Jump to content

004n063

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,022

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 004n063

  1. 004n063
    It can also be pretty inefficient. This in conjunction with the Kinder project definitely moves the needle forward in terms of trail access on both sides of the bayou, but we also need to keep pushing for street-level bicycle facilities in the area. The Jensen bridge, Runnels, Commerce, Navigation, Canal, Harrisburg, and Milby could all do with some separation. (And pedestrian improvements in general).
  2. 004n063
    Oooh I love this question! All day-to-day needs and robust, frequent transit within a safe and comfortable five-minute walk.
  3. 004n063
    That's a really deep setback. Are they planning on building anything in that space between the building and Middle Street?
  4. 004n063
    Don't get me wrong - there's no shortage of bad zoning out there, and organic growth would be the ideal form for any city. But I think in a Houston that's already where it is in terms of car-centric insanity, a purely market-driven approach is very unlikely to undo the damage, at least in any of our lifetimes. I'm not convinced that public intervention is inherently hopeless.
  5. 004n063
    So they have the capacity to cite unpermitted work, but not to reduce the permit backlog? Make it make sense.
  6. 004n063
    Are we sure it's still mixed use? I thought that part went cold?
  7. 004n063
    Is it moving to Montrose or something? Why is Downtown so close?
  8. 004n063
    I think the combination of bad regulations with no zoning an minimal long-term planning cements that inertia, though.
  9. 004n063
    Right, but: >The aim was to “improve traffic flow,” This is clearly what took precedence, and as traffic engineers refuse to recognize, this is and always will be in direct conflict with safety. High speeds are the problem. This is gobbledygook: >“Upon completion, Metro’s chief safety officer determined the design did not provide the safest environment for bus passengers or others on the road,” she said. “The safety hazards could not be ignored, and safety will always dictate how we move forward,” Jackson said. They provided no evidence whatsoever of its being hazardous to bus passengers, but if that had been the issue, then bollards, signage, a raised pedestrian access point, and a proper shelter would have been the solution. There's also no evidence of its being hazardous to cyclists, though as the marks indicate, there's plenty of evidence if its being much-needed protection. It's hazardous to the tires and bumpers of reckless drivers. As it - and all street design, frankly - should be. Cutting a corner or turning too fast, looking at your phone or otherwise losing focus while driving, etc. - these ARE the hazards, and by trying to allow people to mostly get away with them without a (literal) scratch is why our streets are so dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
  10. 004n063
    I get that. And I'm not complaining. But there are a lot of destinations along Memorial, including both parks. The street itself is not at all safe for biking, and the sidewalk isn't much better. Personally, I think both are justified. A straightline route along Memorial from Downtown to Uptown would be very useful.
  11. 004n063
    But it wasn't a mistake. Read the article - everything drivers were complaining about was exactly the point. Drivers felt compressed because they were accustomed to traveling too fast on Heights and, especially, cutting the corner (aka the bike lane) in their right turns. The black marks on the curb demonstrate the danger of its absence. Sometimes - always, actually - making drivers feel like they're doing something dangerous is a good thing.
  12. 004n063
    Apparently the plan is to install a curb-protected bike lane instead? Fine, I guess. But part of what was good about the floating bus stop was that it prevented a fast or corner-cutting turns (i.e into the bike lane) from 11th onto Heights. Supposedly a few drivers bumped into the bus stop doing just that, and complained. Not sure why the response wasn't "Thank you for confirming that the design works!"
  13. 004n063
    Couldn't you just widen the sidewalk and keep it "elevated" to curb level across all intersections? Continuous sidewalks, continuous bike paths.
  14. 004n063
    The points I'm making are that - 1) you're more likely to get those 2-4min frequencies (like in Vancouver's automated skytrain) with an automated system because you don't have to worry about staffing logistics or costs (not to anywhere near the same degree, anyway); and 2) changing the exterior experience of the vehicle will have very little impact on the rider's experience. An actual train that runs on smooth rails with overhead electirification is obviously much more comfortable. But this doesn't do that. I spend over an hour a day on the #25 bus route, and trust me - there's one problem with the comfort of buses that stands out waaaaay above any others: the roads.
  15. 004n063
    I mean I agree. And the only kind of transit vehicle that has proven reliably automatable is a train. But while I also agree that trains are just inherently cooler than buses, I don't think that's nearly as much of a factor as frequency, reliability, and relative advantage over other modes. Simply looking like a tram doesn't do much in any of those departments, especially compared to the METRORapid buses that are already bike-on-board. Automation makes it so that you can do things like increase frequency without having to hire more people. Also reduces human error, which lowers maintenence costs.
  16. 004n063
    That seems backwards to me. Automation makes service and reliability improvements much easier to accomplish. Having the shape/look of a train does...nothing?
  17. 004n063
    Are they planning on keeping that giant surface parking lot forever? Feels kinda pointless to build a skinny highrise if you're still gonna have a huge footprint like that...
  18. 004n063
    It could be a lot worse. There's no surface parking, there's street-level engagement, the footprint is less than a full block, it's walking distance from a red line stop, and it adds density and helps mitigate the inflation of older housing stock. That said, the building sits on a truly horrifying behemoth of a parking podium, and personally I am grossed out by such monuments to car culture. I also think it's a bit of an eyesore aesthetically, but I care less about that part. A good mural could go a long way. But yeah, it's tough for me to muster much enthusiasm for this. I know it's a net good to build more homes for rich people, but personally, I'm more excited by, like, the new sidewalks on Hawthorne.
  19. 004n063
    TxDOT, sweetie, go on outside and bite the curb for me. I'll be out in a minute.
  20. 004n063
    That's an awfully deep setback.
  21. 004n063
    Looks like this is going to be the city's most urban district pretty soon. Washington Green Line extension when?
  22. 004n063
    Just repaving or are there "real" safety improvements? (New pavement is nice, of course, but it also often leads to higher speeds...)
  23. 004n063
    Is it just me or have the neighborhood threads turned very parking-heavy in the last month or two? It seemed like we were on a good streak of mostly uninterrupted urbanization, but lately it seems like there have been an awful lot of updates and projects with a preponderance of new surface parking.
  24. 004n063
    If they front the corner and put the parking in the back, then I'm fine with it. But I have a feeling that that won't be the case.
  25. 004n063
    The internets call that a gadgetbahn. I'm with cspwal - what we need is more fully dedicated right-of-way and more lines (regardless of vehicle type) with a) peak frequencies of 5min or less, and b) off-peak frequencies of 15min or less. That and to stop bending over backwards to accommodate throughput and storage of large private vehicles.
×
×
  • Create New...