dp2

How did your article pan out in intown magazine? I didn't see it but I'm assuming you understand the restraints in posting graphics on an 8.5/11 sheet of print...and I'm sure you realize the job of the publication's proof readers.

Other than these sarcastic responses to points one through three in your post, I havn't a clue what the rest of it is about.

I have proofed every article I've ever written. They taught that back in junior high at my public school. Not a good idea when writing about distances to confuse kilometers with miles. Worse to give one set of facts (specific distances) in an article and have conflicting information in the graphics (which are supposed to reinforce your message, not highlight that your information is wrong in multiple ways.) Compounded that neither the quotes nor the graphics ever gave the accurate figure. Not to mention that we aren't talking about lots of complicated tables and charts, but about as simple a graphic as there can be.

Everyone makes a mistake now and then, it really isn't a big deal, but multiple obvious errors in your own publication send a bad message about your competency and how well developed your message actually is. As I said, I think this sloppiness is actually representative and extends through his 'visioning'. What I wrote is pretty clear to anyone who has read much of his work and those of his organization and is familiar with what he is trying to accomplish, and his role in shaping the future of Houston on multiple large and important projects. (Yes, I dearly love the naughty tool that is the run-on sentence.) Some of the ideas that he (and they) are pushing are in serious need of tough peer review, but with the real risk that little such scrutiny will actually occur. Houston has done some great things to improve this town in the last decade, with much more to come, but there are also some real boneheaded ideas being pushed around at high levels that would be tremendous planning blunders if they come to pass. I have yet to be able to discern if he is going to be more a part of the solution or the problem.

That doesn't mean that everyone will agree with my opinion, but it was pretty self-explanatory. Sorry that it went over your head.

A shame that:

1) Mr. Crossley apparently doesn't even know how to use the scale on a map

2) Mr. Crossley apparently doesn't feel the need to proofread

3) His sloppiness and errors tend to be more and more indicative of his visioning abilities

Overall (beyond just this article) he raises some good points and ideas, but too often then wanders into goofball territory. I'd use him on the Brainstorming team, and keep him the hell away from the Design, Review, and Implementation groups. Though honestly his creativity seems rather limited, compared to how some would portray him.

So youre talking about having a Commuter Rail stop, right in the middle of Cullen Blvd.!

Also what 'scenery" are you talking about of Westiemer and 1960.

Rainforest Cafe at the mall?

Will I-44 possibly can be proposed from Wichita's Falls to end at Abilene to connect with I-20.

US 277 to Interstate 44

I-14

What about all of US 290 to I-14

start on I-10 exit 477 to reach I-610 Houston Texas

I-10, Austin, Houston Interstate

I-44 would be a waste of money.

290 is a good corridor, but would be pretty expensive to upgrade that entire distance to freeway standards. More likely there will someday be some type of new toll road roughly parallel to that corridor, maybe TTC style, but probably not for a long while.

MILWAUKEE, of all places, is talking about developing a commuter (heavy) rail system, while the mere mention boils the blood of certain congressmen representing the Houston metro area. Come on, Houston! Time to get on board! Take a giant leap into the 19th century.

Milwaukee probably isn't the best place to use an example if you want to promote commuter rail. Several years ago they started a commuter rail line from the west, to coincide with the major reconstruction of I-94. It was a failure and was discontinued.

Don't forget that the FTA has changed the rules on funding, pushing very hard for BRT over rail. This change came about AFTER the METRO referendum, forcing METRO to be flexible in what they ask for, or risk getting nothing. Mass transit foes recognize this. It is in their self-serving interest to convince METRO to go with the easier path of Westpark, which will result in lower ridership, and probably less or no federal funding. Then they can blame METRO for not getting funding.

The emphasis on homeland security and defense spending is also sapping needed money from domestic needs. New Start money is scheduled to shrink by 1.5% next year, the same year that Bush pledged to help the US get over its "addiction to oil". Doesn't make sense, but that is the new reality.

Actually several (the majority, IIRC) of Metro's proposed lines were on the low-end of ridership, 8-11,000 per line. Those would have had a hard time against other city's proposals even before the changes. But lower ridership on an entire Westpark route wouldn't necessarily sink it, because the critical stat for funding isn't overall cost, but cost per rider. So while all-Westpark would have lower ridership, it also may have much lower costs (since there is the cheaper option of using the pre-existing rail ROW for much of the route, instead of more expensive laying tracks in the street), resulting in perhaps a more favorable cost/rider ratio.

But I do believe that Metro is going to go all out and get this line on the best route, Richmond( at least east of Greenway Plaza.) The rest is just going through the (required) motions. West of Greenway Plaza may be up in the air, but their proposal to shift down to Westpark makes the most sense. There's already an office park and high-density housing in the SE corner of 610/59, with potential in the SW corner, too. Then turning north and running up Post Oak through Uptown also would serve the most potential riders. I think Metro did a good job with that route selection, especially if they split the east-west line into an Uptown line and a Westpark line west of 610. The trend for some transit planners is for short-yellow bus simplicity and thus single-routes only with transfers being no big deal, but there are examples all over the country of multiple lines combining through a central trunk. Though when the Washington line (east-west through downtown) comes online and serves the Uptown corridor that would provide a one seat ride from there to downtown. I'd like to see some sort of junction at Wheeler (grade-separated from the road would of course be better, I just hate it when someone at Metro throughs out BS instead of the truth) with perhaps an Uptown-Med Center service, a Westpark-UH-Hobby service, and a Westpark-Uptown-Downtown-1836 District-Hobby line. No more than 2 services on any segment, but more one seat ride options. NYC, Portland, Chicago, Boston, Philly, and San Francisco are some examples of multiple routes joining into shared trunk lines.

I said that nowhere in the United States do two *actual* light rail systems cross at grade.

Which is why I snarked about a *streetcar exemption.*

There isn't any significant difference between a streetcar line and a light-rail line when it comes to at-grade crossings. That's like trying to make an operational distinction between a 2-door Honda Accord and a 4-door Accord. Meaningless in this context. Now if it was a crossing of a light-rail line and a freight/commuter rail line then you'd have a point. But we aren't. The streetcar doesn't operate at quite as frequent headways as LRT, but at some point Tri-Met will increase those and the intersections will handle it just fine.

The TriMet South Corridor project you reference will be the first in the nation to do so if they build it as proposed (it's still in design). It will be interesting to see how TriMet operates all these intersections, how they prioritize the trains, how they affect vehicular traffic, etc. The Portland streetcar, meanwhile, is just that: a streetcar, operating under line-of-sight rules. MAX (the "full" light rail) has priority at the streetcar/light rail junction.

Your Metro pals are just throwing rationalizing smoke out their butts. No big deal to signalize a crossing, there are thousands in use on railroads across the country. Can easily set up an approach-activated crossing (sensors, operator request button, etc.) with a first-come, first-serve setup. With the relatively short-length of LRT trains, no train would be delayed more than 30 seconds, which can easily be incorporated into the schedule (which already has padding.) Plus such a crossing would be near a station, so we aren't talking high speeds. If the signals go down, just have backup operating rules with stop and proceed and directional priorities.

Furthermore, nobody said it "couldn't be done." Grand junctions of two rail systems crossing at grade occur all the time. It takes a lot of coordination to move trains through a single point at grade,

Yes, such as the incredible complex concept of the 4-way stop sign (though perhaps difficult for some of the quivering fools at the FTA and FRA to grasp.)

but it is possible. What I'm being told from my sources at METRO is that the junction can't be put *in* the intersection of Richmond/Wheeler and Main because it would essentially close the intersection to vehicular traffic. Too many trains coming, too many switches moving, etc. Maybe if they were streetcars, but not "full" light rail. The operating procedures are completely diifferent.

Your 'sources' are feeding you BS. The differences aren't the type to prevent an LRT/LRT crossing.

As somebody else suggested, perhaps the trains could be moved off the street and the junction could occur somewhere on the property in that vicinty that METRO already owns.

Anyway, these issues will be explored in detail as preliminary engineering begins.

Yes, let's get Metro's BS excuses in writing, and then subject it to peer review. It will end up looking like swiss cheese. Funny how so much of their claims, grand plans, and promises they suckered the public and voters with didn't hold up when scrutinized by the FTA for funding. And poof, LRT became BRT.

I'd venture to guess that perhaps grade separation is one of those crowd-pleasing measures Metro will promote beforehand and then drop as soon as the FTA tells them to get their project costs down. Kinda like the girlfriend who says she'll always be thin, and then grabs the sweatpants and twinkies once she gets the ring.

METRO and STV engineers have already said that they cannot put a rail junction at street level. It would kill the Richmond / Wheeler intersection. Also, nowhere in the United States do two actual light rail systems cross perpendiculalrly at grade. The operational issues involved are enormous.

And yet Portland is planning to build several more of these in the middle of their downtown with their next LRT extension. With their streetcar line already crossing the existing LRT line downtown. Going from the current 4 downtown intersections with an at-grade rail crossing to 12, while also adding auto lanes to the currently bus only transit mall the new line will run down. Yeah, must be such a traffic nightmare that they decided to go from 4 to 12. I can see why similarly gridded midtown Houston can't handle a single one of these intersections.

Good thing that the experienced light-rail pioneers at Metro know better those urban and transit novices in Portland.

Perhaps they can claim a streetcar exemption in the fine print?

So I guess what appears to be an even more complicated at grade junction and crossing of the Chicago El doesn't exist?

And quick, someone alert the Germans that this type of junction won't work. Metro says so.

Such an honest and well-informed staff Metro has there. They'd never spout any BS pulled out of their arse simply to justify whatever they want to do.

Here's the new mascot:

The team will now be (appropriately) known as the Quivering puppies.

I am certain that 95% or more of Houston hispanics don't care a whit about the name, but idiots like Sylvia Garcia will help create stereotypes and a backlash that could end up hurting her supposed constituency. There's already a lot of grumbling that more should be done to police the borders and reduce illegal immigration. Add in blather idiots like her that presents the false impression that "Mexican-Americans" are antagonistic and resisting assimilation, and the sentiment grows. Nobody wants this area to turn into a Paris suburb. Of course most of them aren't, it won't, and there is actually very little comparable, but perception and myth often drive political movements.

Every time racism appears to die out, morons like Sylvia Garcia try to fan the flames. Does she ever think before she speaks?

Public comment on 2035 Houston forecasts to end February 10

H-GAC maps and data available

The Houston-Galveston Area Council

(From January 19th, 2006 story in Houston Community News):

Joe Nixon considers the most important issues for the western section of District 7 residents are schools, appraisal caps and moving the proposed Grand Parkway north to Montgomery County.

Nixon said he and District 7 residents want the Grand Parkway to be built in Montgomery County instead of passing though Spring in Harris County.

"They feel that it needs to go north as originally planned and doesn't need to go through their neighborhoods," he said.

(Apparently when Joe Nixon says THEY, he doesn't necessarily mean WE!)

Gee, what a mature response to post a distorted picture of the man. And I'm so touched by your concern for saving your neighbors' houses, considering your support for a Montgomery Co. route that would take far more homes. Not that NIMBY's are ever logically consistent.

Umm...if I remember correctly, certain House members refused to allow METRO to have ANY federal money to build rail. Without federal assistance, METRO could only build the starter line downtown. They stalled while they tried to get the Houston area House members to get federal money for Houston transit. Eventually, TxDOT moved on, in part because Houston area House members told them to.

The federal money was immaterial, because it wasn't about building rail in the Katy corridor now, but simply having TXDOT reserve right-of-way for the future. They were willing to reserve ROW for either rail or bus, but not both. Metro at some point may still be able to cobble a rail ROW together, but it will require major amounts of elevation, far more than if they had settled on rail before the design was finalized. So instead of ramps configured to avoid what would have been a grade separated set of tracks, the tracks will have to find ways to avoid the ramps, probably shift some lanes, etc. And TXDOT couldn't sit around around forever waiting for Metro to make up its mind. Also bear in mind that DeLay was pissed because Metro had tried to backdoor rail by using a loophole to avoid first putting it to the voters, despite earlier promising to let voters decide before building rail. His opposition was really a mix of: 1) nonbelief in the need and cost-effectiveness of rail transit, 2) a belief that a majority of the public didn't support rail, and 3) complete distrust of Metro's top brass. I disagreed with him on the former two but agreed with him on the latter. Things do seem to be better since Mayor White came in and the board shuffle, and the voters spoke in favor, so DeLay backed down. Culberson is a bit of a different story, which I won't get into here. Suffice it to say that if Metro doesn't go back to the worst of their old ways, there is no way he can stop solid new transit proposals and getting them to a vote. Nor would he really try, if it is a good proposal and put forth in the right way. Too many GOP voters and reps on the transit bandwagon now, which wasn't the case even a few years ago.

Now, about this wonderful Post Office location. I drive by it on Washington twice a day. I never realized it was so centrally located. Aside from being across the street from a statue of former President Bush, what is it close to? The closest office building to the post office site is more than 2000 feet away. In contrast, several office buildings are within 2000 feet of the N. Main site, including the entire Courthouse and Jail complex.

Well it is close to many areas that will be redeveloped as part of the bayou and downtown 2025 plans, and your math is off a good bit. Here's terraserver maps, you can zoom in closer than with Google, and I measured things off just to make sure:

http://terraserver-usa.com

The east end of the platforms of a station behind the PO would be in between the PO and U of H Downtown (once the throat tracks from the tunnel widen out), between Louisiana and Milam where they connect with the freeway. From there it is just 3 and 4 blocks to the first skyscrapers, 8-11 blocks to the heart of downtown. According to Metro, DART, the T, and other transit agencies, transit users are generally willing to walk 1/2 mile (up significantly from the traditional thought of 1/4 mile.) 1/2 mile gets to a block south Penzoil Plaza (or whatever it is called these days.)

In contrast, a 1/2 mile walk from the Hardy Yards tracks down Main Street just gets one to Commerce, so only U of H and a jail building are within that distance (plus whatever develops north of the bayou and jail in the bayou and downtown 2025 plans.) In fact the east end of a PO rear station is twice as close to that Commerce and Main intersection as the Hardy Yards station, and thus twice as close to the courthouse jobs you cite. And don't forget that many jobs are 3 blocks west of the Main Street line, add in the north/south blocks needed to cross to reach a station, and even using LRT there's a good bit of walking.

So clearly the station site I suggest is closer to a high concentration of jobs.

Additionally, the Main Street rail line runs in front of the N. Main site, but is 2000 feet or more from the post office site. Since the Main Street line runs through the entire downtown area, I don't know why an intermodal station would ignore it. If you run an additional line to Main Street, commuters would have TWO transfers to get to their office. Not sure why that is preferable to Hardy Yards.

Hmmm, another wrong guesstimate. Actually an integrated pedestrian connection from the platforms through, across, or in front of UH-D would only be about 2 and 1/2 blocks long. I went and dug up info on New York's Grand Central station, and that would be shorter than the pedestrian connection from the commuter rail platforms to the subway stations that serve Grand Central. So connecting to the LRT line here would be no big deal, and no different than in many other cities.

It appears though, that your main argument for the post office is that it is somehow closer to downtown offices. That being the case, please explain just how far you think most commuters will walk, and which office buildings are within that walking radius. Because I work in northern downtown, walk every day down there, and I think the post office is in the boonies. The Amtrak station is even further. For your information, downtown blocks are 300 feet long, and the streets are generally 75 feet wide.

Again, about 1/2 mile, less in heat, maybe more once they get to the tunnels. But it isn't just walking. The location is also better for utilizing limited shuttle bus routes. Perhaps a single route up and down Louisiana and Milam would well serve most of the rest who don't walk or connect to the LRT. Spread it out and no one mode gets overwhelmed or is overwhelming of the street. Used to be there were too many buses, and at some point if you keep increasing frequency you can end up with too many LRT trains. Fort Worth's train station is only about 2 blocks closer to its core than the PO site would be. I once had a conversation with a rep for the T and TRE who said that most of the TRE passengers detraining there walked to their destinations, despite a plethora of shuttle buses at trackside. So don't discout how many will walk a moderate distance. The problem with Hardy Yards is that you add a more than 1/2 mile walk on top of that, or overload the single LRT line, and buses would also have to run down Main Street, which starts to get pretty crowded between the 2 modes and autos.

Seriously, take a look at this picture, put a station exit in the gap between UH-D and the northeast corner of the PO, and look at the proximity to all those high-rises as opposed to the Hardy Yard tracks where they cross Main Street. There's no comparison.

Anyway, I'm getting tired head, and if this is as obvious as I think it is, some Houstonians will raise the issues and maybe things will change.

Is there any other way for METRO to serve Katy via commuter rail?

Not really. The closest they could get is putting tracks in the 50' right of way they wisely reserved along the Westpark Tollway, and the next closest railroad line is along Hwy 290. No other existing or abandoned railway lines or wide powerline corridors. Actually they might could run a branch north from the Westpark tollway, cutting across the reservior and using a powerline corridor that runs a mile or two east of the Grand Parkway, but that goes through tons of backyards and is probably a nonstarter.

So that leaves freeway corridors, which will require elevation along much or all of the length. Elevation for rail generally adds at least $50 million per mile above the usual construction costs, regardless of mode. I can't see Katy rail anytime in the near future, since there are so many other corridors that need it right now and are cheaper to implement.

There clearly will be no Post Office station. In fact, there's a healty chance the post office will no longer be there. This possibility would result in an expansion of the bayou redevelopment plans. If there is going to be an intermodal, it will be in the Hardy Yard vicinity. No one in this thread has come up with a viable location that would accomodate all the transportational modes involved-without billions of dollars being spent.

Actually I did earlier on this page, twice. The viable location is behind the post office. Also explained how the overall cost would be about the same, not 'billions' more. A station on the railroad land behind the PO could easily be incorporated into a redevelopment of the PO and the bayou redevelpment plan (as noted earlier.) In fact putting the station there would improve and strengthen the bayou plan. There have been several mixed used station plans in Europe that spurred onsite office, retail, and residential development. That is exactly what is being proposed in San Francisco. In fact aren't they also trying to move their trains from a further out station into downtown?

And I guess you missed this in the original article:

"It is still in the conceptual stage and may not become a reality, and the location could change, Wolff said."

Is dp2, dalparadise's backup account?

No, but a bit of an unfortunate choice of initials, eh?

Actually I think Metro's transit center at the south end of downtown is one of their success stories!

OK, now I remember about the alternate potential commuter rail route west from downtown, that indeed does only serve the Hardy Yards location. It is abandoned, but runs parallel to the north of the route I had referenced, with both lines joining north of Memorial Park north of I-10. So the idea is probably to run the commuter rail on the north route, and the eventual east-west downtown LRT line on the current UP rail line, once the freights are rerouted. Which makes more sense, (and would save money versus routing LRT down Washington.)

But even with that the Hardy Yard location is still very inferior for all the other reasons cited. And there are still problems with the northern line proposed for commuter rail. It would require restarting service on a narrow corridor through residential neighborhoods (off of Heights Blvd north of I-10 and southwest of the I-10/I-45 interchange), and I can understand people becoming NIMBY's since (IIRC) the line has been abandoned for years. It is also a narrow right of way over much of its length, which would require taking many (quickly appreciating) homes to expand beyond 2 tracks, which might be required as commuter rail expands and high-speed rail is implemented. Also some tight curves and many grade crossings that would keep speeds slow. So actually the route is better suited for LRT, which accelerates faster, is quieter, and more compatible with tight neighborhoods and multiple crossings than commuter rail, while the UP line is fast, straight, and much more easily grade-separated, perfect for a commuter rail and high-speed corridor. But the northern route for LRT would miss all the Washington redevelopment.

All things considered, I still think a Post Office station is a no-brainer.

To answer the first question--there has apparently been a drive to get that current AMTRAK/freight rail line basically removed due to the disturbances at UHD as well as the tie-ups at San Jacinto. Also, it seems that UP agrees that this rail segment would be rather simple to lose. Someone else mentioned another part of the reasoning for this location--commuter rail is proposed for that northern rail line out to Cypress. In the grand scheme of things, it makes sense that its cheaper to change the location of the building versus trying to work out extensive realignments of rail infrastructure.

Except that commuter rail to Cypress is immaterial to the station location, since both the Hardy Yards line and the Post Office/University of Houston Downtown line converge into a single line about a mile to the west. Coming east into downtown from Memorial Park, a single rail line splits into two lines east of Heights Blvd. These two run roughly parallel to where they join again northeast of downtown. So it is just another nonsense excuse thrown out by Metro to justify another one of their half-assed decisions, on the assumption that most people don't know the details and won't be able to spot the weak points and red herrings. And of course the Chronicle will print that polar bears are polka-dotted if Metro tells them so.

Using the Hardy Street route would require a new long bridge over the bayou and I-10/45 (the current one is only single-tracked.) A fairly simple grade separation could solve the San Jacinto problem on the Post Office Route, and perhaps a short relocation and a couple of short bayou bridges to the east if rerouting around where the want to put the new bayou cutoff and related development (condo and cafe type stuff.) In fact a grade separation at San Jacinto might not even be needed, as any commuter rail agreement with the tenent freight railroad will almost certainly involve upgrading other freight lines so as to reroute freight traffic from downtown. The freight trains run very slowly and can block the crossing for 5-10 minutes, but if removed from the route then the remaining commuter trains would only block it for about 30-45 seconds at a time. That is less time than a street stoplight and pretty much removes the problem. So in reality there really isn't a significantly higher cost for using the downtown line, as Metro could sell the Hardy location to a TOD developer while buying the rail property behind the Post Office as part of the deal to reroute freight trains and implement commuter rail. They are going to do the latter anyway

Someone else claimed that Metro would have had a rail line in the I-10 rebuild but for Culberson and DeLay. While they are the copout excuse some blame for every problem, they weren't the reason in this case. Metro couldn't make up their minds whether they were going with a bus or rail option in that corridor, kept dragging their feet on giving TXDOT an answer, and TXDOT finally said screw it, the rebuild is starting, making the choice for Metro (bus in HOT lanes.) Remember that this was back when Metro was still in a pie-in-the-sky mode, telling the public it planned to extend $40 million per mile LRT to far-flung suburbs instead of $5-10 million/mile commuter rail (before the 2025 plan vote.) When they were still led by ethically-challenged Shirley DeLibero. Before the FTA finally told them to get real and come back to reality, that most of what they were planning wouldn't meet basic requirements for Federal funding (under $25 cost per new passenger on each line.) Metro now claims that they still can build rail in the I-10 corridor, but last I read that plan was contingent on converting HOT lanes to rail (ain't going to happen.) Metro says a lot, and only occassional tells the full truth. Not any different than a transit CEO faking their resume, I guess.

But bottom line, it all comes down to choosing 1 of 2 fairly equal cost options: A Hardy Yards station on that line or a station behind the Post Office on the dowtown line. One is outside of downtown and within walking distance of maybe a couple of thousand jobs 20 years from now, if things go well. The other is within walking distance of nearly 100,000 jobs today. I'm not an urban planner, but it does seem that one location is clearly superior to the other, if transit and development are the primary goals. Since this is a legacy project, shouldn't we maximize the station's utility and synergy with downtown? And any talk of somehow Hardy Yards one day being a part of downtown if I-10 is buried or moved is just wishful dreaming and rationalizing. It isn't going to happen for decades, too many other priorities and needs.

As far as the white elephant comment--I think that the location will do just fine, especially if the Hardy Yards development goes well. If it does, then not only is there the Hardy Yards land that would be developed, but properties north of the station could be developed.

Well yes, it will work, but it is a missed opportunity. Just putting in some paths and steps along Buffalo Bayou is an improvement, but developing and implementing the bayou master plan is good planning that creates a much, much better synergistic amenity for downtown. An intermodal station north of downtown is an improvement, a more central one actually integrated into downtown and its fabric is a vast improvement that is not only realistic and almost as easily attainable, but also such a golden opportunity as to be inexcusable if blundered. Hasn't Metro learned from the Main Street line that half-assing it just immortalizes them and Houston (once again) as an example of what not to do in planning circles and textbooks? What is the central tenet of urban redevelopment? Isn't it walkability? Isn't that accomplished primarily by proper location, adjacency, density and synergy?

The more I think about it, the more stupid this proposed location appears. My guess is that Metro is up to their usual games. If they place the station within downtown and walking distance of many jobs, then several commuter rail lines (more than the 2 planned) can be added without really needing an east-west downtown LRT line. But if they move the station north of downtown out of walking distance, at some point the Main Street LRT line will probably reach capacity. Thus they can push for the east-west LRT line much earlier as needed to feed commuter rail passengers from the west and southeast. Or perhaps argue that instead of commuter rail, more of the lines to the suburbs should be the more expensive LRT since it will go downtown while commuter rail doesn't. A bit conspiracy theory, but after years and years of watching Metro, I've learned that they are about the most dishonest public agency I've ever seen in this area. Was hoping Shirley's replacement, Mayor White, and the FTA slapdown would change that. Perhaps, but this station seems like such a big mistake that I'm not sure what to think.

Anyway, if it is this obvious, surely someone with authority will start questioning and speak out about it.

So how can I say a few things about the station without "giving too much"

How about answering the most obvious question: With an existing rail line already passing through downtown (on the north side), why are you guys putting the station on a rail line outside of downtown and north of I-10? That makes no sense.

...well, the facility will be much more impressive that we all think it will be. The point--it's been said that this will be the METRO CEO's signature, legacy-type project. Want to see the type of things that happened? Look at EEK's stuff done for New Jersey Transit, which is where Wilson was also a director.

The project would likely be multi-level (almost has to be using the grade-separation at Main/Burnett). It could also include multiple stories of uses above the facility and could include retail/restaurant options. The park-and-ride facility obviously may be in the form of a parking garage.

Finally, look at the price tag of $150 million--isn't that nearly the price of Toyota Center? A third of Reliant Stadium? $50 million less than Houston Pavilions (25% less). Of course, some of that will include the costs of infrastructure (i.e. platforms).

Yes, but you don't want the legacy to be a misplaced white-elephant monument to missed opportunities. The facility sounds fine, it is the location that is the problem. While functionally it would work as a transfer point and mini-TOD, it would have far more potential if located within downtown somewhere on the existing rail line. I can't see planners outside of Houston (and probably most here, if they are being honest and not political) viewing the moving out of the rail line as positive or effective urban planning. Quite the opposite.

This is reminiscent of the 'visionary' idea to replace Penn Station with Madison Square Garden. Or better yet, Boston's original plan to pull the commuter trains back from North Station to transfer points further out. At the time(70's) their planners thought that transfers were no big deal, subway and light-rail were modern, commuter trains were old and passe, and downtown Boston was going to be a slick modern utopia. Luckily the proposal got shot down as the stupid idea that it was, their planners wised up, and now they are trying to extend the commuter trains through downtown. Unfortunately the failure to do this as part of the Big Dig when they had a chance has possibly made it impossible to ever get it done.

Kinda like how Metro failed to commit and get some type of rail incorporated into the Katy Freeway design. They don't have a good track record on visions or decision-making, do they?

"If development continues at current low-density levels — roughly 3,500 people per square mile — as many as 1,000 square miles of open space could be lost throughout the Houston area by 2035, said John Jacob, a coastal community development and environmental quality specialist at Texas A&M University. The city of Houston encompasses about 650 square miles. "The implications," Jacob said, "are probably catastrophic."

Idiot drama queen. No, not potentially problematic, or negative, or with a high cost, but CATASTROPHIC. As in thousands will die, or be maimed, or be made homeless? Words do have certain meanings.

If he can't state his point without grossly exaggerating, odds are that he is dishonest in other areas, too.

I went down there yesterday with my son. We came in from the Eleanor Tinsley side as parking elsewhere was difficult. The stairs leading down to the western end of the walkway, southern side of the bayou (walkways are being built on the other side as well, just not opened yet) drop down to a cool old concrete storm drain, that must date to the 20s or so, with a stepped waterfall effect. Unfortunately, the street litter comes down through there so that will be another reminder of being in the city, along with the roar of the freeway overhead.

I saw a guy flyfishing and a sign read "Alligator habitat, keep all pets leashed" . There were workers near the bridge so we weren't as bold as HiI. The landscaping was nice and, once completed and extended, will be a great low-key addition to Houston.

Well I always keep my alligator on a leash when down there.

They really should rename this part of Spring to "Drama Queen Acres."

OKAY, I HAVE quoted proof on how occasionally a dallasite comes here and bashes Houston-

Thanks for proving my point about the inferiority complex of some of the rabid Hou-boosters.

Nevermind that I've happily lived off and on in Houston for more than 20 years, going back to the 1960's.

BTW, do you know who 'Tootsie' was?

Just a quick side note about Houston and Dallas weather;

I had asked my homeowner's insurance agent if our rates will be going up because of Hurricane Rita. He replied that what has actually had more effect upon the rates for the past ten years is the large amount of claims placed in the Dallas area because of hail damage to their roofs and cars. What a surprise!

Ha, good point! DFW is about as bad as it gets when it comes to hail, and we have more tornadoes per square mile, too (though some areas of the US are worse.)

Didn't have to evacuate for any hurricanes, though.

When it rains and we get runoff water, it is brown. On quiet days, it can be a dark green, not brown, which makes it far more inviting.

They should solve that problem with a true Houston solution: turn it into Astroworld water, ya know, that milky blue color that looks like blue Koolaid.

Yes, the Villages were quite successful in their prime, but like most complexes, became viewed as run down over time as newer competition lured away their target market. Nowadays they are struggling, and some nearby complexes are some of the higher crime areas in the city.

The Woodlands probably would be more or less OK as a compromise except for 1) It is just too much of a commute into Houston. It is taking up to 1 1/2 hours at peak times into Downtown right now. 2) It is very very white.

So if I wrote that I liked my current neighborhood, but will be moving because of the long commute and it is very very black, would you consider me a bigot?

Not trying to jump down your throat, you seem nice (and my point is really directed at the board in general), but the double-standards are sometimes quite amazing.

DFW generally beats Houston, primarily based on weather. Don't let anyone fool you, the lower humidity makes a huge difference. Even during the middle of summer I've run at midday on shaded trails here in DFW. Would never be able to do that in Houston, the humidity is just too stifling. This year I'd go out at dusk, and it was early October before I got my first mosquito bite of the year. In contrast, Houston is swarming with mosquitoes, I've even gotten them at lunchtime! The cold difference isn't that great, and it almost always warms up within a few days. Just means we get some scenic snow every other year or so, while Houston gets it once every 13 years. Generally DFW has a pleasant climate, though certainly more extreme than California. IMHO the difference between Houston and Tampa's weather has been overstated on this thread, they are pretty similar. Orlando's is almost identical to Houston, if that gives you a reference point. DFW also has hills, some nice places to hike (such as the ridge along Mountain View lake), and doesn't have the flooding that goes with a plywood flat landscape. Some areas of DFW have a good amount of greenery (especially in the cross-timbers area of Tarrant and Johnson counties), though the areas north of Houston have good thick Piney woods. DFW is a 4-5 hour drive closer to the scenic hill/mountain campgrounds of Ozark AR/OK/MO and CO/NM, the same distance to the TX hill country, and 4-5 hours further away from Galveston's beaches (bleh.) Difference is notably less to the better beaches of Corpus Christi and S. Padre Island. So you're options for a weekend getaway within a 3 or so hour drive are greater from DFW. In summer camping in the Ozarks vs. San Marcos can be a big difference, even if by only a few degrees of temperature. Hard for some to sleep when the nightime lows are in the high 70's, but the just 5-10 degree drop makes all the difference in the world. I guess distance to New Orleans won't matter for awhile.

Not much Houston can do to make up for those deficiencies. Otherwise the two are fairly similar, though with zoning DFW tends to have more tidy areas than greater Houston. Also DFW is IMHO easier to get around than Houston, because the centers are more spread out and you can found decent housing at a reasonable price without having to go so far out. Also DFW doesn't have the inferiority complex that some of the Houston boosters carry, you generally don't hear obsessive talk about needing to build X, Y, or Z in order to be a 'World-class city.' IOW, unlike Houston, coach never had to tell DFW, "When you get to the endzone, act like you've been there."

But either place is a great place to live. Very hard to beat the Woodlands (30 miles north of downtown Houston.)