ToryGattis

Here are all the viewing details: http://www.fly2houston.com/0/3920352/0/83280/

This would actually be a feature for the co-working space. Also shared common areas for any dorms/apartments. I think that makes sense about the Universities putting dorms on their own campuses first. But there are master campus plan issues - is the highest-best use of campus space for dorms or academic buildings? Rice chose to put its Grad House off campus and run a shuttle bus. Rice also has a bit of a different model for undergrads because of the college system (think on-campus co-ed fraternities with cafeterias that everybody gets assigned to - no rush). Assuming it hasn't changed since the 90s, the model has always been to assign about 1/4 to 1/3 more students to a college than it can hold at any one time, forcing some students off campus, usually for just one of their years (and some want to be off campus). So, bottom line, as long as Rice keeps that model, no matter how many dorms they build, around 25% of the undergrads will be off campus in any given year. Any new dorms will go to overall student body growth, not increasing the percentage on-campus. As far as UH goes, no matter how many dorms they build, the majority of students will almost certainly always be off campus. In Austin, there seem to be apartment complexes that specialize in UT students, including matching up roommates in multi-bedroom units and offering leases based on the academic year (I think). This might be something like that too. I wonder if the old Days Inn/Holiday Inn would be a particularly good fit for that model? It wouldn't require as extensive a remodeling if a kitchen weren't required in each unit, instead having a common kitchen on each floor (my dorm at Rice was like this). And most students would be perfectly happy with an efficiency unit the size of a hotel room. Part of the reason for mixing the residential and incubator space is simply that these buildings are far too large to fill with startups in any reasonable time frame. The residential can also create a predictable baseline of rent revenue to support the building, and subsidize the incubator space. I also think there's a great talent match there too if students are chosen for an interest in entrepreneurship and technology. Some will start their own tech startups, of course, but I think most startups are founded by older professionals. They would love to have access to very affordable or equity-compensated talent in the early days when funding is tight - and students (or recent graduates) are a perfect fit for that. Like I said, it could be a very fertile entrepreneurial environment.

Another thought: The hot thing in Silicon Valley is shared houses with techies doing startups - sort of a live-in incubator/co-working space. Here, Rice forces ~1,000 undergrads (and all the grad students) to live off campus every year because of a lack of on-campus dorm space. What if that Central Square building (or another) was converted into a mix of small apartments and shared living areas aimed at Rice students plus co-working/incubator/office space open to anyone? I think it would be incredibly popular, and win-win both for the students and the startups to be exposed to each other. Something along the light rail line would be ideal for easy back-and-forth to campus. The old Days Inn/Holiday Inn tower would be another option. I think it could be a pretty amazing entrepreneurial environment...

How looters haven't claimed that state-of-the-art technology, I'll never understand...

Does anybody know the story behind the abandoned mid-rise(s) in Midtown bounded by Gray-Travis-Webster-Milam? History? Who used to be in there? When did it close down? Owner? Plans? Any obstacles to renovation or tear-down? (asbestos? something else?) Current state of the building inside? Part of the reason I ask: there's been some buzz in the Houston entrepreneurship community about needing a more concentrated district of startups, and I think that building could be an interesting opportunity, especially since it has a giant parking garage and is just 3 blocks from the Houston Technology Center and the walkable Bagby-Gray area, not to mention on the LRT to Rice, TMC, and eventually UH. Wouldn't have to be a complete redevelopment - maybe, to start, just fixing up a floor or two to be usable, climate controlled open-plan low-cost/retro office/co-working/incubator space. Insights appreciated.

FYI, KUHF NPR this morning said this is delayed a day due to weather. Smaller viewing window tomorrow.

What's a little confusing is that the viewing is Monday, but it doesn't depart until Wed for LA. What's happening with it on Tues?

It does increase compared to the bus route that used to follow the same corridor. Imagine 3 bus routes on parallel arterials carrying 20k riders each. The middle one is switched to rail and the other two are canceled and require either walking to the rail or, more likely, perpendicular routes that feed the rail. The rail gets 60k riders. Did it triple ridership? No, not compared to the 3 lines it replaced. Overall, I would expect rail to increase ridership vs. bus. It is certainly a preferred mode of transit. The issue is cost-benefit. Not how much was paid to for each rider of the rail, but for each *new* rider of transit that wasn't riding the buses before. In most cases where I've seen numbers, the costs are crazy high for new riders. Here's one example: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=6220 "This 7.3-mile line line is expected to cost $1.5 billion and carry just 9,300 new riders (that is, people who weren’t previously riding the bus) each weekday. Since most people ride round trip, that 4,650 round-trip riders a day. The high cost is enough money to buy each of those new round-trip riders a new Toyota Prius every year for the 30-year life of the project."

Here they call them Signature bus lines (there's one on Bellaire), and Metro could certainly use more of them.

Not surprising. The first question is the cost per additional rider (who weren't on the buses before). And the second question is much harder: how many bus routes were altered after the rail line started? Usually any competing parallel bus routes get axed, and all buses feed the rail line. So of course ridership increases, because alternatives were removed.

FYI, my blog post on the KBR site: http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/09/houstons-last-opportunity-for-another.html

As big a drainage impact and habitat loss as if those 84 units were suburban houses? As much traffic congestion and pollution as those people commuting from the far suburbs every day?

Everybody seems to want this land to end up like CityCentre or the Sugar Land or Woodlands town centers, but the retail components of those places absolutely require the vast numbers of upper middle class residents in the many miles of neighborhoods around them to support them (the residents on-site are nowhere near enough support). Given that this site does not have those income levels surrounding it, I'm not sure what's feasible. It seems like there are a few options: - go for very high density so the on-site residents can support the retail. There will definitely be a chicken-and-egg problem for quite a while as it is built out. - focus mainly on residential and office space, and the residents will drive elsewhere for most retail - try to do something more tailored to the area demographics, maybe like a town center version of Gulfgate? (which I believe has been quite successful) What I think would be ideal would be to establish a new university campus. Houston is lagging peer cities in college campuses and numbers of students. Maybe a Texas A&M branch? Or Texas Tech? Or UT has an undergraduate branch in all the other Triangle cities but us. UH probably wouldn't be thrilled, but competition is good, and it would attract more students from across the state and region to Houston, as well as provide new a new higher ed option for locals, which would have to be good for the city. We could do something similar to what NYC just did with Roosevelt Island, eventually awarding it to Cornell for a technology campus.

Just drove it, and it definitely seems feasible to elevate 4 or 6 express I45 lanes over the Pierce Elevated and plug them to the underutilized, very long freeway ramps near Scott Street (3-4 lanes each direction!), but I agree it will take careful placement of the support columns. I'm not even sure there would be that much resistance from the adjacent buildings since their bottom level parking garages are quite high. Not sure where to plug them in on the north side, but there seem to be plenty of options. Maybe near Dart street, just before I10?

Max, what do you think of a simplified solution like I45 express lanes (no entrances or exits) elevated above the Pierce? Then the 59/288 exit could be re-striped to send 2 lanes onto the Pierce instead of 1 (only one will be needed from 45 on the lower level to handle those exiting Allen Parkway, Memorial/Houston, etc.).

I don't think that's technically a roundabout - that's just a split deck freeway where each direction is at a different level ;-) But I like it. Easier might be to create some elevated express lanes over the Pierce Elevated - no local entrances or exits, just express lanes for 45N and S.

Another thought: if they do explore the roundabout concept, I hope they make it counterclockwise. Can't beat that skyline view coming south on 45N... especially at sunset or at night...

Plenty of red meat here both in the article and in the comments. I think the downtown roundabout idea is pretty intriguing, although the years of construction to make it a reality makes me shudder. Could suffocate downtown the way LRT construction suffocated those corridors. http://www.chron.com/news/article/Here-s-a-roundabout-way-to-ease-traffic-congestion-3836900.php

The service area is just their tax base (1% sales tax) they are allowed to serve - doesn't mean they actually serve all of it, especially the far suburbs - thus the debate on this thread and about the GMP.

Doesn't change the fact that taxes are being collected without services provided. I guess they decided to swap heavily subsidized, underutilized and expensive bus service for the GMP. Even if Metro was still running the high-loss bus services instead, that money wouldn't be available for LRT.

Fair enough. It is bigger out there on the east side than it looked in that other map I found. But as far as my original statement "most" of Harris County, I think 70% would fairly qualify as "most" (and I'd bet it's higher than 70% on a population basis).

As you can see, only a small eastern portion of Harris County (and Tomball) is not in the Metro service area: http://www.lightrail...lutions-map.jpg

62%. See http://www.ridemetro.org/AboutUs/Referendum/PDFs/GMP-Flow-of-Funds-May.pdf

As was mentioned before, CoH has annexed many of the commercial areas along 1960, so most residents of the northwest county are paying sales tax to a city that provides them no services. There are also all the wealthy residents of the small municipalities (Bellaire, West U, the westside villages) that do most of their shopping in Houston. That's why you have to be a little wary of these calculations showing Houston getting less than its proportional share of the GMP - there's no way of knowing how much of the sales tax generated within CoH is by residents who live outside of it. It could be a lot more substantial than you think. Also remember that the 1% sales tax covers the entire Metro service area (not just CoH), including most of Harris County, and goes to Metro. They get very little transit service for the 1% they put in, and so to be equitable, they get more out of the GMP. If they lose that GMP, they will simply petition the legislature to give it back, or to remove them from Metro, and Metro will lose that 1% from all of those areas - a big chunk of change. Better for Metro to compromise and keep them within its sales tax base.

Because the City of Houston gets a big chunk of the GMP too.