august948

False. Houston is centered around drivers and nobody else.

Correct.  Car drivers and bus drivers.  I live near the western edge of the city limits and I've got three bus lines within a 10 minute walk.  I could live a car-free life if I chose to.

I would think that with the Panama Canal expansion and what ii is expected to bring to the Houston area, we'd see freight rail improvements coming up soon.

A place that makes it easier for most to get around.

Very good.  You hit the nail on the head...Houston is "a place that makes it easier for most to get around".

Too bad the people on charge won't agree to that either. And evidently you're unaware of rail investment being made worldwide.

I'm not unaware that rail investment is being made elsewhere.  It's just that it's not relevant.

If mass transit is built on the right corridors there would be hundreds of thousands of riders.

You left out the part where you have to tear up all the freeways and outlaw personal vehicles.

Not really just a world where cities are built for pedestrians, bicyclists, rail, buses, and cars, in that order.

A world where cities are built for pre-19th century, the 19th century, the 19th century again and then the 20th century twice, in that order?

Or, destroy pierce and build better mass transit. 610 borders on neighborhoods no way it gets expanded. This obsession with widening and god forbid stacking needs to end.

Run mass transit on a portion of the widened and stacked freeways.  This obsession with living in the 1800's needs to end.

Those 100,000 could take 610 or 59. Most of them would avoid the surface street.

And the reason is I want the city to be a better place aesthetically not just a place that's convenient for cars.

NP...remove the Pierce and widen 610 and 59 to Katy freeway standards...minimum 10 lanes each way.  Rebuild the connectors to allow smooth transition from one to the other and we're good to go.

No, the highway system has expanded enough as it is.

I'm afraid your ideal world that returns us to the 1800's with everyone walking, riding a horse, or taking a train just isn't feasible.

My theory is that even though this is going to be a "spaceport" its going to be more of a Space X command center/ spaceport for their uses only. More for experiments and large launches. Its so far away from major population centers that I don't think it's the kind of spaceport we are thinking of. The one we are thinking of is the one which is being planned for Houston. However if you are doing a lot of large equipment launches or R&D launches you do what NASA does and have it as far away from population centers as you can in environments which aren't going to be environmentally damaging if something cocks up. There you have large expanses of flat desert or flat farmland and you have the large expanse of the Gulf of Mexico without it being near a major port. It's also probably going to be on major railroad lines that run from Mexico to Texas and other areas of the Southwest.

 

As far as I know the spaceport for Houston is still a go, but is more commercial in nature while this one is more for Industrial purposes (yes even though I know it says its going to be a commerical port, but I think maybe yall get the idea). Either way this makes Texas as a whole space central and with NASA in Houston I'm sure that's where more industries related to Aeronautics will move their headquarters and possibly laboratories. 

I hope you're right about Texas becoming space central in the future.  I'd love to see history show that the shuttle NYC got was just a consolation prize.

Thing is, though, sometimes launches go wrong and this location gives the strong possibility that it can go wrong and land in Mexico or in Mexican territorial waters.  Wouldn't that add extra aggravation if something goes awry?

If the reviews it's gotten on yelp and others are any indication, it's liable to be demo'd or at least extensive gutted.  Sounds like there are a lot of aging infrastructure problems.

I wonder why a location right on the Mexican border was chosen.

 

SpaceX is expected to continue building its Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy rockets at its Hawthorne, Calif., plant, but Texas officials hope the next generation of larger rockets will have to be built closer to the launch site because they will be too big to transport long distances over highways.

Might they really intend to build the rockets across the border in Mexico?

I'm curious as to what constitutes as "repairing sidewalks". For example, if a sidewalk was damaged to the point where it was very difficult to traverse if you had difficulty walking/biking, would you have to do a new pour or could you just dump a blob of asphalt in the worst spots?

I've seen it done both ways plus a few cases where somebody used pavers.

It includes Blueprint Houston and, it seems, all other planning groups' plans for Houston. The kickoff meeting was pretty exciting. Sounds like they are trying to pull in just about every agency and group in the city and combine them into one huge master plan. Should be interesting!

Get your popcorn out and enjoy the political infighting for the next few years.

This technology will unleash a whole new level of personal manufacturing as it matures.  I don't know about exciting, but this is what caught my attention about it the most...

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/3d-printed-guns/

There are priorities and those people are last on the totem pole.

And thus it's more important for them that we expand and improve the highway system until they can be reached by some sort of rail solution.

Everyone in college station that commutes works in the woodlands, and Beaumont in Baytown?

Also do you seriously consider 130 miles a feasible daily commute?

I don't believe I said that.  Surely you are aware, though, that there are major employment centers outside downtown, right?  I gave those as examples of how it's not really that far.  60 to 70 miles from either place is mostly freeway making the commute an hour to an hour and a half.  Making the commute from downtown to Katy or The Woodlands can take that long so it's not really unfeasible.  Believe it or not some people prefer to live in the country where they can have a large piece of land and a large house at a very reasonable price and just drive to the nearest big city to work.  It's more common than you appear to realize.

It's under study. Beaumont and college station aren't 60 miles away from downtown, invalid comparisons. Also a lot of people from clear lake and south of that commute to galveston.

Not everyone works in downtown.  College Station to The Woodlands is 70 miles and Beaumont to Baytown is 65.

I don't know if this will help or not, but I found this map resource for Houston...

http://houstorian.org/maps/

They've got some pretty cool maps.

If you want to see some doozy stupid politican quotes, just Google Louie Gohmert.

Post 'em.

Thought I'd start a thread for political "say what?" moments...

And our first contestant is...Sheila Jackson Lee...

 

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, had an "oops" moment on the House floor, as seen in C-Span video.

 

The Houston representative declared the U.S. Constitution was some 400 years old.

 

Unfortunately, that's incorrect.

 

The Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified nearly a year later. Four hundred years ago, Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in North America, was founded.

"Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not," Lee said.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Sheila-Jackson-Lee-says-Constitution-is-400-years-5312121.php

The edge cities are really a sign of the future (at least for the next 50 years), mostly because they offer so much in the way of living options. Still, the traditional suburban form won't stay the same either. It's bound to evolve into something slightly higher density, even if that just means smaller lot sizes.

You can see that going on already in master planned communities.  Up until the 70's or 80's most suburban neighborhoods were built on a smaller scale, with perhaps a playground and maybe tennis courts and/or swimming pool in some cases.  Now the trend is to build on a grander scale and include retail, larger parks, lakes, golf courses, etc.  Smaller neighborhoods continue to be built, of course, but the trend is now for a developer to buy a really large piece of land and subcontract segments of it to different builders.  MPC's focus themselves a little more inward, seeking to be something like a small town with all the basic ammenities included or nearby.  In the end that may also include some form of mass transit as it is easier to designate some center of focus in the MPC as a pickup/dropoff point for commuter service.  It also give rise to "town centers" built by the developers and frequently including some sort of mixed use concept.

I think part of this is an urban renaissance that's revitalizing the inner cores of many American cities. There was plenty of growth across the country in the 90s, but since so much of it was suburban it just wasn't notable. Mixed-use, walkable living is far more popular now, and new development is showing that. The tides are turning against suburbanism and I figure that'll only get stronger as energy prices remain high and younger generations age to the point where they're able to act on their desires to live in more culturally relevant inner-city communities. The suburbs are fast becoming a bittersweet relic from the 1950s, when the American economy was strong enough to fuel that sort of car-centric excess. I don't think the 21st century will be nearly as kind to that model of development.

 

Coming out of a recession also helps, as well as deeper integration with a global economy that looks favorably towards major American cities (those expats just love their condos). Is it Obama? Hell, I don't know. But it's cool to watch for sure.

As it stands right now, mixed-use, walkable living is oriented (and priced) to the upper level socio-economic demographics.  Since that will never be the majority, there's a limit on how far that will go unless they can make it work for the middle and lower income majority.  The suburbs also aren't going to just dry up and blow away as some fantasize.  Instead, some of that mixed-use, walkable living will be (and is being) built in suburban edge cities where housing is more affordable and thus more people live.  Fracking has also put off whatever effects peak oil might have had at least for a generation, if not more.  No doubt by the time, far in the future, when oil prices spike like was predicted before 2007 we'll have much better electric vehicles.  Once that happens, there's no real issue for the continuance of the personal auto and thus car-centric living.

So, what is going on in our current economy that many cities are experiencing development rarely seen before!? Thoughts? And, do we attribute this to the Obama regime, or is it just a natural economic occurance? We seem to be rebounding and many metroplexes are reflecting that. What is the current drive? Or are we setting ourselves up for an even bigger collapse say circa, 2019?!

Obama is about as responsible for a rebound as Perry is responsible for Texas' successes of late.   But both will claim all the credit and blame any downsides on the opposition.  That's just the nature of politics.

Now if they would just put a Trader Joes in the remaining space.  I would love that since I live near there and sometimes go to TJ's on Voss. 

That would be a great idea.  We've already pretty much got all the major grocery retailers nearby anyway.  Just need TJ and Aldi's.