ADCS

The line parallel to 290 is a UP line. I'm wondering if they're not too thrilled about all the recent chatter about suburban and commuter rail lines.

I actually agree that the HOV lanes are inferior, and that we'd be better off with commuter rail. However, that wasn't what was chosen back when the decision to construct the HOV lanes was originally made, which given the context, isn't entirely surprising. It could be argued that the HOV lanes as they exist are more efficient than bus-only lanes, since more of the capacity is used at peak times, and the HOT lanes even more so, as capacity is never lost, but always managed. BTW, there are plenty of single-tracked commuter lines, usually on branch routes.

^^ Good research there. This makes a lot more sense in context. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, was also included in the article as being skeptical. He was one of the main actors behind Prop. 1. Reading his official biography, he's a car enthusiast and collector (which doesn't necessarily mean anything). His campaign contributions are more interesting, though - while most comes from real estate, Union Pacific is a significant contributor. I wonder if that means anything.

This is a profoundly disingenuous argument. The project is five years in the making at this point, and there have been numerous opportunities for local politicians and affected citizens to become aware of the project and make their voices heard. At the end of the day, I can't help but think the primary motivation is for rural residents to get one over on urban interests, simply because they think they can.

These already exist. They're called the HOV lanes. Seriously, that's what they were designed to do - be a commuter line that went faster than rush hour traffic. It's why they were able to build all those heavy grade-separated interchanges from the HOV lane to transit centers - they could get extra Metro cash for being regional transit solutions. This getting overlooked demonstrates the relative ineffectiveness of this approach.

I will say that when I'm going from the EC to somewhere inside the loop, I say i'm going "into town", but not Downtown.

Many cities derived parts of their sewer and stormwater management systems from enclosing small channels in the area. The River Fleet in London and Mill Creek in Philadelphia come to mind.

Personally, when done right, I think they can add character to a developed area. Chicago's a good example of that.

Elevated structure would be an eyesore in their minds.

Think they should figure out how to somehow get Disney to take over the dome, turn it into a regional draw. They're really the only ones capable of pulling off something like the county wants. I'm only half unserious about that.

http://purple.city/2015/03/17/bank-grand-central/ This article makes a case for a public entity purchasing and banking the Grand Central site for rail-oriented development later on. Unsurprisingly, I feel it makes a strong case for the suitability of the Grand Central site as a rail hub, and the importance of the current opportunity.

Not exactly - the guy's a state legislator, so he still can do something. If the Senate is OK with TCR, then this is a bunch of hot air and bluster, and the bill will die in committee. If people are on the fence in the Senate, then this will be used as an excuse to extort campaign funds from TCR, and then it'll die in committee. Still, either way, it's bloviating and pontificating.

Removing the Columbia Tap trail would cause a riot.

I really do not understand the opposition to the land bridge. Could someone explain?

The latter. There are fewer points of potential failure that need policing. Lowering the speed limit only works if there is massive compliance (which there is not), or enforcement, and given that several Houston freeways have around 300,000 vehicles traveling them on a daily basis, pulling over even 1,000 drivers a day would represent only 0.3% of the drivers that day. Most people will risk those odds, especially if everyone else around them is speeding. Sure, better policing and management of industrial facilities represents a stronger political problem than lowering the speed limit, but it is vastly easier as far as implementation goes.

The issue is that no one goes 55 even if that's what the speed limit is. All Houston-area freeways (with the exception of pre-construction 290 and 45 between Downtown and the Shepherd Curve) are designed so that going 65 mph+ is comfortable to the average driver. If you added a lane to all of the freeways, dropped the lane width from 12 ft to 10 ft, and narrow the shoulders, that might be a viable plan, but then you'd be risking interstate highway funding for 45, 10 and 610.

(please delete, unintentional duplicate post)

That's downtown now?

That's really cool, Luminare! Looking forward to the information that comes out in the upcoming weeks, and can't wait to hear about upcoming events and meetings.

Sure. "Representative so-and-so claims to be in favor of free market solutions to problems all Texans face together, but when the opportunity comes for a private company to solve a growing problem for this region and our state, he has shown that these are nothing but platitudes", etc.

Best bet is to get a letter to the editor printed in the Chronicle and/or DMN. People will take notice in those circumstances, far more than a phone call will permit.

Couldn't TCR just buy up the property before they vote on this bill?

If you look closely at the illustration, it appears that the structure pops over slightly to the west, as suggested, right at that spot. It's the circled area 'G'. That block is also not in the exclusion area marked by the crosshatches.

There are a couple of things that make an I-10 route into the Post Office site doable: 1. The train will likely be elevated on pylons. That means land takings will be minimized - it'll mostly be easements and air rights that are at play here. Companies will gladly allow those easements, since that means long-term payments for the right of use. 2. The train will likely be going no more than 30 mph at this point. This means tight radii are very possible on the trackage.

That's simply a suggestion. You could have the tracks suspended 16-17 ft above grade and be just fine with both the freeway and the cross streets that are at grade.