car centric, suburban development, not a large mixed use or office park style development. Why even have the ped street at all?

Pretty sure that small piece on the northern part of the Platinum Parking block was sold. Its set to be part of the Discovery West development. One of the two remaining towers will be built there.

Something like this wouldn't be in writing. Its one of those things they tell you off the books, since they can't officially demand anything be done with the dome. But they can make it clear to those with power to do something about it that the league just won't consider Houston in the future. Plenty of other places to host Super Bowls; it doesn't have to be held in Houston again. And none of those ideas went anywhere. Any business that wants to open up there will get vetoed by the Texans and Rodeo, because they don't want something there that will compete with them for space. Its what killed every other revenue generating proposal. Neither the Texans nor the Rodeo have shown any interest in doing anything with the dome themselves. Doubt they'd back somebody else doing anything either.

Just two stories? Yeah, lost interest in this one.

What you are failing to understand is that far more people drive cars than take transit. And most people really have no problem with driving and don't necessarily want an alternative. The weight of government spending will always go to the most used method. Everybody pays for roads because everybody uses them. Even many forms of transit (like buses and trolleys) use them. Hence the majority of money that goes into transportation goes into road maintenance. Its not a zero sum game, but their is a limited pool of funds, so governments have to prioritize. Those are your personal feelings, but the fact is, you represent a distinct minority. No, that makes me a normal human being. I want things that I will use to be well be funded and don't necessarily care to fund things I won't use or need. That's how the majority of people think. Hell, its how YOU think. I have no problem putting some money towards things like buses or trains. But I sure as hell don't want my taxes to go up to fund something I will never use or will never benefit me or my community directly. Frankly, I think such things should be funded primarily by ridership fares. The people who actually use the service should pay for its upkeep. And if people really want to use these things, they will more than pay for themselves.