ig2ba

Seriously?

Themselves and other developers in the future. And any business who relies on predictability of regulations and the rule of law. Besides these groups, nobody really.

I'll probably drive it before 2013 ends and then less than once per year thereafter, but I'm not the average driver. I could see people using it more now than under TxDOT's projections since 290 is under construction and will be under construction for the next decade - this would especially be the case for the outlet mall visitors and those going from SW and West Houston to College Station. Who really knows what the ridership will be... The more data the better. We shall see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-gzNi6MRwI http://blog.chron.com/carsandtrucks/2013/12/corvette-hits-200-mph-on-texas-tollway/ What a way to christen this new highway! Since Segment E and the North Line extension are opening on or around the same day, it almost seems like a competition. Some people might even see it as a rail vs. road competition of sorts. I wonder what Metro could do to match the publicity and the cool factor of this.

Chevron also owns a six-story building on the southeast corner of Briarpark and Westpark. It houses a significant contingent of Chevron Energy Technology Company (ETC) (internal consultants, researchers, some PhD types) and research activities of Chevron Technology Ventures, who are looking into alternative energy and other things which require laboratory space. This laboratory space will NEVER be moved downtown because of fire safety concerns, corporate espionage concerns, chemical inventories required, and high square footage requirements for their experiments (it's cheaper in the burbs). The Briarpark building also houses a training center including the now defunct Drilling Training Center which was a joint venture with BP. (I think we can all understand why they went their separate ways, especially on something pertaining to drilling.) Last I heard, Chevron employees visiting for training were parking at nearby businesses, which leads me to believe that they are already space-limited at the Briarpark building, but I have no way to confirm this is the reason for off-site parking. It would make sense since some California ETC people have relocated from here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.911166,+-122.355341&hl=en&sll=30.770159,-100.101929&sspn=3.737711,4.916382&t=m&z=17) to the Briarpark building. If space is a constraint for research and for training, it might make sense to swap Briarpark for Camp Strake, but not downtown for Camp Strake.

You're right. As tl;dr as my list was, I forgot that they also purchased this.

Do you guys realize how improbable it is that Chevron would cancel this tower and move all of their Houston employees to Conroe? A few things to keep in mind: This tower is the culmination of a long trend of consolidation into Downtown. Not only downtown, but all on contiguous blocks. Since the ChevronTexaco became Chevron, here are some of the moves:All employees from 11111 Wilcrest were moved downtown. All employees from a building in Sugar Land (forget the address) were moved downtown. All employees from the Texaco building, a namesake of the company were moved to their current location. All employees from the Chevron building, the namesake of the company were moved to their current location. Some employees from Bellaire now work in downtown. Some functions from their Covington, LA office were reassigned to employees in downtown Houston. There have been at least two sets of moves involving San Ramon and Richmond, CA employees moving to downtown Houston. Contrast that with Exxon, which was scattered all over the city to begin with, and needed a consolidated campus. Chevron bought the YMCA property.Chevron already got the tax rebates for building.Chevron supervised the demolition of the YMCA. There are Chevron employees who told me he always felt like he was "in a fishbowl" because other Chevron employees could do "Safety Observations" at any time on the demolition work.Chevron employees have talked about the plans for supervising the construction.We all knew - all HAIFers, all Chevron employees, all architecture nuts outside Houston, etc. - that Chevron was going to build something at that site LONG before they announced it on July 3, 2013. For them to finallly announce it publicly and then cancel it a few months later, and 6 months from the start of construction ... that doesn't really make sense. Chevron and most large energy companies are very afraid of negative publicity, which a cancellation would cause. Internally even, I think this would piss off a lot of employees who recently bought a house somewhere other than Huntsville or Conroe, and for no other reason than because they could (and not out of necessity like Exxon).Chevron is not exactly the best in the industry at project execution in terms of being on time in schedule. PMI information on projects backs this up. A year-long delay is not that rare. The Escravos GTL, IIRC, was delayed more than 5 years.Most large public energy companies have requirements for capital projects to consider project alternatives which are sufficiently unique but also doable. The fact that some other location was considered at one point in time does not mean it is a serious alternative now, or that it ever really was.While not impossible for Chevron to cancel, it seems very unlikely.

Could you clarify what he meant by "recommended 90% ridership 10% coverage"? It sounds like a slogan and does not make sense to me. 90% of people doing their trips by transit? Or 90% close to transit? Or something else? I can't even begin to guess what 10% coverage means. Thanks.

Could Metro's vastly reduced service (and ridership) of in-city bus routes in favor of light rail during this time period have something to do with it? In terms of net ridership, the Red Line has essentially just replaced lost bus riders and has added few net transit riders. And then, oh yeah, the Houston area grew between 2000 and 2011, so the per capita transit ridership went down.

It's probably a safe assumption that 40-50,000 vehicles per day would use a parkway in this location, depending on # of lanes, # of intersections, and how feeder streets connect to it. For a comparison, Memorial Drive sees around 40k/day, and Allen Parkway sees about 30k/day. I also doubt the 60-80 mph hour mentioned earlier. I can't think of any parkway that sees traffic with these average speeds. If designed as a parkway, 50 mph is probably a safe assumption. Memorial Drive normally moves at 50-60 mph (speed limit is 50 mph), and Allen Parkway moves at 40-50 mph (speed limit is 40 mph). If it were made more "street-like", it would probably move just as fast. (South Main, where it is 5 lanes each way, has a speed limit of 40 mph). Now, 45,000 vpd and 50 mph. Does that still sound more pedestrian friendly to anyone compared to the current Pierce Street? Does it sound driver-friendly to have to wait 45 seconds for the pedestrian walk signal?

It gives ANOTHER route to Corpus Christi, but not a quicker or more direct one. Plus, the traffic on 59 can't even justify a freeway west of Rosenberg, so I don't see how a freeway even further east would be necessary for this purpose. And, I-69 will be built as a freeway on 59 in the coming years, further reducing the need for a freeway alternative to Corpus. There may be a lot of good reasons to build the Alvin Freeway, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

Do you have a link showing that it was cancelled? I'm just curious. TxDOT hosted a public meeting about it in 2007 for the long-term plan. I clearly remember one alternative was to follow Spur 5 south along Mykawa crossing 610, and meeting with 35 north of Pearland. Another alternative was to widen 288 more, widen BW 8 between 288 and FM 865 (Cullen), and then a freeway would go south from there and join TX 35 south of Pearland. So depending on what you consider a long time ago... From what I heard, it was just put to the back of the project queue, as in not starting construction until at least 2025. Which makes sense. There are a dozen more pressing transportation issues than the Alvin Freeway. A cancellation is a different matter though. Even the freeway extension of South Post Oak has been delayed indefinitely, but not yet cancelled.

So ... no examples then (there is no crosswalk at Taft). It was more of a rhetorical question anyway, since we already know there are no parkways with a 40-45 second pedestrian signal, but thanks for playing!

40 seconds at each crosswalk? I don't know of anything that could be called a parkway which regularly stops traffic for 40-45 seconds. Please let us know if you have such an example.

Putting aside the costs of building an entirely new (elevated?) freeway in the city core, this plan assumes that the railroad ROW would be easy to obtain. I can attest that this is a heavily used rail corridor, and without adequate rail infrastructure in place near burgeoning West Texas, Eagle Ford, and North Dakota oil fields, and with the upcoming Panama Canal expansion, it is very likely to see even more freight rail traffic in the future. That and the ROW is about 90 feet wide for half of this segment. That would get you a 2x2 freeway, like Westpark. Not that I wouldn't want to see a traffic simulation for your proposal, but it's far cheaper to use existing ROW or just widen it slightly than to acquire an entirely new area.

Sorry, I don't. I saw these at the November 19th meeting held by TxDOT. The 5 lanes each way did not appear to be turn lanes. But who really knows until the design is finalized and ready for construction. I was commenting on a 10 lane configuration of the parkway, but in my mind, a 6-lane parkway would still be less pedestrian friendly than the current state, though not as bad as a ten-laner.

Where it matters to pedestrians - you know, at ground level - the parkway along Pierce would be 10 lanes instead of the current 5 lane Pierce Street. So wider, not narrower. This is according to TxDOT's latest drawings.

Much of this discussion is now even more theoretical than it was before. TxDOT has narrowed the 12 alternatives to 3. Only one of the alternatives involves removing the Pierce Elevated. To me, this alternative looks worse than all the others for: Drivers on freeways - Removal of 6 freeway lanes for an already lane-imbalanced downtown freeway systemEaDo residents - U.S. 59 would be significantly widened, about 600 feet wide near Jefferson, and at least 300 feet wide everywhere else. To people who refuse to walk under elevated thingies, this would clearly be bad. At any rate, it makes the barrier larger between Downtown and a growing area.EaDo business owners - several businesses will be destroyed through eminent domain including one of the last remnants of the old Chinatown - Kim Son. The project alternative of adding 1 more lane (each way) to the Pierce Elevated requires no demolition of businesses or residences.Drivers driving between Midtown and Downtown - It appears that they would close down a few of the north streets. Not sure which ones yet, but maybe Travis/Milam and east of San Jacinto. It would disrupt the grid system - which is important in every major city to distribute traffic of all modes.Pedestrians between Midtown and Downtown - Instead of a 5 lane street to traverse, the 'Pierce Parkway' that will replace I-45 is 10 lanes, and the average speed of cars there would likely be higher than on other downtown streets. I frequently walk throughout downtown and under the Pierce either day or night. The one-way 5 lane streets are not intimidating to me, but I have to say that the thought of crossing a South Main street or a 10 lane Memorial Drive might just convince me to go elsewhere for lunch. It certainly would be more of a barrier than the current Pierce Street.Bicyclists between Midtown and Downtown - Because of the street closures (see above), bicyclists would have to use busier streets, busier than even now, since motorists have been redirected to these streets. Currently, it is a much easier and safer bike ride from Downtown to the Museum District using a street like LaBranch instead of Fannin. Not only would bikers lose the ability to use some of the quieter North-South streets, they'd have to cross a 10-lane high speed Pierce Parkway instead of the current 5-lane 30 mph road.

Most commonly, gentrification happens in older residential areas. Less commonly, it’s former industrial areas without any Superfund sites, though there are examples of this throughout Houston. But, I’m curious why the new light rail line is being expected to gentrify an area currently used as an industrial area, and which was cleared of most of the old residences more than a decade ago. This expectation is absurd since the most successful section of Houston’s light rail system (both current and future) is (and will continue to be) the current Red Line, and this has failed to spur redevelopment more than a few blocks on either side. Plus, with the exception of St. Arnold’s, there are no attractions whatsoever to anchor redevelopment. Oh, plus there are tank farms. Those should attract yuppies to the area to buy townhomes like moths to a flame.

Off? Yes, but it'd be great if Allen Parkway wasn't a left exit. On? Yes, but only in the I-45 NB direction. The NB entrance is much better because it's essentially onto a feeder road. The on-ramp to I-45 SB, OTOH, is the most dangerous freeway entrance in the Houston area, more than even the one on Spur 527. I'm not sure how many people go from EB Allen Parkway to the Gulf Freeway, but there can't be too many. The Dallas Street on-ramp could be improved with a longer merge lane at relatively small cost. It does service the west side of downtown where most skyscrapers are, so it's not like it's unused. With the on-ramp from Allen Parkway closed, I'm sure it would be safer.

I would LOVE to see the ridership numbers on this. Do they expect more riders than a Dallas-Houston line (since fewer Mexicans have cars), or would it be abysmally low because of border delays, terrorism fears, smaller cities, etc.? I would think that it could just be a Monterrey to Laredo or Monterrey to McAllen line since so much trade is done on the border.

The alternative of adding one lane each way to I-45 in downtown seems the least costly way to get people past downtown than any of the others presented. It boggles my mind that the vast majority of traffic on the Pierce Elevated is not originating from downtown, but apparently there are tons of people going from Pasadena to the Memorial Villages or League City to the Heights or Galveston to Greenspoint, or wherever the heck they go. Regardless, these are just the facts - that most people aren't going to the same place. Rail needs its own funding source at the state level. I don't know how that's going to happen, but I don't see another way. TxDOT is already underfunded because of the low gas tax, and I think very few people will agree to increase the gas tax or transfer some of this money to transit.

As this pertains to self-driven cars, I tend to think that self-driving cars will initially make the biggest splash in areas with relatively high density, but not the highest density, and not medium density. And this is especially true human-driven cars continue to be used for years after the self-driven cars. Here's how I imagine it, in order of descending density: Manhattan, city of San Francisco, possibly The Loop in Chicago: Great public transit is already available, and someone can get to another location miles away by walking a couple blocks, getting on a train, then walking a couple blocks at the end. Unless you are transporting something large or have many grocery bags, a self-driving car offers little advantage to the individual and might (?) cost more. In the case of Manhattan, average speeds on the roads might be 5 mph if there are still human-driven cars on the road, much slower than a train, so it might be slower than transit.Much of Los Angeles metro area; other boroughs of New York City; Boston; Oakland, Berkeley San Jose; Downtown/Midtown, Galleria area of Houston: Most people who can afford a car have a car. There are many parking garages, but also many surface lots. Most on-street parking is taken during the day. Finding a parking spot is difficult, as is the 10 minute walk to the parking garage and swirling down each level of the parking garage. Many city blocks are taken up just for parking, and these cars sit idle most of the day. --------------> With self-driving cars, there is no need to hunt for a parking spot, nor even bring your own car to your workplace. Self-driven Park+Rides would work just as vanpools do now, and can be any size vehicle from a sedan to a van to a bus. There would be no need to have vanpool-mates, nor to abstain from drinking and socializing when it's your turn to drive home. Some blocks would no longer need a surface lot and could be redeveloped into commercial or residential use. Fewer people who live and work in one of these areas would even need a car in their daily routine, so they might not buy a car at all. If they did need a car on the weekends, they could call a self-driving car, share it with others and go where they need to, much more cheaply than a taxi.Suburbs outside Beltway 8: On-street parking is very lightly used, with a lot of excess capacity. Parking lots at strip malls are only close to capacity 1-2 weeks per year (around Christmas) but otherwise rarely full. Though there are a few locations where it might make sense to have public self-driving cars where everyone goes to the same location (e.g., Bellaire Blvd., Sugar Land or The Woodlands town centers, City CentreTM, and maybe near pubs), self-driving cars are mostly private, and for those who want one.Exurbs: Assuming that you can drive, but can't afford the increased price of a self-driving car, drive your car as you always have.

I've never heard this toll road corollary to the induced demand theory before. Is this a new addition to the theory? I wonder then, why Beltway 8's added lanes in the last couple years were filled as soon as they opened, Westpark Tollway was congested from the very start, and Katy HOT lanes have been heavily used since opening, even though they are adjacent to free lanes. These people don't seem to have gotten the memo that the induced demand theory only applies to free roads: http://illinois.sierraclub.org/w%26w/Sprawl/route53.html http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-01/news/ct-met-tollway-projects-20110701_1_tri-state-tollway-tollway-officials-executive-director-kristi-lafleur http://www.houstontomorrow.org/livability/story/ny-times-grand-parkway-threatens-katy-prairie/ And FM 1764 is a freeway, albeit only 5 miles long. The freeway portion is actually much less populated than the non-freeway portion, in addition to being further from the refineries and with a higher elevation. Induced demand says that this area should be growing and seeing more traffic, but this hasn't happened.

From my previous post: "The first three factors are paramount [cost, performance, safety], as they should be, and that is why a majority of public comments favoring one project alternative holds little weight." I'm not sure who you're replying to about the all SB I-45 and all NB 59. I never stated that I was in favor of that. In fact, I stated that I wasn't in favor of it. Hope it was someone else. Regarding your belief about "zero sum game", I think it's very defeatist to think that NO benefit can come from adding one lane each way (to take just one of the alternative for the sake of example). We have to be realistic: there will still be slow traffic at rush hour every workday, though a shorter daily congestion period would be great. What I hope it solves is the traffic jams essentially every Saturday at 10am or 1pm or 3 pm on SB I-45. Or the 10:30pm traffic I experienced last week going from 288 NB to I-45. Lanes going to both the NB and SB I-45 were stopped, and without any accident anywhere nearby.