Jump to content

ig2ba

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    211

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ig2ba

  1. ig2ba
    Yeah, that's obviously the logical conclusion to draw from what I said. If a person believes in more local control over local-only projects, but still supports federal funding of the Interstate system and long-range high speed rail, they must obviously be in favor of living in city-states, or as RedScare likes to say, Somalia. Way not to jump any conclusions or resort to hyperbole! I didn't mention impacts to residences and businesses during construction, and I don't think that any major construction on a transportation project in the Houston area (aside from maybe the greenfield Fort Bend Parkway) could be done without significant disruption. I don't mind discussing as a separate topic, but I don't see the connection in this case. I'm just wondering about any rail line that would save that much time once in full operation.
  2. ig2ba
    Sidney Sherman Bridge (610 east) or the Sam Houston Ship Channel Bridge (BW 8), not to mention numerous other crossings to the west of downtown. If it's that important to make sure I-45 is up and operating within a couple hours after the rain ends, we could build storm gates on each end of the tunnel like here: http://www.tunneltalk.com/Midtown-Tunnel-Nov12-Tide-gates-avert-repeat-of-Hurricane-Isabel-flooding.php. They claim that this tunnel in Norfolk claimed to be operational within 4 hours after Hurricane Sandy passed. And that tunnel is at sea level - a downtown tunnel's approaches in all likelihood would be more than 40 feet above sea level and much further inland. And just FYI, the Washburn Tunnel doesn't flood.
  3. ig2ba
    15 minutes/day*100000 people*250 work days per year*$30/hour = $188 mil/year in time savings, not counting the people that use the HOT lanes. If anyone can show me a proposed rail line that would save any commuter 15 minutes/day compared to their current commute, or even a reasonable fantasy line (heh, this is what HAIF is for - off the wall ideas), I'd love to hear it. I simply don't think it's possible. Freeway projects tend to be the only projects reduce commute times or drastically increase the number of users. Transit projects have many benefits, but this is usually not one of them.
  4. ig2ba
    The federal government has a role in funding infrastructure, and I agree that it should be that way. This is especially true for multi-state rail systems or interstate highways. I'm not convinced that a light rail system in a random city or a commuter rail line or a widening of 288 (a non-interstate highway) need to be funded by the feds. The benefits are almost entirely local, and therefore, nearly all of the funding should be local.
  5. ig2ba
    I wish more people could admit to this, because I suspect that most intuitively agree with it. I think too often it's relatively inconsequential arguments about LRT/BRT or whether bikes are allowed. Or if it is mentioned, it's only mentioned at the extreme ends of the spectrum - LRT with no grade separation (e.g., the Southeast Line) vs. a subway which is entirely underground from Sugar Land to downtown. Even if we go with an LRT option - that is, 35 mph max speed, stops every 1/2 mile to mile, 2 cars max - I would love to see a few more strategic intersections where it does not interfere with the existing auto traffic. My preferences would be, with special consideration to already congested intersections: Below grade at Westheimer and Post Oak (heck, maybe the whole Galleria area)Below grade at Buffalo Speedway, Kirby, and ShepherdBelow grade at Texas Avenue/U.S. 59 I would be willing to defer each rail line 3-4 additional years to give Metro (or whomever) time to get additional funding to make this happen. Why build something quickly if it's not beneficial or even potentially harmful to existing mobility?
  6. ig2ba
    I think it's possible to come close under the right conditions, but it's not usually the case. The question posed was whether it's ever possible. Sure, I suppose it is possible, but it's unlikely even under ideal conditions in a sunbelt city. Granted, the 800,000/day exceeds the 328,000/day max on the Katy freeway, but it's apples and oranges. 328,000 is simply the number of vehicles (not people) traversing I-10 at Kirkwood on a weekday, not the total number of people who use I-10 between 610 and the Katy Freeway. Perhaps this number would be higher, maybe 500,000?? Also, I think the historical construction cost estimates are off. I'm having trouble finding the total costs, but just the 1.7 billion appropriated in 1979 would be 5.5 billion today, and that's not for the whole system. As we all know, construction costs for these types of projects have risen more quickly than general inflation. Just look at the Silver Line extension, Phase I proposed for the Washington Metro. 28 miles worth will cost about 7 billion. Expected ridership is 40000 people/day. The increase in Katy freeway traffic count alone is more than this, plus ALL people benefit from quicker commute times (which take 2/3 as long as they used to). So even if Houston were to react exactly the same as Washington DC to commuter rail (which wouldn't happen), I don't think you'd see the same payoff per dollar spent. Edit: This is not to say I'm totally opposed to commuter rail or that others should be. In fact, I am in favor of grade-separated transit. But I think we need to be clear about what commuter rail could do and couldn't do.
  7. ig2ba
    I think you are being unnecessarily dismissive and getting offended for some odd reason. And seriously, quoting someone with "blah blah blah" belongs at chron.com. I'm not sure how parking (just for instance) on Lamar at St. Charles has anything whatsoever to do with rush hour. Or parking restrictions. My comment was just intended to be helpful. Despite the buildup of East Downtown, it's still unbelievably empty just east of the stadium. But maybe someone who, after exiting a soccer game and even dodging traffic and waiting for a couple of traffic lights, apparently walks faster than I jog doesn't need any transportation tips.
  8. ig2ba
    Great that you got to try out the new bikes, but that seems like an awful lot of work. Why park 10 blocks away and go through all those maneuvers when there are free and legal parking spots 4-5 blocks to the southeast the stadium? You could then leave going ESE on McKinney, and then go south on Scott/Sampson and hop then hop on the freeway of your choice (45 to 59, 45 to 288, or stay on 45).
  9. ig2ba
    Sorry if this is somewhat or fully redundant, but here is a list of amenities being considered for the new building: Seating areas / benches Outdoor dining tables Covered patio / casual seating Green space & landscaping Recreation & exercise facilities Celebration event facilities (crawfish boil, BBQ ) Bicycle racks / storage Wireless / power access Smoking facilitiesWater featuresCommunity herb gardenSculpturesObservation deckAmbient music / nature soundsOutdoor digital displayDry cleaningComputer loungeGeneral store / pantryMotherhood roomsHair salon / barberMassage roomsShoe repair / shoe shine / tailorSitting / reading quiet roomOn-site credit unionBookstoreOn-site bankAfter-hours dining / servicePharmacyTake-home / frozen mealsPrimary care / family practice physicianGarage carwash / tire repairOptometristEmployee concierge (general errands)PC / phone repairPack and ship I have no idea on which ones will be accessible to the public.
  10. ig2ba
    I've heard the same. One guy wants to stay inside the Loop because of his wife's work (living in the northern burbs wouldn't be practical), but is none too pleased about the move. And they have kids. We shouldn't assume that having a family means you automatically want to move to the burbs and that of course The Woodlands is the most desirable suburb.
  11. ig2ba
    Good catch. I really wonder what that could be. I'd like to see a rendering of the north side of the building.
  12. ig2ba
    This will all be a wonderful experiment: which company will attract more employees - the one based in the suburbs or the one in downtown? Exxon is certainly very convenient for people on the north side but nearly impossible (long-term) for people living in Katy, Sugar Land, Pearland, or Clear Lake. Chevron is very convenient for only some workers, but is doable for almost any employee on any side of town, especially when all of the HOV lanes and express buses head towards downtown (and not towards some secluded forest location). I can tell you this for sure - there will be employees switching from Exxon to Chevron and Chevron to Exxon (and similar companies). In fact, it's happening already.
  13. ig2ba
    I'm not sure about all of the reasons for not moving from Bellaire. The two big groups out there either have a reason for remaining separate (the auditing group) or no compelling reason to collaborate with others downtown (the pipeline company). It could go either way. However, the Briarpark facility has a lot of research laboratories, most of which you would not want anywhere near your downtown building. I could see them finding another new surburban low-rise facility before they ever go downtown. In either case, that's only a couple hundred employees anyway.
  14. ig2ba
    Other things that the building will have (that were not described in the original release): Will be a LEED Platinum Building"around 4,000 new offices"4 levels of common areasOutdoor green spaceApparently, another skywalk across Bell right next to Louisiana.
  15. ig2ba
    The rendering shows it to be SIGNIFICANTLY taller than the 1400 Smith building, which is also 50 stories (sorta 51 stories), and that one is 691 feet. I'm curious if it will actually be a lot taller or it is just the drawing which is incorrect.
  16. ig2ba
    If by "crappy", you mean operating far above design capacity, I totally agree. TxDOT did about the best they could rebuilding it in 2007 as a no-capacity-added project, but the fact is - the West Loop needed to be improved 20 years ago, like they were planning to do in the 1990s. I think that would make an interesting thread on HAIF: do you support/oppose adding capacity to 610 and why?
  17. ig2ba
    This. The BRT or LRT is a toy compared to what is needed. It's not that BRT or LRT are necessarily bad or a even bad investment, it's just that the problem is 100 times bigger. Here are examples that I deal with often (but thankfully not daily) that will not be at all improved by the BRT/LRT: -dead stop at 59 WB to 610 NB at 1pm pretty much every time I'm there -2-3 light-cycle backup on 59 WB feeder to NB 610 feeder just south of Richmond pretty much every time I'm there -sometimes going 20-30 mph at 10 am on a weekend And here's what will be worsened with BRT: traffic at Westheimer @ Post Oak. I love the Arboretum in Memorial Park (loved it more before the drought Summer 2011), but I would gladly give up a 100 foot strip there if it meant getting a soundwall for the park and having the West Loop actually being a useable freeway again.
  18. ig2ba
    I think the outcry from taking part of that new bike trail would be tremendous for the Washington-Heights route. I also hear that they will be extending this bike trail westward soon. There is certainly not space for two rail lines and the bike trail. Washington/Westcott or Washington/T.C. Jester are the only other options I see. Some people on another HAIF thread started talking about this being the way forward, but I just don't think so.
  19. ig2ba
    Ok, looks like there was no real response to my question, so I'll have to assume that this is all just a bunch of worrying followed by a heap of Sim City-style fantasizing. The reasons for delays in construction at this point in time are financial. METRO was hoping to win the referendum in November and they didn't. Now they have to find alternative funding or simply delay construction. The feds are still peeved about METRO not buying American-made trains for the EE, SE, and North lines, and have said that they will scrutinize METRO's plans for the Uptown and University Lines, but this seems like a pretty small hurdle. I don't see any indication that METRO thinks Culberson will have to die or retire before the University Line gets built. So if the reasons for not building the line are financial, even after doing all the pre-work like EIS, stakeholder engagement, front-end engineering, then why do so many people think that METRO will then just decide to build another rail line which wasn't in the original plans and wasn't good enough to consider the first time around? Some factors working against a line on Washington: -Number of job centers: 0 -Number of universities: 0 -Cultural centers (museums): 0 -Population density along the rail is much lower. -Fewer parallel streets that could serve extra auto traffic, in fact only Center Drive. vs. multiple back streets and Alabama and Westheimer paralleling Richmond. Anything is possible in the future, but I think Washington is an inferior route to the Richmond one.
  20. ig2ba
    Sure, nothing has changed except that the route now leaves Richmond at Timmons and crosses over 59 to Westpark, thereby appeasing the vast majority of the Afton Oaksers. Oh, and the opponents lost the last of their legal challenges against this line. Besides that, nothing has changed.
  21. ig2ba
    I'm not sure I understand your proposal. You seem to be suggesting that member hospitals of the TMC abandon their infrastructure which they have invested billions in, abandon the infrastructure which has been built around them (Red Line, underpasses at Holcombe), forget that apartment towers have built up around them for med students and doctors, and get closer to workers at ... the Astrodome? The South Loop? Somewhere else? Maybe a look at the TMC's long term plan will answer some of your questions. If not, could you please clarify?
  22. ig2ba
    Thanks. Very interesting. I didn't think the rail would go this far, so I didn't even think of this possibility. I wonder if this would allow for expansion to a few stops along Washington? Maybe not the whole length along Washington and Westcott, but something.
  23. ig2ba
    ?
  24. ig2ba
    Am I missing something? I was under the impression that the U Line will switch from Richmond to Westpark via Timmons Lane and an elevated bridge over 59. And that this was done to placate Afton Oaks NIMBYs. ... and that METRO knew that they would not be able to obtain full funding and one time so they chose build the North, EE, and Southeast lines first. Is there still expected to be significant oppostion to the revised route for the U Line?
  25. ig2ba
    Afton Oaks is a residential neighborhood filled with well-connected whiners, not a tourist destination. /thread
×
×
  • Create New...