ADCS

I will make it very  simple to understand.........would Texas A&M be OK with UT building a UT-College Station Campus miles from Texas A&M?

 

The reasons they would NOT be OK with it are the exact same reasons why UH would not be OK with it. They are both LARGE State schools paid for by the tax payers of the state of Texas.

 

UT can build a campus in any city in TEXAS except for:

 

Houston (University of Houston)

Lubbock (Texas Tech)

College Station (Texas A&M)

San Marcos (Texas State)

 

BECAUSE the state of Texas already has millions (if not billions) of tax payers money invested in public schools in those markets. Make those schools BETTER...don't dilute the product by making them worse with more state school competition.

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.

Pardon if this has been addressed here but what about the idea  of having an Uptown station and a Downtown station (barring cost factor), where the rail is submerged into a tunnel to downtown near the Uptown station. Passengers have a choice of either destinations, Downtown Houston to/from Dallas and Uptown Houston to/from Dallas.

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

Looks interesting, TxDOT always seems to have a ton of money for stuff like this, so why not? 

1. Doesn't really help anything

2. Makes future, useful expansions more expensive

3. It's a pretty regressive design - reminds me of something out of the '80s

4. Reduces shoulder space in a congested area - will likely lead to more accidents

5. Bottlenecks inherent in the design may make West Loop traffic worse, due to the weaving/backpressure that will be introduced onto the mainlanes at the entrance/exit points

The more I think about it, the less this particular project makes sense. Either double-deck the whole thing like LBJ in Dallas, or let the current design live out its service life and hope you have the political clout to take on the rich NIMBYs the next go-around.

"Upper Post Oak District"--is that a name that is actually used in any circles, or did you just create that? If so, bravo my friend, bravo. It is very powerful and sophisticated, connecting to the Uptown brand, while at the same time differentiating and elevating itself. 

Made it up, but it seems natural.

Wow.

So let me get this straight. A structure like this is proposed to hold more cars and reduce traffic and the general concensus is that this is a great idea, we have the money for this, people are all for it, there is no opposition from local congressman or senators.

But if we were to build the exact same structures over our freeways or over the HOV lanes of I-10, 45, or 288 and then.......PUT A TRAIN ON IT that holds way more people than cars do, and SUDDENLY it's a HORRIBLE idea, it's completely not feasible, we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY FOR IT, and it would be a HORRIBLE APPROPRIATION of funds to spend any money on it, do I have that about right?

Man, **** **** ****.

Never underestimate how powerful auto dealers are in local politics. They're responsible for half of GOP campaign funds, and often around 15-20% of Democratic funds.

At tonight's public meeting I spoke with a team member who was very knowledgeable on the project. He appeared to be the lead consultant for the alignment.

 

For the alignment along Hempstead, they are still working toward a fully elevated structure along Hempstead road, generally on the south side of the road and on the north side of the existing freight railroad. This type of design is depicted in one or more of the documents on the Texas Central web site. The alignment would dip to ground level only at Beltway 8 to go underneath the highway lanes.

 

In general, Texas Central wants the HSR project to be independent of TxDOT plans and anything the Gulf Coast Rail District may plan for the future. The independence will reduce or eliminate the risk of bureaucratic delays or snafus. So this rules out any cooperation with TxDOT to design the facility to be friendly to TxDOT's plans for the Hempstead toll road. The GCRD appeared to have some concerns about leaving enough space for future commuter rail, but I did not get the details of specific issues of concern.

 

It seems to me that the positioning of the elevated structure between the railroad and Hempstead Road may not be consistent with the Hempstead Toll Road plan. I'm thinking it would push the toll road corridor further north, requiring more right-of-way acquisition and possibly making it infeasible. As a practical matter, it could potentially preclude the Hempstead Toll Road from being built, although it is difficult to speculate without knowing exactly where the columns for the rail structure will be placed.

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.

I mean, I guess, but the warehouses and manufacturing companies in that area wouldn't need to go to court, they'd be easily persuaded.

It's mostly 30+ year old tilt-wall construction around there; i.e. already paid for. Land owners would jump at the opportunity to upgrade their facilities away from the traffic on TCR's dime.

We'll know things are getting serious when we start hearing about an Upper Post Oak District TIRZ.

They've posted the schematics and some renderings that were presented at tonight's open house on the website.

Clearly this is a flawed design. The express lanes go from 1 lane as it ramps up, to 2 lanes in the middle section, then back to 1 lane as it ramps down. It's going to bottleneck for sure. What a joke.

Agreed, I really don't see this as improving much at all. Looks like a bus lane that they've converted into a general express lane on account of the opposition to the Post Oak busway.

Not even close. For starters, I don't think Interstates can be dual signed with other Interstates (AFAIK, Interstates cannot be dual-signed with each other, but can be dual-signed with US Highways, and US Highways can be dual-signed with State Highways).

 

Secondly, even if that were true, with the widening of Interstate 35 eating the remaining space between the frontage roads (and already built with new exits/entrances anyway), it would be difficult to make ramps to connect US-190 in Temple with I-35 (as it is). There is some empty ROW in the southwest part of the interchange, but it looks like it's for drainage purposes, not for future ramps.

 

Thirdly, the highway isn't completely grade separated to Heidenheimer. Just east of the Temple Mall it begins to go back to non-Interstate standards, then another 3 miles where it's not limited access (even a stoplight to boot).

1. Untrue. 20/59 in MS/AL, 70/76 in PA, 80/90 in IN and OH, 90/94 in WI are all multiplexed over long distances. 75/85 in Atlanta are multiplexed in the manner proposed.

2. You can make ROW do whatever you want it to, the question is cost.

I can't see how this is a good idea unless you're a rural politician looking for jobs once the gas patch runs dry, or an Aggie with an inferiority complex over Austin having an Interstate while College Station does not.

Jesus. Next it will be triple stacked, no really this has been discussed for some Texas freeways since double stacked isn't the answer. The alternative elephant in the room can't even be discussed. The oil/car/construction lobby is too powerful.

Look, I like public transportation as much as the rest, but the West Loop needs more capacity. Not our fault that planners failed to design sufficient north-south arterial capacity in the area.

But why does Houston have to settle? Houston needs to push this and fight a little harder to push this to it's core. Just like Dallas is.

 

Not trying to make this a Dallas/Houston thing, but it does seem like Dallas is very successful in bringing it's development to it's downtown area. Houston seems like its making some strides, but it isn't enough. It does get kind of flustering.

Who gets to be "Houston" in this case?

In other words, the people who are opposed to this tend to be the sorts of people who have the kind of pull to determine what "Houston" wants to do.

I second El Real. Probably the best place if you have an out-of-towner to show them what Tex-Mex is supposed to taste like.

This isn't like United vs. Southwest. This would be like GE creating 2 subsidiaries that operate in the exact same industry and then locating both subsidiaries' headquarters in the same city. And then giving one subsidiary a 5 times larger budget.

 

UH and UT are essentially owned by the same parent company, i.e., the state. And both institutions' funding comes from the same pie.

 

Instead of "wanting to get UT even more" because they have better funding, the solution is much more simple, just have the state give UH better funding.

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.

There are too many damn "powers that be" in Houston.

It's getting old.

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 

I think I figured out why it doesn't go downtown. If we assume urban areas are more expensive to go through (more sound walls, more crossings, etc.) it mostly has to do with sprawl and where the rail is coming in.

The "urbanized" area from Dallas downtown area to less developed areas (around the I-20 border) is about 9 miles. From the first "urbanized" area (development on both sides of the track), for Houston, that's Barker-Cypress Road. Onto Northwest Mall is 23 miles, then add on another six if you wanted to take it downtown. Houston's not the only one with sprawl, if Houston was north of Dallas, then there would be 30 miles of sprawl from downtown to McKinney (as the crow flies), then it would be less than 19 miles from Highway 6 (near Alvin) to downtown (following the tracks), or if the tracks came in from the northeast, about 9 miles out of downtown before hitting "the city".

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

I really doubt that TCR is going to build some crown jewel station at NW Mall anyway.  If it is a success, then maybe they will extend the line downtown anyway at some point.  I suspect though that NW Mall will actually be viewed as being a pretty good location in the long run.

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.

Why not when they are ripping up westheimer for the drainage work just install a subway?  Cut and cover - and then it could hit all the good spots too

I'd like that too - but I'm not sure what the per mile cost would be.

I like the idea, except I would move the crosstown line from the politically-infeasible Richmond corridor and move it up to Westheimer. Heck, if the engineering requires it, I wouldn't be opposed to converting Lower Westheimer into one-way or pedestrian-only traffic.

How would it be a massive disaster?  Are Hobby and IAH massive disasters?  Neither one has light rail service.

 

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.

I think it's understood when he said "short term profits", he was clearly talking about them wanting to recoup their investment quicker, and stopping the train short of downtown helps them accomplish this tremendously.

In layman's terms, they cheaped out.

This has nothing to do with them thinking the NW Mall site is far superior to downtown, and everything to do with it making much more "financial sense" to place the terminus there.

Think it also has to do with procurement of funds and liquidity. They know it'll be easier to get funds freed up for actual construction than for legal defense. They likely have a strict budget for litigation, and Rice Military would exceed that number alone.

I'm sure the original hope was that people would be wowed by the concept and NIMBY attitudes would be minimized, but, well, that's not how those folks work.

I think getting downtown long-term is possible, but first you've got to establish enough existing demand for the service to outweigh the significant financial and political costs of building those last five miles. From what I've seen, the NIMBYs have plenty of time and cash on their hands.

Personally I also believe that the revitalization of Oak Forest/Timergrove/Garden Oaks/Lazybrook etc combined with a major intermodal station near NW Mall might make the Brookhollow area prime for large scale office redevelopment and connection of a new major job center to the transit system.

The biggest challenge in redeveloping the area is going to be moving all the state and municipal services out. If I were TCR, I'd be looking at buying up properties to the south and west of the site for redevelopment.

The HISD administration building is a huge barrier to any sort of dense redevelopment to the north and east, along with the parole office that's in Brookhollow.

Karbach brewery is going to be within walking distance.

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.