urbancowboy

The Houston Section of the American Planning Association Texas Chapter is hosting its fall signature event, " The Texas Big Six 2040 Workshop". With a horizon year of 2040, the planning directors from Texas' six largest cities, Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio, will present about the major plans, policies, and projects currently underway that will shape the livability, resiliency, and competitiveness of these cities and our region's future. This is one of the few times in history the planning directors from the states' largest cities have been convened for a single workshop and panel discussion.

The panelist include:

• Greg Guernsey, Director of Planning, City of Austin
• David Cossum, Director of Sustainability and Construction, City of Dallas
• Carlos Gallinar, Deputy Director of City Development and Planning, City of El Paso
• Randle Harwood, Director of Planning and Development, City of Fort Worth
• Pat Walsh, Director of Planning and Development, City of Houston
• John Dugan, Director of Planning, City of San Antonio
• Keynote Speaker: Andrew Howard, Team Better Block

Our panelist will provide exciting presentations about how our cities and region will mature from 20th century cities into 21st century metropolises that are livable, desirable world-class places that sustain the health, vitality, and happiness of residents, businesses, and visitors. In addition, ample time has been set aside for conversations and questions between the audience and panelist. Don't miss this opportunity and register now!

The Texas Big Six 2040 Signature Workshop

Friday, November 21, 2014

8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Texas Southern University

Barbara Jordan Mickey Leeland School of Public Affairs

Cleburne St at Tierwester St

Houston, TX 77004

Registration is required. Please register at this link or see the flyer: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-texas-big-six-2040-conversations-about-our-future-registration-13367160537

For more information contact Houston APA at houstonapa@gmail.com

Big Six Workshop.pdf

70 specialty stores and boutiques and at least 3 department stores.

Elgin and 59

Except for the Macy's logo in the middle. I wonder if Macy's will take up the old Books-A-Million space? It would look bad for Downtown to lose another retailer and hurt what they are trying to build there.

That would be great, and quite pratical. It's a shame that we are losing one of the few viable options to shop at not only Downtown but along the lightrail routes that will be constructed for the forseeable future. I wish the MD or the city could've worked out some sort of financial incentives to keep them open, at least until a new location downtown could be determined.

Couldn't they just restrict left turns all together. I know that would be a hassle for motorist but it would certainly make things easier for transit.

Well, when they come to Houston, hopefully they will locate either downtown in the Pavillions or at Main Place, even West Ave would be okay. Chances are they will probably go to the Galleria area or Memorial City.

I'll add to that list Washington D.C., there downtown isn't really the most intriguing. Downtown Dallas, Los Angeles, even Miami.

I got to view the webinar. It seems to me that this will be Houston's newest edge city. I can't say that this is really a good thing. They also tout that this is infill. I don't quite by that. They are also banking on the northline light rail being extended out there, I think that is an inappropriate mode for such a far out local. Commuter rail would be the best option. All in all the development could be much worse, however what makes this "less" sustainable in my eyes is the far flung location, the constant chatter about the Grand Parkway (let's face it, that doesn't qualify this development as transit oriented), and the lack of transit to be with, it also appears to be rather insular. Anyway, it could be worse, but I'm not sure that that makes it good.

I tend to agree that the system needs more grade separation. I have difficulty calling the current system rapid transit since it does stop at traffic lights. Hopefully with the restructuring of the bus system for the rail will include increased frequencies and a few 24 hour trunk lines.

Its a shame that this is taking so long. Maybe they will come back with a proposal that is more feasible, maybe even better than what we are getting now. Grade Separation anyone! Yeah right......

I wonder if they could go in at the Pavillions somewhere, or even at Main Place. I like the idea of having a movie house of any kind downtown. Midtown would be my second choice. I feel that Bayou Place as most of the museum district is really horribly designed to begin with. The parking out front and the interface was not appealing at all.

I hope they have whole grain pasta in some if not all of their dishes. Eating all of that cheese, I think a little fiber would go a long way. Now days they even make that smart pasta that has the texture of white pasta but with the nutrition and fiber content of whole grain.

haha i'm down with that!

I second that. One more caveat, they must also construct an urban store that is green and pedestrian, maybe part of a TOD for the Inner Katy Line. Design is my biggest issue in my book.

I will say that it isn't fair to compare Houston and Dallas. Houston has always been the bigger city. Remember that D/FW comprises two historic cores therefore only combined are they bigger than Houston. The D/FW area functions considerably differently than Houston ever has, so Houston would logically seem bigger because its far more centralized. Houston is large enough that I think there are is always something to do. I agree that it might be best to know someone here, but I can say that with the internet there is always some type of activity going on at all times of day and night (at least on the weekends). Like some have said before even New York slows down at night.

As to the poster that said "Don't you wish the Gulf was cool like the Pacific?" I do everyday between June and September. I wish at least cooled down at nice. Then I might be able to take a stroll somewhere. I do think that the lack of sidewalks in many of the neighborhoods detracts from being able to experience the city. I find it that pedestrian places are more interesting in general. Sometimes it can be just as nice to sit back with a cup of tea or a drink and watch the world go by. There aren't a lot of places here in H-town that one can do that. It a drag that in many place in this city one has to drive to take a walk. Houston has all the makings of a dynamic world class place minus the transport and built environment, which in my opinion are crucial.

So, the traffic is too thin but commuter rail would work?

So, more lanes are proposed by TxDOT and the first post mentions commuter rail, and TxDOT is the one on autopilot? Sounds like a kneejerk reaction to me.

After reading the materials on the website, it seems like the current 4 lanes is inadequate. 8 is probably overkill, but maybe one extra lane in each direction would be enough for the next 20 years. Any ideas how to fund this given the current funding situation? ...

But who knows? If the Westpark Tollway ties in to I-10, maybe they will actually need 8 total lanes.

Transit isnt always about reducing autombile traffic. Sometimes its about giving options, therefore avoiding the need to expand the highway.

It would be great to see commuter rail instead of more lanes.

Developers also want rail to build mixed-use developments.

Trae, this is true and building highways for developers is not sustainable either...check out part of southwest.

name='TheNiche' date='Tuesday, April 8th, 2008 @ 11:45pm' post='241208'

I agree with this statement. Trying to implement rapid transit without being able to force development around it fails to produce TOD in any reasonable period of time. Furthermore, as that TOD develops, it may not be in a maximally synergistic form by way of which an activity cluster of critical mass can be attained.

This is a premise of mine on why METRO's implementation of rapid transit was short-sighted.

Induced demand is the intent (not the unintended consequence) of adding capacity to transporation projects. It is caused when private consumers experience higher total trip costs in period 0, before the expansion project, and lower costs in period 1, after the project. When costs for a good are lower, the quantity demanded of that good increases.

In freeway expansion projects, the typical basis for lower costs are time savings and a reduction in out-of-pocket costs, such as that better mpg can be attained when not sitting in congestion. But time savings are the big one.

Please support your assertion.

LOL, I already have! Freeway expansions create a situation in which more cars can fit on a road therefore every negative externalities will increase as well (i.e. pollution to air and water), eventually there will be too many cars on the road leading to congestion. So the expansion increases supply which induces demand, however demand will increase faster than supply and there you have the Southwest Freeway, North Freeway, The Gulf Freeway, Sam Houston Parkway West. These have all been expanded in the last 5-20 years and have severe rush hour congestion. I know these road are designed for 20-30 years, but that is still a fraction of lifespan and efficiency of a rapid transit way (i.e. the Philadelphia Market-Frankford EL 100 years).

I don't doubt this. However, the kind of development that you advocate 1) doesn't exist yet, meaning that there are legacy issues that'll likely stick around for the next century or so whether you like it or not, and 2) that it would be more impactful doesn't make it better. You've got to think of the costs along with the benefits.

Well, they did come out with this study in September of 2007. Here is the link to the Baltimore Sun article, (I hope it still works)

Nat'l Center for Smart Growth

I'd suspect that sustainable development is often more easily built from scratch to exacting specifications than within the context of existing infrastructure.

Not really, part of what makes infill sustainable is the fact the that it uses existing infrastructure and causes minimal expansion on the city's foot print. Many of the older urban places and small towns were built during a time when cities and towns were transit friendly walkable, these attributes are still true today.

Point Blank, cars is not a sustainable way to move people around, the space cars and storage take up is enormous; autocentric cities create a situation inwhich people must own cars to live and that isn't fair nor the best way to spend money; and countless other environmental, economic, and social cost. Oh and the Park and Ride System is great, I took the Route 214 from Jones Road into the City everyday, but I must say a train would have been that much faster.

There always seems to be this failure to address the change in land use that has to come about to make transit efficient. But, Trae is right in the sense that adding more lanes in to freeways isn't the best use of resources. Especially with the induced demand that expansions brings about. Also, sprawl in the long run is far more costly than the upfront cost of sustainable green development. Interestingly enough here in Philadelphia they are in the final stages of reconstructing the 100 year old el train line, I would like to see a freeway that last even half that long without total reconstruction. Oh and one more thing, the Center for Smart Growth in Maryland came out with a study that says that even if everyone were to switch to Hybrid cars that it wouldn't have nearly the impact as changes in land use and transit modes that promote dense green pedestrian friendly places. I am sorry, Pearland, Katy, and The Woodlands, but places like inner loop are the wave of the future. However, Katy, Pearland, have historic downtowns/centers near rail lines that will be perfect catalyst for TOD if commuter rail comes their way.

Even at what they're saying it will now cost, building it will have more long-term impact than the Katy Freeway expansion that was just as expensive and involved paving over an old rail line that should have been brought up to snuff for commuter rail. But no...

I was debating on another forum the merits of spending billions on mass transit as opposed to freeways. Apparently there are people who think that freeways "pay for themselves" in the way people seem to expect transit systems to do. They don't. People also seem to think that everyone will always use freeways so they're more justified to pay for. Well I rarely get on I-10, myself, unless I'm heading out of town that way (e.g. San Antonio). From the time I started driving I was finding ways to avoid I-10, before, during and after construction. The Katy Freeway will always suck.

I drive, but I avoid freeways during peak hours when I can. I've learned how to get around this city without sitting in an unnecessary amount of traffic, but we still need alternatives.

With the costs as they are, and continuing to go up while we sit and debate about it, it's indeed time to look at putting it underground if not going the el-train/monorail route. Whatever we do we need to look at the future and not the present or the past which is where all these "ridership estimates" come from. There's no use in trying to project the future based on the status quo, especially not with something that has the potential to revolutionize life in Houston - at least the Inner Loop.

I tend to agree with this. There is no point in pinching pennies on a transit system. It's funny that the Red Line is even considered rapid transit even though it takes 32 minutes to go 7 miles. I feel that Houston is well on its way (if not already) to become a world-class city. In order to do this there must be a world-class rapid transit system in place, and we have to build a system that can compete with the automobile. I think that if this system is built entirely at grade, it will be slow, and give little incentive to leave your car. I think that one of the biggest blunders the city has made already was not to use the rail corridor that ran along the Katy Freeway for some type of commuter rail service. Even when people make the argument that this city isn't dense enough or people will never leave their cars, I say that just like transit modes, land use is going to have to change drastically as well. I will leave it at that for now.

There really should be some revision of the parking ordinance for the inner loop.

Oh they are suburbs. I was just saying Arlington may not completely be a FW suburb.

Sadly I grew up in Arlington, it is most definitely a suburb of Fort Worth.

It seems like if development continues the way it is downtown will be mostly business, and Uptown/Galleria will be mostly residential and shopping. Seems like a natural and desirable progression to me. If the density gets high enough on both sides it would seem natural to have some sort of underground mass transit line linking the two neighborhoods without disturbing the quieter neighborhoods between (I dare not use the dreaded "s" word.)

I agree, a streetcar isn't enough it must be rapid transit.

I took the bus from the NW Station P&R. The busses left every 5 minutes at one point in the morning and they were always packed. So I am sure that commuter rail will work on this route. However, 18 months....I wouldn't hold my breath.

It's not really the annexation that is the problem, its the poor land use that has accompanied the annexation. Ideally, the annexation is a good the because it keeps the money in Houston, however its the low density, auto centric, and downright unsustainable development that is being built. Houston can grow to be over 1,000 square miles, but as long is the core is healthy, and the growth is well planned and sustainable than I don't see it as a problem. However, at the end of the day annexation now is better than the city bleeding money later. Sprawl does need to be addressed.