kdog08

It looks the park is half the lot when including both sides, is that so and was that always meant to be? 

Just an idea:

Houston could be a city that hosts enough of a variety of sporting events to make it a quasi-destination city. What type of sporting events you ask? We need a greater frequency of national events like Superbowls, All-Star games (MLB,MLS, and NBA), NCAA BBall tournament (Final Four would be ideal), and college football bowl games. Internationally, we could attract a major tennis masters series, FIBA (basketball), FIFA (soccer for us yanks) and the big ones, World Cup and Olympics. 

Why all of this is possible? All of our "sports infrastructure" is connected by rail. We have the sports arenas/stadiums and the space to build more (Reliant Park, Rice, UH, TSU, and random underdeveloped areas alongside the lower income part of the light rail). We are currently undergoing a lot of infill of residents, hotels, and retail within 1/4-1/2 mile of rail that will make Houston more appealing for visitors. Lastly, weather surprisingly, since most of the events take place in cooler months, so a good majority would be spared our full heat blast.  

Pitfalls? Transportation is still an issue. If we had built the U-Line and Uptown Line, we'd be way ahead of the curve. Uptown is still Houston's center of retail and has the largest (I think) amount of hotels, which would connect our visitors to more bars and more importantly venues. However, Houston could certainly run extra Express bus service from Uptown to the Red Line and major venues in a pinch so it's not a huge issue. We need more hotels along Main St line. As for as public money involved, depends on how far you want to push it. Hosting a World Cup would probably require at least one more major venue and improvements to the stadiums of Rice, TSU, and UH (already under construction). Hosting an Olympics would require quite a bit more sports infrastructure and transportation infrastructure.

Wouldn't have to be a "Mecca", but we certainly already have a good deal invested in our major pro arenas and stadiums, we have room to expand, and we've been investing in our inner core. 

The University Line would connect the densest area of Houston to 4 of the city's major employment centers (Galleria, Greenway Plaza, Downtown and the Med Center) as well as connect a student population of over 60,000 between UST, TSU and UH.  It's ridership would far surpass the other lines because of the density factor.  Had the political climate been supportive, it's actually the line that should've been built first.  Honestly, BRT would've been a better fit for the East End or North line. 

This. 100%. 

Hooray for Superbowl!

speaking of large tracts of land.. whats up with the property on the beltway between Westheimer and Richmond? Meadowglen Ln runs right through it.. the property with a 4 story apartment complex in the middle of the lot but other then that it has been sitting undeveloped (albeit with roads on the property). 

sorry to get off topic, i didnt want to start a new thread just to ask about it.

Seriously, wth? That property has sat like that for some time now....

I honestly think the convention center, Toyota Center, BBVA Compass, Minute Maid, and the Theater District are enough for downtown to be a destination. I'm not really sure what else you could add to that mix...even in terms of music venues it's got HOB, Bayou Music Center...maybe smaller venues? There's NOTSUOH, but that's really small, and somewhat limited in terms of who it attracts. I'd love to see the Majestic become a full-time venue..

There's a lot to do downtown as you listed the attractions, yet it has taken the leap forward yet. As I said it's complicated. Houston's DT is large and spread out which doesn't help make it a true destination, although there have been steps to solve that issue. Along with the obvious residential base and more hotel rooms that's in the pipeline, DT is poised to take a significant step forward. 

I think big events like the ones I mentioned above gives Houston a chance to show off DT and midtown to the nation, state, and even to itself. 

It's complicated. We need the residential base but also downtown needs to become a destination in itself. Hopefully the increased focused on conventions and luring more large scale events (more superbowls, final fours, all star games, college bowl games, etc.) will help DT gain good traction.

I understand the necessity of freeways I just don't think they should go through city centers.

I disagree. Houston, with just the slightest planning, could have made our inner core freeway system aesthetically pleasing either submerging it like 59 or getting rid of frontage lanes or planting a wall of trees alongside the freeways decades ago or all of those things or combination of them, We need the mobility of our freeways connecting to downtown, but the way we did it destroyed many neighborhoods. 

What city has the highest rail ridership in the US?  New York.

What city has the longest commute in the US?  New York.

 

This is not a coincidence.

 

NYC has ~20 million people in it's metro and even with the most used rail network, it is need of massive expansion and maintenance. There is little doubt NYC moves people much more efficiently than a city like Houston. However, megacities will have mega traffic but there is a difference between NYC/Tokyo and Jakarta/Lagos in terms of transit. 

LRT is a more efficient and cleaner source of transportation than buses. I just wish we would have built our current line without the interference with street traffic.

 

I largely agree. What do you think about having a subway network servicing those areas?

Money is the deciding factor. If we could just spend the extra money and submerge it at 2-3 key intersections per line then our design would be a lot better.

I don't think subway would be appropriate for Houston for many decades. 

I agree on connecting the business and arts/entertainment centers (and universities and airports), but I would go with faster trains/subways...and considering the growth we're seeing north and west of town, I would connect with those areas too.

 

We need to fix our streets, too. I need alignments, balances, suspension work, etc. every year in this town.

 

I like the idea, but it wouldn't reduce the congestion inside the EC. And of course, I would prefer train...

 

I really like the idea of the "last mile" bus.

I would just like to the LRT go underground at key intersections of the proposed University and Uptown Lines such as Shepard, Kirby, Westheimer, and Post Oak. Our core is about 10 miles from end to end by the proposed and current rail so the distances are far and most folks don't ride it end to end. I think Houston's LRT model serves it well and requires an additional investment in local bus, BRT, and P&R feeding commuters and locals into the LRT in order for the city to truly have a transit system.

Agreed that an expansion of P&R would be beneficial including increasing the size of the parking lots in the outlying regions.

Regarding BRT vs. LRT, recent studies have found that BRT provides the same development benefits of LRT and I really question how much of the development in the Main Street corridor can be credited exclusively to LRT. Development along the line has been concentrated pretty heavily in the vicinity of Market Square Park and really didn't take off until that park was completed. Given the amount of development that Discovery Green has driven (with no proximity to rail) and the development of the Market Square area, I think that there's a pretty credible case that can be put forward regarding how much development parks have driven downtown.

Once you get out of that area, development along the Main Street line has been pretty sparse and I think that it's questionable to consider either Main Street Square or Houston Pavilions a transit success story.

To me the question of LRT vs. BRT though comes down to a question of scarce dollars. Given that there's an extremely large area to cover with transit and given that LRT costs approx 4x as much as BRT per mile. My personal opinion is that the city would be better served at this point with a 100 mile BRT network than a 25 mile LRT network. I'm sure that the immediate response is going to be that the city would be better served with a 100 mile LRT, but I'm personally of the opinion that in about 5 years we're going to start reading a lot about the financial problems that DART is suffering from based on the massive long term debt problem that they've created. Houston has enough problems related to METROs past mismanagement already to add that layer.

I was referring to Main St.'s ridership when I talked about its accomplishments. BRT wouldn't be able to duplicate this line's success when it comes to moving large groups of people as the LRT cars allow a larger capacity of people. How many buses and space would it take to transport, load and unload two train full of people at METRO's most busiest stations? For me, Main St, Uptown, and University Line would form a great backbone for our transit network, while the rest should have been BRT and P&R feeding into it..

As far as development is concerned, there has been steady growth in a 1/2 to 1/4 mile radius of the Main St Line (north of the TMC) and the planned University and Uptown line over the past decade. 

Will the park and residential be constructed at the same time?

As far as a creative and relatively inexpensive solution to congestion on I10:

A public-private partnership between METRO/any other sort of governmental group from Katy and beyond and the Energy Corridor Management District would be formed. P&R service would be expanded in Katy, along I10, and 99 and new routes would be added that would drop off all Energy Corridor passengers off at the P&R location at Hwy 6 and I10. From there, the EC District would work with all the companies and we'd have Shell buses picking up Shell workers, BP buses picking up BP workers, etc, etc. It could work many different ways. They could just have one private bus company that serves as the "last mile". Point is, once the passengers are dropped off the "private" side of the partnership would take over. 

Not sure that I buy the argument that Chicago was planned around automobile use and really don't buy you're grouping the city planning of Chicago with the city planning of Houston and Dallas.  Houston and Dallas are both post-war cities that were clearly built around the automobile, but Chicago has had local rail for more than 100 years and had an extensive rail system well before the rise of the automobile in the 1950's.  Unlike other cities, that rail system was never removed and has operated continuously for that time.  Additionally, it has a well-established and vibrant downtown.

 

In short, Chicago illustrates everything that rail/urban advocates wish Houston had historically, yet it doesn't seem to have materially impacted the way that the city and the job base has developed.

 

The problem is that most rail systems just don't work particularly well in a decentralized job environment.  The places where rail works best in the US is where there is a highly centralized job core (New York, San Francisco, DC, Boston), a dense central population, and quite honestly, where traffic and parking costs are so bad that transit becomes a viable option.

 

I have no doubt that there are some corridors that make sense for rail in Houston in the next 15-20 years, but I don't see an extensive network working any better here than it has in Dallas.

 

Full disclosure - I'm just not a fan of light rail in pretty much any form.  BRT is much more functional for Houston in my opinion with potentially heavy rail in certain locations if increased density occurs.

 

The problem is implementation and funds. I think a lot of cities (in particular sun-belt cities) try to stick that type of Chicago, NYC, etc doctrine of trying to make a centralized city. Houston just needs LRT connecting it's largest and densest employment and activity centers (DT, Uptown, Greenway Plaza, TMC, our 4 professional sports stadiums and our educational and cultural institutions) which happen to all be within 8 miles of each other. Not to mention, actually have enough money left over to make sure it doesn't happen at the expense of our bus network and P&R expansion. 

Furthermore, while Houston is decentralized, our rush our traffic is heavily inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. A great investment would be in doubling our P&R system that could feed commuters into the core and start building ridership in places like Greenway, Woodland Town Center/Exxon, Energy Corridor, and Westchase with express bus service. . 

As far as BRT vs LRT; I would argue that BRT couldn't do what the Main St line accomplished and BRT should be used instead of LRT for the current expansion. 

Lastly, all this would ideally be done while simultaneously rebuilding our roads and highways. 

To be honest, Houston has been a red-headed step child historically for a number of reasons. 

FYI,  It's not a secret loophole that you are slipping by the Chronicle.   It is an arrangement they have with Google.

Really? How does it benefit the Chron?

We are not talking about the rest of the city, we are talking about downtown.

I can't see these low rise residentials surviving long if land prices increase awhile availability shrinks.

If availability of land doesn't shrink, well then thank God we got something over that darn parking lot.

Lot of land undeveloped/underutilized in downtown and surrounding areas (east and north especially)......

add more SF and an additional building plus another mid-sized deal for a different company in another building.

Yep, 600,000 SF in two buildings. Who's the different company for the mid size deal?

Jebus, more Exxon? 

Pardon my ignorance, but is another boom, perhaps mini-boom coming pretty soon? With all these expanding energy companies will that lead to another boom once all these new offices start to fill up with employees? Or will Houston just keep on keeping on? Assuming O&G prices stay near current levels.

I'm not "impressed" with it either (personally it's way too flashy and over the top for me) but you can't deny that station cost a lot more than one of our basic stations. How does Dart manage to build crap like that when metro can barely build it's basic stations?

Because METRO has been highly financially mismanaged. 

It is far from being an architectural masterpiece, but it doesn't need to be.

 

It reminds me of the Bob Bullock State History Museum in Austin.

I agree. This will be a great addition for out of town visitors as well Houstonians. 

The relationship is tenuous at best.  There are other factors that go into the cost of a hotel room including taxes, supply/demand and prevalent type of room.  4 of the 5 non-rail towns are major tourist centers (Las Vegas, New Orleans, Orlando, and Tampa) while at least 4 0f the 5 rail towns are high-cost areas anyway (Chicago, DC, Portland, San Francisco).  Tourist destinations have a lot of competition that tends to lower the cost as they are trying to attract a broad range of travelers who, for the most part, are travelling on their own dime.  Business travelers don't care as much as the company is footing the tab.

 

BTW...at the very end of the article you quoted above there's this...

I think it's somewhat instructive that the MetroRail plans don't include connections to either airport even though Hobby isn't that far from the end of the Purple line and that Metro closed up their dedicated express bus service from IAH to downtown.  Doesn't look like a priority for those who are in charge, and maybe for good reasons.

 

It's become a common theme on here that transit is one dimensional with just one mode of public transit (rail in particular). It would work most fine once Uptown completes it's BRT as it has a very high concentration of hotels (most in the city?). Then of course DT is connected to some of the city's best and most accessible tourist areas, along with adding more hotels. Just finish connecting Houston's core together and then connect that with "premium bus service" from the airports. It's all about progressing through steps, Rome wasn't built in a day. 

Quickline down Westheimer from Hwy6 to University of Houston where it becomes Elgin. Redo streetscapes and boom we got a bustling 20 plus mile corridor. It's frankly embarrassing the state of Westheimer in Montrose. 

If all new office space was going one place, like downtown, traffic going there would be much worse than it is now. I would think office space built everywhere does disperse it. However, if it was all built in one place, it would probably justify better mass transit.

We need to stop thinking of DT as the single core, but DT, Uptown, TMC, and Greenway Plaza as the core. I'm sure spread out office space does disperse traffic, but it's only temporary as this metro had added a million plus people per decade for 3 straight decades. Dispersing traffic only makes it more expensive once it catches up with us.