ToryGattis

No, it means the transit solution should be tailored to the city. Houston is a decentralized, low density city where the key issue is rush hour traffic congestion. Rail is a bad fit - the solution should be a more comprehensive set of express lanes and commuter buses to more job centers. The Main St. LRT was a fine investment with many destinations on a short route, but I don't have much faith in the new lines (the Universities line might have been a different matter) - they have consumed a couple decades of Metro's capital building capacity and are likely to yield very little.

I'd say most of those graphs are pretty flat. I wonder how Denver got a big spike in bus ridership? Metro's billions went to the existing and new LRT lines (which haven't opened yet). Those dollars could have gone to expanded bus service, including many, many more miles of cheaper BRT. LA is one of the few cities that might be able to justify a massive rail expansion over the very long term, based on their incredibly high overall density, complete freeway and arterial gridlock, and year-round excellent pedestrian weather. Although they too would probably be better off with more miles of BRT than fewer miles of LRT or subways.

This is a common argument by transit agencies. "If we just build the next few billion dollars of rail, we'll finally have critical mass and overall ridership will increase." To my knowledge, none have succeeded over the last few decades, even with much larger rail networks than Metro is planning. And ignoring the rail completely, with the dramatic population and congestion increases Houston's had over the last 15+ years, ridership should have at least increased proportionally, even with no increase in network and service. But it didn't - it dropped. Why? Here's a logical hypothesis: Metro proposed a 50% bus service increase in the 2001 referendum, yet actually reduced bus service over the last decade as more and more money went towards rail. And overall ridership dropped. Seems like cause and effect to me. And it implies Metro needs a change of strategy...

Metro has spent billions on transit over the last 15+ years during a time of dramatic population increases. If ridership was increasing, an argument could be made to increase funding and increase ridership even more. But it's moving in the wrong direction, at which point you have to ask if more money will move the needle back the other direction, and if so, why the previous billions didn't?

Other options might be "Skyscraper Garden" or "Tower Garden". Thoughts?

This is great! Thanks for doing this. I updated both my posts with the link. I would prefer your northern boundary as well to capture the Washington Ave area, but technically the high-rises are along Allen Parkway and Memorial, so it's a stretch if we're staying true to the "Walled Garden" concept. The easy rule is "if you can see towers in all directions from where you're standing, you're in the Garden."

Good question. Obviously anybody who works or lives in any of those towers can see it, and that's 2-300,000+ right there. It's also pretty easy to explain. "What's the Walled Garden?" "It's the part of Houston surrounded by skyscrapers." It's also reasonably easy to see on the satellite map. Maybe not quite as easy as "inside the loop", but close. BTW, does anybody know how Google Maps and others get the neighborhood names they display on their maps? Does the official info come from the City of Houston? If this did catch on, I'm wondering how the label would get on the maps...

Close! I'd tighten up the west and south sides to be closer to Post Oak, Greenway Plaza, and the Med Center core. Reliant Park and West U would not be included. 288/59 would be the line on the east side.

Wanted to repost this over here to hear HAIFer feedback... http://houstonstrate...led-garden.html My friend Neal and I were in a tall building recently looking out over the city, and noted that there is an interesting phenomenon in Houston. There are now enough tall buildings to almost outline a new zone. If you go from the Medical Center up to Downtown, west along Allen Parkway/Memorial, south along 610/Post Oak, back east to Greenway Plaza, and then southeast to return to the Medical Center ( here's a satellite map of the area - sorry I'm not skilled enough to overlay an outline) there is an almost continuous - well not continuous - but a substantial line of skyscrapers. And it's pretty green within that zone, as least from an elevated viewpoint. And we named it "The Walled Garden". Somewhat similar aesthetically to New York's Central Park or Chicago's Millennium Park, but much larger and, of course, not a public park. It does, in my stretched definition, contain the key parks of central Houston: Hermann, Discovery Green, Eleanor Tinsley/Buffalo Bayou, and Memorial (my concept, my boundaries . It also contains such key areas as the Galleria, Highland Village, River Oaks, Upper Kirby, Montrose/Neartown, Midtown, the Museum District, Rice University and the Rice Village. "Inside the Loop" is a very common phrase you'll hear in Houston. I'd like to think "The Walled Garden" could be a similar such phrase describing a narrower zone where young singles want to live (as evidenced by the explosion in apartment construction within it) vs. more family-oriented areas like West U, Bellaire, The Heights, or the various neighborhoods of the east side. It could also be used for branding and attracting young talent to Houston, like the way people talk about the Near North Side/Lincoln Park in Chicago or Santa Monica in LA or Manhattan in NYC. By having a unifying label over the area, it's easier to promote it. And I think "Houston's Walled Garden" has a pretty appealing ring to it. Now if only they could only fill in the gaps a bit, maybe with a tower somewhere near Ashby and Bissonnet?... ;-)

I'm going to call a little BS on this. First, London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Frankfurt are clearly global portals too. Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Seoul also have a good case. Second, this seems unlikely in the U.S. until we make it much easier for international customers to connect through the U.S. to another country without going through our immigration, visa, and customs hassles. Houston would be a great connecting point from Asia to Latin America if we made this easier. I think I read once that Canada has made this easier through Vancouver and Toronto. Third, I'd say DFW has the weakest case vs. Atlanta (many more connecting destinations and flights) and Houston (HQ of the global energy industry = strong O&D traffic). Another problem with DFW is that AA prefers to route its Latin America traffic through Miami. And if their OneWorld partners are looking for domestic US connections, Chicago, LA, and NYC/JFK make more sense geographically.

Humbly suggested solution: 1) Monitor the Delta and United last minute weekend specials that come out each week in email (flights are Sat to Mon or Tues). Or an AirTran or Southwest fare sale, which would have the advantage of being able to come in on a Thurs or Fri to get some more weekend nightlife. Watch for a cheap fare. 2) Buy it when it pops up. 3) Do your online research about things you want to do when you get here. If you're primarily interested in nightlife, plan on a *lot* of club/bar hopping on Th/Fri/Sat night, just to get a feel for a broad spectrum of what's out there. Another option: maybe somebody here will offer to be your "local guide"? 4) Immerse yourself for 3-4 days 5) Make the call. There's nothing like first-hand experience. Side note: if you come May-Sept, do not let the heat/humidity scare you too much. It's much, much better Oct-April.

The book is online if you want to check it out: http://houstonfreeways.com/

Looks to me like it was intended to connect to Main St., but that never happened for whatever reason. Looks like Shaver was supposed to be one-way southbound and Main was supposed to be one-way northbound all the way to the circle and the tunnel. I'd guess the need simply wasn't there to justify the expensive grade separation across the rail.

There is a new angle to try an save the Astrodome. The new master plan recommendations are renovation of the Astrodome into a multi-purpose facility while also building a very expensive replacement Astrohall - but it's a lot of money. Some people have spoken in front of county commissioners court arguing that any functions a new Astrohall could perform could be folded into a renovated Astrodome, thus saving hundreds of millions while still saving the Astrodome. If you agree, consider writing emails or letters to the county commissioners expressing support for that approach.

As was mentioned before, absolutely nothing changes about United's connecting traffic. Any passenger connecting thru IAH had a dozen other connecting options they could have chosen, including, at some point in the future, Southwest, no matter what cities they decide to use for Latin America service. Here's what changes: United could gouge local passengers on intl nonstops, and thus offer cheap connecting tickets and still have very profitable flights overall. Our city shouldn't really care what connecting passengers are paying, it should care about what our own local citizens have to pay to travel. Opening up competition will help that. And I still believe the lower local prices (which United has to match) will stimulate demand, thus creating more flights overall, inc. from United. They just won't be as profitable for United. In essence, we're forcing United to offer the same discounted fares to locals that they currently offer to connecting passengers, at least to the limited set of destinations Southwest will serve. BTW, on another note, all of these pro-United arguments have an additional problem that they apply just as well to domestic service as intl service, yet does anybody really believe we'd be better off if we closed Hobby and shut down competitive SWA domestic service?

Respectfully disagree. This was written by a stock analyst trying to curry favor (maybe United will grant him Diamond elite status?). He's also probably not happy that it's going to cut into UAL's profitability, thus limiting the stock. And he *completely* ignores all the Latin American tourism we may get coming to Houston as a result of competition and lower fares. The Auckland flight was gone anyway (they had already pre-announced using that 787 on Denver-Tokyo). And some minor United cutbacks in Latin America service are going to hurt Houston's business competitiveness? Please. "You know, we'd grow in Houston with 650 daily United flights, but 600? Nah, unacceptable!" And I'm betting most of those will come back once SWA stimulates lower prices and more demand. Now compare that to businesses who do a lot of Latin America business, whether U.S. companies (or their Latin divisions) or U.S. branches of Latin American companies: "Low fare competition to lots of our destinations? Sold!" They might even consider Houston over Miami!

The latest stats I can track down: DFW: 144 domestic destinations + 44 intl = 188 total (AA hub has 770 daily departures to 160 destinations = 123 domestic + 37 intl) IAH: 115 domestic + 68 intl = 183 total (United hub around 620 daily departures, ~167 destinations) They win on total flights, passengers, and domestic destinations (which you'd expect given their better domestic hub geography). We win on intl destinations mainly because of the energy industry. I do think DFW will get scaled back when SWA gets fully out from under the Wright amendment at Love Field, as well as under a USAir-AA merger, where it would be somewhat redundant with the Phoenix hub.

It's vague, but probably by the city council this month. But it's at the discretion of the Mayor when she puts it in front of them.

A recap from my blog posts... http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/04/learning-from-fll-vs-mia-for-swahou-vs.html http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/05/debunking-uniteds-anti-hobby-arguments.html and throwing in a little humor... http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/04/hobby-to-close-iah-turned-over-to.html

Blog post is up Debunking United's anti-Hobby arguments http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/05/debunking-uniteds-anti-hobby-arguments.html At the end of the day, every argument United is making against international service at Hobby could also be made against domestic service at Hobby ("it weakens IAH", "it drains traffic to support our routes", etc.), but nobody in this city (excluding United employees) would think we were better off if we closed down Hobby and eliminated the Southwest competition. When seen through this lense, all of United's arguments crumble.

Clearly true for the United study, but to clarify, the original study showing large benefits for Hobby internationalization was commissioned by the Houston Airport System with independent consultants completely unaffiliated with Southwest.

Their share will drop, but their total passengers will increase as reduced fares increase demand. It will cut their profit margins, but the flights will still be profitable, so cutting them will just hurt them further. In fact, they will have to add flights to meet the increased demand, so they end up with more flights with lower profit margins per flight.

I don't think it will have any material affect on people moving here, *but* it certainly may increase tourist visitors from Latin America to Houston, boosting our tourism economy.

If anything it will probably accelerate it, based on the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale case study. Competition = lower fares = more demand = more flights.

This is big news! I would have expected them to be neutral with so much United power among their board and committees. The fact that this resolution still got through speaks to the powerful benefits of competition for the city and the business community. http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2012/05/greater-houston-partnership-supports-hobby-expansion/ Greater Houston Partnership supports Hobby expansion The Greater Houston Partnership is backing a plan to expand Hobby Airport that would allow for international flights. The Partnership’s Business Issues Committee voted unanimously to support the plan to add five gates and a Customs facility to the airport. Southwest Airlines is pushing the plan so it can start flying to Mexico and the Caribbean. The Partnership’s board of directors is expected to adopt a resolution in support of Hobby expansion by the end of next week. “This is a critically important issue for Houston. We want two vibrant airports and the benefits that go along with it: more jobs, more travelers and a competitive advantage for our city,” said Tony Chase, chairman of the Partnership. United Airlines, which dominates the Latin American market from its base at Bush Intercontinental Airport, has fought the proposal. Company officials and consultants have argued that dividing the city’s international air traffic will cost jobs and routes. A city consultant’s study concluded that the Hobby plan will create 10,000 jobs and inject $1.6 billion into the local economy. Having the most prominent voice in the Houston business community behind the Hobby plan is another blow to United, which merged with Houston hometown airline Continental in 2010. In pressing its case, United has been drawing on the good will and trust Continental generated as an active corporate citizen for decades. The Partnership’s immediate past board chairman is Larry Kellner, who was CEO of Continental from 2004 to 2009. The Partnership’s airports task force is chaired by Michelle Baden, United’s managing director for international and state affairs and a registered lobbyist for the airline at City Hall. But the Partnership still backed the Southwest position. “GHP has carefully deliberated on how increased competition changes the landscape within airport systems, having reviewed and analyzed extensive data and listened intently to representatives from the Houston Airport System, city of Houston, United and Southwest,” said Jeff Moseley, president and CEO of the Partnership. “We intend to keep working with all airlines and parties to protect and grow our region’s airports.” City Council is scheduled to vote next month on the Hobby expansion plan.