IronTiger

Yeah, one thing some people aren't remembering from the 1980s was the collapse of the S&L banks. Again, because of the diversification of Houston and other features, I think probably the worst of the downturn will be cancellation of big projects. Personally, I'd like to see slowdown in Inner Loop townhomes. It's like an invasive species.

Yeah, finally saw the map. Apparently if it did go through Brazos Co., it would skirt the city anyway to the west.

If the train stops at Northwest Mall and goes up 290, then there's no way to get to Shiro without cutting across the countryside, because between Navasota and Houston, there's no other splits along the track, and the split at Navasota goes east/west. If there's to be a Shiro stop, then it goes on the BNSF route, and there's no need to talk about the Northwest Mall at all. Either way, I could see why College Station would be too expensive to go through: barring any problems from NIMBYs, there's points where pedestrian underpasses go under the railroad but vehicular traffic doesn't, requiring there to be construction/demolition, and secondly, UP wants to use the corridor more, even going so far as to requiring two crossings closed to build a siding. Any ROW that the HSR might need (however small) might be wanted by UP instead to double-track it (and the infrastructure exists on those underpasses, might I add)

Ok, if the HSR will run along the rail there, then why isn't it going to College Station? Where would they even split it if they were going in that direction?

Ah, I see. Well, if that's the case, I seem to remember that in the master 290 plan, the Hempstead Tollway would be built between the railroad and the original Hempstead Road with a high capacity transit corridor nearby taking up more ROW (and requiring demolition). In the 290/610 rebuild, TxDOT had to settle because some more ROW was taken than necessary...for the HCTC.

Changing the topic away from a debate that will never get anywhere, I'm really confused about where the corridor is that they want to put it. I had heard it was along the rail corridor that goes through Oak Forest, but if the terminus is at Northwest Mall, how are they going to get there, put an elevated structure down the middle of Watonga/Mangum?

I understand the allure of rail, and I think there are places in America that could use more rail, but pretending that "density doesn't matter" is, in a word, wrong. This abstract by UC Berkeley (a train-friendly, liberal institution, might I add), and I quote" “mass transit” needs “mass” ". Highways filling up doesn't mean a mass transit plan is necessarily needed, it's usually because of a generally ineffective surface street grid (the lack of a major north-south road near the Uptown area is why 610 is worst around the spot...and why placing it over Post Oak Road was a disaster) or badly-timed stoplights. (FWIW, even though they're intercompatible, highways and surface streets are distinct transportation components that fit into this "ecosystem" you refer to) Getting back onto topic, if you actually read the article, it mentioned that the banks, not TxDOT, the NIMBYs, or the government, was the main cause for not going to the airport by not loaning them the EXTRA BILLION OR SO that they wanted.

It's not arrogance, it's just the way cities are built and operate. Apparently, some of you think it's the jingoistic "We don't want that European stuff in MURICA" talk that has (supposedly) blocked rail progress in the States. What they're trying to say is that it's uneconomical to build to the airports just in the way people would travel on HSR. Rail is a highly complex system which has an effectiveness based on density and not so much total population, which is why there's not a straight ratio for rails to road lanes. The same two rails across a few lanes could hamstring one corridor's capacity (like, say, in Texas) while doing the reverse (rails to roads) in the Northeast could also be disastrous. The reason rail works wonders in places like in Japan, India, Europe, the American Northeast, and others is because the density is very high. Texas? Not quite as much.

I seem to recall a HAIF thread that did say that it disappeared in the '90s. All th other Shipley stores stopped the grill in the 1980s.

I wouldn't trust Slick's numbers. He'll swear up and down about the ridership numbers of current and proposed lines, but I haven't forgotten the line about "Houston has no tourists", which hasn't been recanted.

* Realty

I saw Rick Perry speak to a live audience within the last 3 months. There were a number of things I never liked about Gov. Perry (including the Trans Texas Corridor...and I'm no anti-highway rube), but the man was a great orator.

Well, to be honest, I was thinking "independent thoughts" as to be off the wall crazy stuff at the time. However, the "Republicans are anti science", is in fact an opinion. It would be a fact to say "Ted Cruz is ignoring scientific evidence supporting global warming" or something (if that was indeed true)

If foreign investors are putting money into our country, they're at least confident of our financial future.

I can google "republicans anti science" and get all sorts of hits, either from people arguing against that notion or propagating it (almost all left wing sources). Hardly an independent thought...sounds like parroting your media company of choice. On the flipside, true "independent thoughts" are almost always universally stupid.

Before it was heavily damaged by fire, they were doing extensive renovations, including ADA compliance, if I recall correctly.

Well, I was trying to make my post seem kind of ambiguous politics-wise. That could be a noble effort, or a case of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I don't agree with the anti-science comment...not that I'm trying to get into a debate on what Republicans believe, but it bothers me more when people pull out the "Republicans are anti-science" song and dance, then will turn right around and happily believe some pseudo-science about how GMO foods and artificial colors are destroying your health, even though real science says things contrary to the sort.

Or is it pro-Houston and a good-intentions wish to revive Houston to "Space City" status?

I'm predicting Badtke Road will be extended as a "real" road as it was rebuilt as it intended to be years ago.

TxDOT documents showed frontage roads. The north end of the Mason Road stub has stubs for frontage roads. The part south of the Katy Freeway has frontage roads. Maybe not NOW, but sometime eventually.

Well, months later not a lot has happened on the 290 lanes. The highway lanes go crooked, a sharp merge from an exit, no shoulders. And nightly lane closures. These factors make me think the show's not over yet. If they were going to depress the frontage roads, I would think that's the first thing they'd do. They also might (I said might, as a planning document seemed to indicate) put the frontage roads as the fifth top level. It's plausible since the existing ramps don't go THAT high, and one five stack in Dallas does have the main lanes on top...

His name's Phil Gramm, and I blame him for his part in making Munson Drive difficult to use as a shortcut in the Eastgate area back in CoCS.

Good grief. For what it's worth, I agree that the only houses affected that will be in the "impact zone" is a small one. But NIMBYs are going to be everywhere, even petty things like the H-E-B Montrose Market. Do you remember the stink about the schools nearby and the liquor license issue, so the first few weeks, the beer and wine section remained empty and roped off? No? In any case, there's always some compromise: the H-E-B didn't empty out onto the side streets and walled off, and noise reducing walls would also presumably be installed here (and get rid of the freight train noise while they're at it). The answer isn't "stuff it", or making ridiculous compromises that hamstring the whole thing, but to work things out. I wasn't arguing the idea that NIMBYs were right, I was more arguing against the idea of the "zero impact" idea, which are two different things. YouknowwhatImean?

The restrooms would probably be a boon for the homeless.

I realize that, and there's no way that they wouldn't put up some sort of sound wall. I also realize that highways are in fact loud. The only reason why the highway example was put up was the argument that HSR trains are quiet because they're quiet from the inside, which is of course true and true of any other enclosed vehicle.