ADCS

I honestly think this will enhance whatever's going on at TMC. The two sites are separated by 3 miles as the crow flies, and already have light rail-ready infrastructure between them.

Says who? Each one of those schools are serving a certain niche. A&M wouldn't like that campus because both schools are serving similar niches - drawing from a large population base to drive high levels of research, and serving high-caliber students who for whatever reason weren't able to make it into an elite private university. UH doesn't serve that market, especially since Rice is next door - it's geared toward educating professionals who intend on staying in the Houston area. There's nothing wrong with this mission, as it allows for flexibility and innovation that wouldn't be available at the larger universities. I think we just have a tendency to act strangely when we think others are looking down on us.

It's all a power play to either get PUF access or Big 12 membership. Think the local leadership is shooting themselves in the foot here.

Tunnel would probably cost ~$3 billion itself. Not likely to happen up front when you're being funded through private investment.

So, sounds like they're going to leverage that to try and get some cash out of HCTRA/TxDOT for the corridor, to make sure that there is space for the Hempstead TR. I'd guess that it would go to drainage improvements in the area, to keep things quiet. Smart if that's the case.

Perhaps it's more like GM's brand differentiation, where one is clearly supposed to be a prestige brand that appeals to higher-end customers, while the other is a more mid-market brand serving a wider audience at lower operating costs.

Eh, there are really only four - land developers, auto dealers, engineering departments and wealthy middle age to elderly residents with strong opinions and without jobs

Also, the folks in south and east Dallas aren't rich white folks with political connections and the means to litigate.

It will likely be nicer than you think. The model is for most of the money to be made off of retail to begin with. It wouldn't surprise me to see something like a CityCentre be developed beside the train station.

Not only that, but it's as if taxis/towncars/Uber don't exist. As much as I'd like some sort of rail out that way, it's likely that the target consumer for TCR would prefer taxis or rideshares over public transportation, anyway.

Now there's an idea... why not set up a TIRZ for the transformation of that area into the Brewery District or something like that (maybe the Texas Central District if they agree to an increased tax share)? Might also incentivize some of those industrial businesses to start moving outward on 290.

I would like to present a challenge - would you please lay out the disadvantages to routing the HSR through that corridor that do not have to do with the following: 1. Property values 2. Perceived neighborhood character 3. Noise and visual blight 4. Traffic disruption

See, this is the sort of circular reasoning that NIMBYs use to justify what is primarily an irrational emotional response. Yes, it's agreed that the project is needed, but not anywhere near me - that's not a logical argument, that's emotional territoriality. It's based on an unjustified belief in the ownership of one's proximity, as opposed to the plat of land that one has title to. You see this all the time in infrastructure projects - usually landowners do not mind giving up rights of way or easements - that's either a lucrative one-time transaction, or a steady source of income over the years. Their neighbors, on the other hand, are usually the biggest opponents, and the opposition is couched in terms of territoriality. If there's a perception that the NIMBY mentality is directed at all things rail, that's probably because they're usually more successful there. There are too many strong countervailing interests in Houston to block a major road project (for example, the Grand Parkway F-2).

That's the very definition of "not in my backyard". I wish NIMBYs were more self-aware.

Probably lives or has friends in the Rice Military/Wash Ave corridor. Those folks really don't like the idea, and rationality has not a whole lot to do with it.

Do you think the administrators actually pay any attention to what's in the ballot box?

Not a fan. Why not honor the history of the area and call it "Klein Kohrville" or "Klein Louetta"?

Amazing how rail always seems to derail these threads.

Anticipating this to be a very nasty zoning fight. Some neighborhoods that have been in the KHS zone for a while will need to be moved out, and with the KHS rebuild, they'll have no desire to do so. It was incredibly shortsighted to put HS #5 on the backburner simply because of KHS's political pull.

I don't want to speak for him, but having read his previous thoughts on the subject, he does make a fairly compelling argument about this - the suburban hellscape, while awful and alienating for many, represents comfort and opportunity on several orders of magnitude greater than where many, if not most, of the newcomers to Houston come from. If you're privileged to come from a relatively stable society, where your environment is generally trustworthy, and you can count on greater complexity leading to greater opportunities for personal development, then yes, suburbia is oppressively banal. If, on the other hand, your previous life experiences are of a relatively chaotic environment, where institutions cannot be trusted and you're stuck in a small, cramped, dangerous living environment, those suburbs represent space, safety, stability and the opportunity to realize dreams that were impossible where you grew up. There's something to be said for that point.

While I tend to disagree with Mr. Gattis over the desirability of rail in general, I've got to agree here. The only thing advantageous about this corridor as far as rail goes is the relative ease of construction. The location poses significant barriers to pedestrian traffic, and exists on the periphery of Pearland's development, limiting its usefulness as a commuter route. After all, if you're already driving to 288 to get on the train, and the express lanes are a similar price, why wouldn't you do the familiar thing and just take the express lanes? Any sort of heavy rail in Houston would do best by serving dense, central corridors that are already relatively underserved by the freeway system.

Guessing that the addition of post-9/11 security, as you mentioned, made the benefit of 30 or 15 minute headways much less apparent. What's the point when you're necessarily going to spend 45-90 minutes at the airport before your flight, anyway?

IT, there's been a lot that has changed since 1990. For example, let's take the population changes since then: DFW MSA (1990): 3,989,294 Houston MSA (1990): 3,321,926 Total (1990): 7,311,220 DFW MSA (2015): 6,954,330 Houston MSA (2015): 6,490,180 Total (2015): 13,444,510 (83.9% increase) It's not implausible at all to think that today, you'd be able to find the equivalent ridership of a significant percentage of the 1990 I-45 traffic. The population growth alone since that time would allow for this. Likewise, it's primarily regional air traffic that would switch to this mode of transportation.

Looking at it a little more closely, it's more of a capacity issue than anything. The current bridge is 48 feet wide, which means you'd only be able to fit in three 12 foot lanes with six foot shoulders for one-way traffic. The new bridges will be 70 feet wide, meeting interstate standards with 12 foot travel lanes and 10 foot shoulders.

Are you saying that Houston's development scheme since World War II has not been primarily oriented toward automobile access?