livincinco

On a sidenote, someone mentioned lower Manhattan as an example of office workers not supporting retail, but it occurred to me that the mall beneath the World Trade Center was (IIRC) the highest grossing shopping mall in America before its destruction. Of course, it wasn't street level.

 

Fair point, but it was also a major transit hub so it got a ridiculously high level of foot traffic.  It's also relevant that it was directly under a major tourist attraction.

I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

 

Uber gouging during peak times?

 

 

http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-forced-driver-shortage-to-boost-surge-pricing-1531501176

 

That might work as a short term strategy, but now you're making your customer feel like they need to rate shop everytime they consider you and that will probably backfire in the long term.  All they're doing is creating opportunities for other companies to come into the market and compete against them. 

Park & Ride is actually the part of the METRO system that is experiencing the most growth at the moment (3.4 increase over LY), but even at those rates it isn't big volume. The entire system generates approx. 33,000 average weekday boardings and that's spread over 30 different locations. Even if you assume exponential increases it's hard to get to ridership numbers that require commuter rail on any single route.

I'm not a fan of light rail going down a lengthy stretch of freeway (like the Katy Freeway) in general.

That said, there's a few ways to handle the situation you're talking about. If we had trains that could carry 1,000 or more people at a time, and left every 5 minutes during rush hour...that would be 12,000 people being moved at their own *true* convenience (with no unexpected delays) per hour from one line. The Bloor subway line in Toronto alone gets almost 500,000 riders per day, which is more daily ridership than any freeway in the Houston area. The Yonge Line (which is really two lines) gets over 700,000 per day. I can't stress enough that it's all about what kind of rail, and how and where it's built.

METRO indicates that the Park & Ride system currently carries 29% of downtown workers, and another 8% of downtown workers utilize other means of public transit for a total market share of 37% of the downtown workforce.

http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2013-02-15/Mechanics_and_Cost_of_Transit_Service.pdf

If you look specifically at Park & Ride on the Katy Freeway, it currently has three locations which have a combined average weekday ridership of approx. 5,500 people.

You're proposing a system that would move 12,000 people/hour which would be approx. 36,000 people during a three hour peak rush hour period, but the statistics from METRO don't indicate that kind of demand. Their statistics indicated that there's only (rough math) about 18,000 people that are going from those locations to downtown. That's admittedly a very rough analysis, but I'd be very curious to see some statistics that refute it.

The base assumption that you're making is that a high percentage of the people that are riding the Katy Freeway are going to downtown but METROs statistics seem to indicate otherwise. They indicate that the people riding the Katy Freeway are highly fragmented in their destinations and that's a huge concern when discussing rail on that corridor.

Even if all cars are driverless does it really make sense to have a system where people are forced to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to buy a vehicle every few years? All vehicles have a shelf life.

I understand if you have various options but if you live somewhere like houston then for the most part you don't have an option. And I think people in this country should have options, otherwise you're living in a monopolistic society, and that's good for only the people involved in that industry and those associated with it.

One of the major advantages of autonomous cars is the fact that it doesn't require car ownership, but instead lends itself perfectly to ride sharing capabilities. You call a car when you need it. Pay for the use of it while you have it and then it goes to the next person. It's a pretty natural evolution of services like Uber and ZipCar.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/01/what-will-happen-public-transit-world-full-autonomous-cars/8131/

Morgan Stanley is predicting 100% market penetration of autonomous cars by 2026.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/morgan-stanley-autonomous-cars-prediction_n_4867613.html

That isn't unique to Portland.

New York City and Los Angeles both have reputations of having people move to each for various reasons. Neither are model cities in every sense of the word.

Its a very hazy metric that's pretty much impossible to substantiate. I'm not aware of any data that substantiates why people move to a specific location. I'd also question the long term sustainability of having a bunch of people without jobs moving to your city.

I'm not saying those costs "should be attributed to the cost of the project." I'm saying that they are real costs that *aren't included* in those initial monetary costs. I strongly disagree that automobiles are a product of "discretionary" income. For some, that's the case...but the reason why a lot of people have cars is because they need a feasible way to get from point A to point B, and at least here in Houston, we are yet to have a real alternative. The people who buy larger and/or more stylish vehicles are choosing to spend discretionary income, but it's not like there's this great transportation system in place...and they are truly "choosing to drive" over reasonable alternatives. It's just that driving is really the only way to get around here, and a lot of people put a lot of stock in status.

 

I've mentioned earlier that speed, efficiency and just overall effectiveness all depends on how and where these transportation systems are built. The biggest reason why some rail/trains are slower than vehicles is because we have based so much of our infrastructure on roads and automobiles. That's why we are in this position in the first place...and that is another area where change needs to happen and soon. All I'm saying is that it's better to start building smarter now than later.

 

Fair enough, so if your goal is to provide transportation for those without cars and to provide access to the highest percentage of the people in the city, then you're with me and Mayor Parker in calling for the vast majority of transit resources to be dedicated to improving the bus system at this point in time.

 

I'm not anti-transit by any means and have never argued that point.  My point has consistently been that, given that there are a finite amount of transit funding available, the most pressing transit need for Houston is to develop a highly effective bus system.  It provides access for a higher percentage of the population and it provides transportation for those who are most in need in our society.  Rail comes later, at a point that there's higher density and greater ridership for individual routes.  Buy right of ways now and build lines in five-ten years when the density requires it and when the bus system has reached a sufficient level of efficiency.  In routes that have good ridership currently, build BRT to provide higher efficiency and maximize network miles per dollar to allow a bigger transit network.

 

Regarding transit speed, I agree with you to a point.  Yes, we have a lot of road infrastructure and that can't be ignored, but it's just a fact that the cities with the largest mass transit share are the cities with the longest average commutes.  As I've said previously, there are many arguments in favor of both rail and mass transit, but point to point speed isn't one of them and the statistics prove that.  New York has the most effective and comprehensive mass transit system and one of the worst road systems in the US and it has the longest average commute.  I'm not sure how you can attribute that to infrastructure that's weighted in favor of roads.  It's just the nature of mass transit because it's not point to point.  If you commute from Long Island, for example, you're talking the Long Island Railroad in, transferring to the subway, and then walking to your office.  That all adds up to a much longer commute.

 

Nothing wrong with living without a car, however there's two types of people that live without cars - those that choose to not drive a car and those that can't afford a car.  I'm much more concerned about those that can't afford a car and believe that the majority of transit dollars should be allocated to that group.

 

 

 

 

Yes, their average is more like 30 million, but that wasn't my point. My point was to contradict fernz' assertion that "they don't shop" and to argue that some retail is possible without rooftops, and that office workers do contribute something. Otherwise, where did the $15 million come from?

 

Sure - there's always a number of factors in something like this.  Downtown workers, convention traffic, tourist and entertainment traffic are all factors so it's clearly a simplification to just say 10,000 residents is the magic number.  The point is more around having a base of continuous traffic during non-business hours that a retailer can expect.  Workers provide minimal uplift during evenings and weekends.  Convention and entertainment is event driven and can be heavily cyclical.  Residential is more even and even more importantly provides that off hour volume that retailers (and restaurants) need.

 

 

I don't think everyone buys the car they want, in that case they would all be buying Ferraris and Lambhorginis.

You are again decorating the argument to favor yourself. The user and environmental costs of constant freeway expansion are something that you refuse to consider. If two train cars take 100 cars off the road, and they run very few minutes, how do you not see the benefit to society?

I agree sometimes transit takes longer than cars on average, but in many rail corridors worldwide, it does not, and most times it's cheaper than gas plus parking. Buses are really what add times because of their inconsistency and lack of speed.

 

I honestly just have no interest in conversing with you any further.  You don't read what I write, have no interest in rational discussion and aren't interested in considering any complexities regarding transit.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Official announcement on Torchy's Tacos opening in La Centerra

 

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2014/02/retail-wrap-torchys-tacos-in-cinco-ranch-yogaone-studios-in-the-heights-tommy-hilfiger-in-katy-mills/?cmpid=businesshcat

That's true, and it's much better than it was before...although I can't help but criticize the design out by Eldridge and Hwy 6 where it goes down to 4 main lanes. That's a big reason for a lot of those backups, and it's not going to get any better with all the new development underway. And keep in mind that if we added all of the costs to the Katy Freeway project that have been spent since the initial "payment," from gas, tolls, maintenance, insurance, etc....that $2.8 billion price tag is already a lot higher.

I don't really like the idea of light rail out as far as, say, the Energy Corridor. We need faster ways of getting to and from areas outside the loop for sure.

Sorry guys, I'm just not buying this argument that's now been raised by a couple of people that individual private costs that people incur related to the ownership of cars should be attributed to the cost of the project. While I agree that there is an element of necessity to a car purchase, but car purchases are for the most part, driven by discretionary income. People buy the kind of car that they want to drive, not a strictly utilitarian car that just gets them from point to point.

It's also a completely known cost that is directly paid by the user. When you buy a car, you know you're putting gas in it. You're not getting gas for free and then paying taxes to the government to underwrite gas for everyone.

The last point is you again state the fallacy of light rail and "faster ways" to get to places outside the loop. There are many strong arguments for public transit, but faster isn't one of them. With the exception of rare direct point to point connections, intracity public transit increases commute times, it doesn't decrease them. Improving public transit to those areas is beneficial in many ways, but it won't make it faster to get there.

Macy's had annual sales of either $15 or $17 million, can't remember for sure.

 

That's actually extremely poor especially for a location of that size.  Macy's per store average is right about $30 million.  If it's true that they were only doing $17 million, then its not surprising at all that they closed.

 

Stay on topic. You can't throw in federal money into cost to bloat it into something it's not, if that money doesn't come here it goes somewhere else. It's not an extra burden on local taxpayers.

Got it. The Katy Freeway expansion received $1.4 billion in federal financing and $1.1 billion in state financing. The local cost of the project was $255 million with $238 million of that funded from toll revenues.

I agree, and I believe that this consideration is factored into the 1/100th estimate. Surely the 150,000 people who work downtown must contribute something toward the success of retail? Not very much, but something?

Totally agree with you and that's obviously a huge factor in the retail that exists, but I'm not sure what percentage of workers shop near their job vs. the percentage that shop near their houses. I'm sure that data exists, I just haven't seen it.

It's not really the armageddon you predict. Pierce elevated was closed here for months, and the result was not much of an issue. Even with the demolition of its freeway by downtown, it hasn't caused too much of a stir. People will find alternative routes. It says something you have to resort to fear to win your argument.

I'm going to ignore your obvious trolling and will merely point out the 1.4 mile stretch of I-345 under discussion carries 135,000 vehicles daily. The entire DART network carries 95,000 people daily.

Dallas doesn't have anywhere near that, unless they're casting the net really large for "downtown." Using the center of each downtown as the focal point, Houston has higher pop. than Dallas at the 1 mile, 3 mile, and 5 mile radii, as of 2010 census.

 

Try it yourself:

http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/websas/caps.html

 

For this magic number of 10,000, I would think the office worker population must contribute something to helping retail, if only a little. Let's say an office worker equals 1/100th of an actual resident (very conservative estimate), since the resident is there 24 hours and the office worker is a typical Houston fuddy-duddy who just goes from car to office to car each day and crawls in the tunnels for lunch. Take the downtown worker population of ~150,000 and that gives you approximately 1,500 souls who occasionally emerge from the HVAC environment and chance a street-level retail experience.

 

Another phenomenon that must be considered is that as there are more downtown residents walking around, more office workers are likely to be lured outside. Right now the downtown worker sees mostly just homeless people from the tinted windows of his car as he drives in and leaves; once he starts seeing a few thousand people-that-look-like-him about, he is more likely to risk fresh air and sun exposure and step outside. So from 1/100th of a resident he soon becomes 1/50th, 1/25th, maybe even someday 1/10th of a resident in his ability to support street retail. Something like this phenomenon is happening in Austin and has happened in Atlanta. And 1/10th would mean 15,000 downtown workers walking our streets.

 

The reason that a residential population is so important to retail is more about evenings and weekends.  Most retail businesses do a high percentage of their volume on weekends and are generally reluctant to open in areas that they don't generate that volume.  Very difficult to be profitable as a retailer off of daytime, weekday business.

 

Look at Wall Street which has an extremely dense office population, but virtually no residential in the immediate area. It has a much lower retail presence than the rest of Manhattan and virtually all businesses located there close on weekends.

if 10,000 is the tipping point, we are well on our way to passing that figure. before the residential initiative there were ~2,500 units in downtown, and close to 5,000 residents i believe. with this initiative and the projects announced so far we are at like 3,500 new units being built in downtown over the next few years, more than doubling the population. (i would like to see that trend continue and have a base of like 25-50k residents in downtown eventually..)

with that said i really hope the city raises the cap for the number of residential units that get incentives, since they are well past that 2,500 mark now. it would be a shame if they didnt raise it and some of these developments didnt happen because they didnt get in with the first 2,500 units of incentives. 

 

I think you're right and believe that the city has been doing the right thing by focusing on residential incentives to get the population up.  The retail demand will come with the population.  I'd be really surprised though if the downtown population gets even close to 25-50k in the near ten years.  Consider that the population of Midtown isn't even 10,000 yet and that's been developing for years.

 

Dead serious how many residents would DT need to shift the attitude change and make DT CBD he new hot spot. I'm not really interested in debating suburbs v DT but I feel DT has so much pos momentum regarding living and social aspects but the lechuguga seems to be heading north and west. There will always be law firms and smaller O&G I guess I am asking does 10k residents help DT office landscape or is it just another albeit new neighborhood to live - again this is far from bashing DT- look at my post history I'm thinking big pic

Cheers

Lorenz

 

Personally, I don't think that the amount of residential population in downtown impacts office development in that area that much.  Right now at least, that seems to be much more heavily driven by cost judging by the developments that are underway.

 

I do think that residential population is huge in driving the kind of retail development that people are looking for downtown and would agree that something around 10k is the right number.  From what I've read from various sources, that seems to be the tipping point in being able to support basic neighborhood retail.

 

 

Take out federal funding and that number is about half as small

Stay on topic. And freeway removals in other cities haven't turned the world into a hairball. You're simply fear mongering.

Cost is cost regardless of the source and if anything I've presented a conservative cost for DART and an extremely conservative traffic count for I-10. My count is based off of estimated cars at a single point and doesn't include cars that don't pass that particular point so the total usage is likely to be much higher.

Regarding freeway removals, no one has attempted anything remotely close to the scale of what your suggesting. And regarding your admonitions to stay on topic, sorry I'm to busy hysterically laughing at your hypocrisy to answer.

The Katy Freeway project costed $2.8 billion.

And it conservatively moves 350,000 people a day. DART light rail cost over $5 billion and it moves 95,000 a day.

I think 45 and 59 without a doubt should be removed from downtown. It's not so much a highway conspiracy as the people being in power have a fetish for highways, and it's in the best interest of their pocketbooks as well.

So do you guys remember that scene in Bruce Almighty where Bruce gets everything he wants and the world turns into this complete hairball?

Yeah, me too.

And in the meantime Terminal A sits off in the corner with no renovations scheduled.

Cars will fly and then the Earth will die. I'm not sure when, but it will happen.

#GFR #YOLO

When I lived in California, there were always news teasers about different seismologists predicting that California would have a major earthquake "soon". Then if you watched actual story, they'd explain he meant geologically soon, meaning sometime within the next 200 years.

I think in a perfect world Houston would consolidate freeway ROW in the downtown area.  It's fairly useless to have highway on all borders, particularly ones that are just passing through without providing good access.

 

If we're talking perfect world then I'm holding out for personal jetpacks.