102IAHexpress

On 5/23/2017 at 2:40 PM, bobruss said:

 

I thought part of the problem was getting the people out of the tunnels and up on the streets where commerce usually occurs. The tunnels close after 5:00 and are not an option for people that live downtown.  Adding more retail underground does not help this at all. The people who work in these buildings will come out from underground if there are viable alternatives. They do it everywhere else. I think like anything it just takes a little time for people to change their habits.

I cant speak to Chicago's situation but here in Houston,  we are trying to establish a foothold in downtown for the people who are actually moving and living in downtown.

I don't think the corporations would want to keep the tunnels open to the public after dark and have to hire extra security.  It would open a whole can of worms and they don't want the public in their buildings anyway.

 

You are right about changing habits though. Outside of downtown i was used to running a lot of errands above ground, however in Downtown I adjusted my habits to account for the lack of alternatives above ground. I got my haircut in the tunnels, went to the dentist, dropped off my dry cleaning, ate, etc. It was comfortable, clean, free of homeless people. Was it Galleria quality shopping, no? However the only place in the city where Galleria level shopping exists is the Galleria. Everything else that i needed, could be ordered via Amazon and delivered to my doorstep. Seems like those in favor of a taxpayer funded retail district in downtown are people who have never lived and payed taxes in downtown.

Houston's tunnel system is more vast than Chicago's, for sure. But perhaps, Illinois was inspired by Houston's tunnels when they built the Thompson Center in Downtown Chicago. It's just a government building but on what we would consider the tunnel level of the building their is an expansive court of shops, restaurants and government services. Much like our humid summers are unbearable for ground level retail in Downtown Houston, Chicago's streets are worse for shopping in the winter. When I working on LaSalle street this January it was nice to be able to run to the Thompson center go downstairs and find a place to eat in warmth. 

https://www.illinois.gov/cms/About/JRTC/Pages/default.aspx

The google and yelp reviews for the building might be the highest rated government building reviews I have ever read. People want to shop and eat in comfort, go figure?

Since the light rail and other tax payer proposals have not furthered retail in downtown, what are some possible solutions?

If ground retail is failing, perhaps downtown should just expand on what works, the tunnels. What if the city helped develop public tunnels and public access points from the street? Or should the city stay out and instead let the free market decide what's best for Downtown?

5 hours ago, Ross said:

Macy's actually owned that property, and sold it to Hilcorp, and chose to leave Downtown. They presumably were not making enough money to justify staying, and had no desire to move to another location Downtown.

Gotcha. Wouldn't surprise me if Mayor Parker was flat out lying. She's quoted here saying Macy's essentially lost their lease and that they were working with Macy's on relocating Downtown.

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/01/downtown-macys-to-close/

13 hours ago, MaggieMay said:

So, I was glad to see this thread had been so active.  I use light rail most days as part of my commute & I've been wishing for better shopping downtown. Wasn't Macy's closed because someone else wanted the land?  It only used half the Foley's building, but that part did have customers.  Between commuters & the new people living downtown, I'm sure more shopping could be supported. Phoenicia is great--just a few blocks from the rail; many of us like to walk or ride bikes. (I knew Georgia's was doomed the day they had no caffeinated, unflavored coffee beans.  That was months before it closed.)

 

Alas, I found no news about the shopping area on Dallas. Isn't there a better place for "Light Rail Sucks" posts?  Things have improved downtown since it was finished even though there's plenty of room for improvement.  And and, no, buses are not better--the (fairly) recent bus route upgrades were great but the rail part of the commute is always more pleasant.  But what do I know?  I ride public transit in Houston--I don't live in Chicago. 

 

So, what's up on Dallas? 

What's up on Dallas? Well, over the last several years, retail has struggled. The news about Macy's landlord wanting to demolish and build office space instead of leasing retail is only part of the story, the complete story was that Macy's chose not to lease at another suitable location in Downtown. They left the Downtown market because it was not profitable for them. They could have signed a lease with Houston Pavilions on a smaller footprint store but chose not to. Other retail news for you...lets see, currently there are still ground floor vacancies available at GreenStreet, but there are no takers.

Does that news help you?

4 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

Lets face some hard facts here:

 

1. Taxpayers do not like spending money on the poor and disabled. This is especially true in a Republican-dominated state

2. If transit solely serves these populations, they will forever be underfunded, as the vast majority of taxpayers will not feel like stakeholders

3. Your goals will inevitably lead to them not being fulfilled

4. Higher-end services like metros and commuter trains lead to more overall transit funding, including that which serves your preferred population, as more people consider themselves stakeholders in the system

 

Life isn't fair, but systems can be developed that combat the inequities. However, as long as transit remains ghettoized, this will never occur with mobility.

Facts? LOL. Not sure where you get your facts from.

Let me give you some facts.

1) Houston area taxpayers (mostly democratically dominated) approved a one-cent sales tax when they created Metro.

2) Metro does serve the poor and the disabled, however wealthy area cities are also stakeholders.  By law Metro serves Houston and Bellaire, Bunker Hill Village, El Lago, Hedwig Village, Hilshire Village, Humble, Hunters Creek, Katy, Missouri City, Piney Point, Southside Place, Spring Valley, Taylor Lake Village and West University Place (some of the wealthiest zip codes in the Houston area)

3) that doesn't even make sense. My goals are in Metro's Charter.

4) Higher end services need more maintenance, more compliance, regulation and more costs. If this was an actual solution then commuter trains could print money and solve system wide funding issues. They obviously do not, look at Chicago.

6 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

 Over time the system pays for itself and that's the trade off.

You're entitled to have that opinion.

7 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

That's your argument? Yeah because the culture has been set to rely on the automobile. How do you expect to change the culture of a city that has relied on the car for everything? Businesses are going to be disrupted regardless, but building a transportation system outweighs any short term affect it has on those businesses. You can argue all you want that the train itself didn't spur development but it's clear to see that it did. How much immediate development is an argument we could have forever. The truth is that many developers specifically stated that they built next to the train as an incentive to those wanting an urban lifestyle. And if you want to argue that in 13 years very little development has happened, then that's totally fine. It's going to take more than 13 years to fully redevelop most of the areas affected by negligence from the city. The train isn't going to fix it all but it sure as hell is a great starting point. You can argue for people and their cars all day but I'm in an overly packed train in the morning and evening. People want options, plain and simple.  

And that is the main problem right there. You want to change hearts and minds. I'm not a social justice warrior, I don't want to change cultures. My wish is only to provide cheap affordable public transportation to Houstonian's who 1) can't afford an automobile and 2) are physically handicapped and can not drive themselves. In Houston buses are the best option to meet those two goals to the most amount of people. If anything, our culture should be more open minded to buses. I don't need mass transportation to spur development or cure parkinsons, it just needs move people. I don't care what may or many not work in NYC or SFO, I only care about Houston, and in Houston buses have the greatest potential for the least amount of money. 

41 minutes ago, ADCS said:

 

Automobiles and buses are also 19th Century technology. Your point is meaningless.

Trains and auto's are both technically old. However trains are older. That's just a fact.  Further, affordable mass produced automobiles required the technology of assembly lines which did not come into play until the early 20th century. What is your point?

10 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Hold on a sec! So you view rail as a lack of progress and view buses as progressive. So why weren't "progressive" buses creating more foot traffic and helping these businesses succeed? Why aren't those same roads that thousands of cars travel on daily helping serve these businesses that somehow took the total loss due to light rail? To me it sounds like those businesses we losing regardless, whether light rail was there or not. 

I don't follow your argument. My position has not changed. Given the choice between public transportation and personal automobiles in Houston, Houstonian's will chose personal automobiles. Disruptions of people's ability to drive to businesses will impede those businesses ability to succeed. Light rail construction disruption is especially bad for businesses because it impedes motor traffic and sometimes foot traffic too and for what? Public transportation? Public transportation already existed.  You could tear up main street with a MagLev train and people would still prefer their automobiles. Businesses would still be affected by MagLev construction but at least there, you could legitimately make the argument that, that it was technological "progress".

3 hours ago, bobruss said:

...

I feel sorry for those that were forced to close or move, but I think sometimes those kinds of things are going to happen when you go about creating from scratch, a totally new means of getting around the city. How can anyone argue who defends the expansion of freeways. Its the same situation.  How many businesses have been displaced or closed due to the expansion of I-10 and now 290.

My point being that I feel their pain, but I think that sometimes we do things for the common good for the overall community that might affect a small minority who do lose.  Thats unfortunately the result of progress. ...

I'm not sure it's progress actually. Businesses are not being affected by some awesome magnetic levitation train or a hyperloop system. Instead they are being affected not by progress but by actually regressing to a 19th century technology. That's the insult to injury. Rail existed on main street more than a hundred years ago. In time we progressed from rail on main street to buses. Now we're going back to light rail. I don't view that as progress, nor "progress" that local businesses should pay dearly for.

I'm not sure I would I call a road a public transportation project, I would just call it a road. But I feel your pain about road construction and business losses. My brother has sold cars for 15 years and he has been at many dealerships affected by road construction. However, and I'm just speculating here, the reason why businesses are not typically compensated for road projects is because the government has a right and obligation to build and maintain roads. See Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. You need roads to deliver mail, provide for the common defense, etc.

4 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

And according to the facts you posted, those businesses were reimbursed by Metro for every penny of those losses.  Pay attention.   What was your point again?

I've represented hundreds of client's in business interruption loss claims. I've never had one get reimbursed every penny. We usually had to fight tooth and nail to get paid part of the losses. I doubt the light rail affected businesses fared any better with Metro. And if you pay attention you will see that some businesses weren't paid anything.

31 minutes ago, KinkaidAlum said:

There are zero guarantees. Businesses on the light rail line were LUCKY to get paid for their inconvenience. We weren't paid for ours but then again, we didn't have a political movement turning "road construction" into public enemy #1.

What is your evidence to state they were LUCKY? Seems like governments often compensate businesses along light rail lines.

Israel:

http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Deri-budgets-NIS-4-million-for-Tel-Aviv-businesses-affected-by-light-rail-construction-413753

Seattle:

http://www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment/business-owners/financial-support/23rd-avenue-businesses

Los Angeles:

https://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metros-pilot-business-interruption-fund-reaches-1-/

I have posted facts. You may not like the facts because it does not further your position but that fact remains that the light rail cost businesses at least $3,796,377 during a four year period. To say nothing of the lost tax revenue by the city and county.

If you would like to post facts that shows that the light rail has been beneficial to businesses then please go ahead. 

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

And he swings and misses again.

 

I'm pretty sure you know that no one has suggested that no business suffered any adverse consequences due to the construction of the light rail infrastructure.  Of course some did.

 

And as you've so kindly (and cluelessly) shown us, Metro provided assistance to ameliorate those consequences.  Kinda' steps on your attempted point, doesn't it?  What was your point again?

For purposes of this discussion it seems that your analysis of the light rail's costs/benefits only begins after the ribbon cutting and after passengers start boarding?  Using that logic the light rail can only have a positive affect on development! If a business fails during construction It's not fair to count it. And if it fails after construction its because of the business itself not the light rail!

393. The number of business affected and awarded compensation by Metro due to the light rail between 2010-2014.

http://ridemetro.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1262&meta_id=24560

The light rail has had an impact on business development indeed!

On 5/15/2017 at 5:04 PM, Moore713 said:

 Even outside if the main line the rail has played a part in development see third ward as student housing is being constructed near close to the rail line as well as not one but two high schools being constructed a long those lines.

 

It doesn't surprise me that publicly funded schools happened to be built near public transportation. That is not news. Just about every high school in HISD is on a Metro bus line.

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

So, by your logic, every failed downtown business failed because of the rail line.  But what about the successful ones?  I guess we just have to ignore those?  And what about the failed bars and restaurants not on or near the rail line?  How do you explain those?

No, but by the logic of many on this forum (per Bobruss' post a few pages back) the light rail was the reason for a "billion dollars of construction development and improvements for the general public, etc". In my opinion that is a claim with almost no evidence for support. Which is why i posted in the first place. On the other hand there is evidence that many developers received tax breaks for developing in downtown. And that those developments also developed huge parking garages. There is also evidence that many business have failed along the light rail in downtown. For example, shops that left Houston Pavilions, ground floor vacancies that are still available at GreenStreet, failed restaurants, bars, grocery stores, etc. Even during the construction of the light rail businesses were affected. The Metropolitan Transit Authority admitted as much by setting up a grant for businesses to receive compensation due to the light rail construction.

If the light rail is so successful and so beneficial for downtown then the CoH doesn't need to provide tax breaks to developers in downtown right?

9 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

Quite a few well known inner loop brands have moved downtown and done well despite the killer train. Maybe, just maybe, Georgia was at fault and not the Midnight train!

 

Fair enough, I want them to succeed despite the killer train. Lets hope those businesses last for a long time.

However, just off the top of my head, what about Goro & Gun which HAIF was in love with? Also an awful business?  What about Tacqueria La Marco on the light rail line (although not in downtown) closed and relocated to the Washington Street area instead, Also awful business?

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Actually, there is no reason it can't be both.

Except the only common denominator is the light rail. If a business operates a franchise at two locations and one fails and the other one does not then at some point you have to make conclusions about one of those locations. A different example is Chipotle just down the street on Main and Texas. That Chipotle can't even successfully operate its business on the weekend. Is Chipotle an awful business? Is there some secret to the other Chipotle's in Houston that operate on the weekends? Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the light rail doesn't bring in enough customers to that Chipolte on the weekend. Perhaps the light rail doesn't bring in any customers to that Chipotle even on weekdays. Perhaps the parking restrictions around the rail line have made it so drivers would rather avoid the businesses along the rail if the same business exists somewhere else and with free parking.

17 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

LOL. Light rail opened in 2004. The Byrds Loft Building wasn't converted until 2005 so those businesses didn't exist before the rail. Those businesses failed because they were awful. Bad food. Little inventory. High prices. Good riddance. Local is going to kill it in that same spot. 

LOL so which is it? The light rail caused the development of those business yet played no role in their demise?! Can't have it both ways. Georgia's concept (local farm to market food) may have been awful to you, but that same concept has worked at their Katy Freeway location.

3 hours ago, quietstorm said:

What 'grocery stores' are you referring to?  If you're speaking of Byrd Market (Georgia's), (1) that was a specialty store and not a traditional grocer, (2) the absence of said specialty store does not negate the businesses that have opened in the area since to DT living initiative (e.g., Local Foods).

You cannot negate the few business that have opened with all the ones that have failed prior to the new businesses opening. Georgia's should have been perfect for the neighborhood. A small sized Whole Foods concept with local produce catering to high end shoppers that lived at Rice. It didn't last too long. Neither did Byrds prior to Georgia's, nor whatever was their prior to Byrds. Their is a vicious cycle of failed business next to the light rail in downtown.

16 hours ago, quietstorm said:

Main Street, Phoenicia and even Green Street were busy; but since much of downtown is comprised of singular buildings on whole blocks (i.e., BoA, Chase) with no ground floor retail, I expect downtown will continue to have weekend and after 5 pm "dead zones" outside of Discovery Green, Market Square, Main St, Theater District, etc.  If street vendor ordinances  are changed, it may help somewhat. We will also have to see what, if any, activity builds around the new residential, HSPVA, etc.

We don't have to wait to see if any activity builds around the new residential. There's evidence already around existing residential. 420 Main Street, has a perfect location according to HAIF, in front of not just the light rail but the light rail platform, behind a huge residential community (Rice Lofts), even near a park. Yet, all the grocery stores that have operated in that location have failed. Dead Zone indeed.

44 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

It's fair to note that the Red Line carries more people on an average day than the 6 busiest bus lines combined.  And every one of those bus lines has a route that serves a good deal more territory than does the Red Line. How does a toy manage to so wildly outperform the buses that are supposedly having bigger impact?

It's also fair to note that the light rail red line replaced existing bus routes and consolidated them into the rail line. It's also fair to note that the routes the light rail replaced were the most boarded bus routes at the time for Metro. So essentially the rail line has added a few more riders compared to what already existed but at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

48 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

You're wrong overall, but you're particularly wrong here.

 

The downtown area is a perfect example of development favoring mass transit. It's a specific area that had a tax incentive to build anywhere within that tax area.

 

Yes, Houston offered a tax relief to anyone building apartments in downtown Houston. Anywhere inside of the confines of 45/59/10. They had however many blocks to choose from.

 

This is the latest map I can find:

https://www.downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2016-01-13/160114_Development_Map__Renders_11X17.pdf

 

It illustrates clearly that while they could have chosen to build on empty blocks near freeway entrances, or near stadiums, they chose to build near mass transit.

 

There are 19 apartments on that map. 13 of them are within 2 blocks of light rail. 8 of those are right on the light rail line.

68% of the apartments built using the tax subsidy chose to build within 2 blocks of light rail.

42% of the apartments built using the tax subsidy are built on the light rail line.

There are 7 hotels on that map. All 7 are not just within 2 blocks of light rail, they are on light rail frontage.

100% of the hotels built in the last cycle (no tax subsidies like the apartments) are built on light rail frontage.

 

Look at all those empty lots over by Toyota center.

Look at all those empty lots by Minute Maid.

That land has to be cheaper than where they actually built the apartments and hotels, right?

 

The tax incentive was not to build apartments in proximity to the light rail, it was for anywhere in downtown. Yet, save the minority of apartments, they all chose to build within very close proximity to light rail.

 

Given the facts above and the percentage of empty lots all over the downtown area that could have been chosen to build the apartments. It points to this either being a very weird statistical anomaly that it just happened to be that nearly all of them chose to build near the light rail, or the developers actively chose to build near the light rail.

 

If you consider the development that's occurred in Midtown and the Museum district and the proximity of those developments to the light rail (considering all the empty blocks in those areas), it even further provides clear examples of development favoring light rail.

 

It's fine for you to disagree with the above assessment, however, I ask that you please provide some data/facts to show why my assessment is wrong.

 

It's also fine for you to just plain not like mass transit, that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, but don't throw out statements like facts unless you're willing to back them up with data.

 

edit: So I found a map of the area that was included for the tax incentives as proof that the area didn't favor building near light rail:

http://www.downtowndistrict.org/static/media/uploads/DLI/3-_revised_toolkit_program_description_&_eligibility.pdf

You're not completely wrong actually. My point is only about the light rail. And specifically the light rail in downtown. I don't have a problem with mass transit. I've been riding metro buses since middle school. Heck my screen name is named after a bus route. I just don't see any evidence that the light rail has spurred development in downtown. If anything all the buses that feed into downtown have had a bigger impact. The light rail is a cool toy. It's not a serious people mover. And that's fine. If you think a park or a light rail or public swimming pool adds value to the city, then fine add them. Their a nice amenity to have, but don't tell me their benefits are anything more than that. Buses on the other hand and especially buses in Houston can have bigger impact (still relatively) small but an impact, which i think helps explain some of your data.

However, all those buildings you mention have huge parking garages for their residents/workers. I can promise you none of those developers were thinking, great news!, we don't need to construct huge parking garages because we have the light rail near by, all of our workers will stop driving their cars. Give me a break. nonsense.

Downtown is a district with higher income offices and higher income apartments. The higher income you earn the less likely you are to ride public transportation.

Your argument is like saying the 82 Westminster that passes through River Oaks is the reason there is such nice residential development in River Oaks.