RedScare

Not to be confused with "Pass the Dutchie"... ....Or the population of Fort Worth.

I kept looking for Hakeem's link to this story, but I couldn't find it. Perhaps you could point it out.

I'm hoping heights yankee will accompany me to the luau. I just LOVE double entendres like "let's get lei'ed". Isn't that cute? Only kool people would get a joke like that. Oh, and I'll wear my bling.

You never said Dallas had monorail. And I'm not trying to trash your idea. There have been some previous threads by people who have a fantasy for monorail, i.e. mag-lev technology, and it is just too expensive for what you get. Now that I know that is not what you were advocating, I agree with you that the best route might include elevated or submerged sections of LRT. You know, WesternGulf is correct. Heavy rail is much more expensive than LRT. In lesser density cities like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, you don't need a long train. METRO carries 200 people per car. Linking 2 gives you 400. They travel every 6 minutes. That's 4000 per hour, 72,000 per 18 hour day, more than any of the lesser density cities need. Plus, Houston's original plan WAS for heavy rail in 1983. It would've cost $1.3 Billion for 11 miles or so of rail. Voters shot it down, and looking back, that was smart of Houstonians to do. Heavy rail is most useful on commuter lines, where the train doesn't run as often.

That's pretty much it, dude. Except, of course, for citykid. His requirement is that it doesn't actually have to do anything, so long as it LOOKS urban. In fact, apparently he wants it to be somewhat inconvenient, because he thinks it is cool to watch people walk to a subway station. Kind of looks like MARTA.

According to Sandra Gunn, this is the description of the 6 wards. "The First Ward is the area to the northwest of the downtown central business district (CBD). Located in what would today be called the

Well, you could start by using the right terminology. Dallas does not have a monorail. It is LRT. A monorail is a completely different type of transit, one that is very expensive to build. If you are suggesting elevating a portion of the LRT, or in the alternative, tunnelling a portion of it, that is a completely different story. METRO has not decided where to put the line, nor has it decided whether to run it at street level, subway, or elevated. A combination of all 3 is even possible. There are some suggestions here to do some of that. I am confident that METRO will look into that, as well. The only thing we know for sure is that street level rail is least expensive to build. We also know that if it is too expensive, we will not get federal funding, which is critical to building the line. An elevated line is much noisier than street level or subway, due to vibration. The neighbors would probably complain more about that. However, on those sections that are too narrow, it should be considered, along with all of the other options. Elevated rail is also imposing and frankly, ugly. It blocks out light and looks like a miniature freeway overpass. If this can be done without too many elevated sections, I think it will look better, and sound better. That's my opinion.

That's an additional problem. My numbers are just construction costs, before a single rider steps on board. Low ridership would be a different set of numbers. I do believe that street level transit gets the most ridership because it is the easiest to board and exit, versus going up and down stairs to get to elevated and subway stations. But, I'm leaving that out of this debate. I'm just saying the stronomical costs of monorail is why no one is installing it.

No, you misunderstand MY point. I asked you earlier if you could point out a monorail that didn't cost a fortune, but you ignored me. I assume that is because you could not find one. So let me explain. The Main Street LRT cost about $43 million per mile to build. Costs for the U-Line is expected to be similar. Seattle voters just cancelled their monorail because it was going to cost $136 million per mile...more than triple the cost of LRT. Want more? Las Vegas just built a monorail that cost $141 million per mile. The U-Line is 10 miles. LRT would cost about $450 million. Monorail would cost about 1.4 Billion. So, what you suggest is that because ONE drunk ran a redlight and killed himself in 2 and a half years, METRO taxpayers should pay an extra $1 Billion. I think you know the answer to that question....not no, but HELL NO! TheNiche had a great explanation about risks vs. costs in another thread. You should read it. In short, it says that we weigh the risks against the costs to make our decisions. 350 people die on Harris County roads every year, yet you still drive your car on these roads. One person has died in 2 1/2 years of LRT. It is not worth an extra Billion dollars to protect him from the train, especially since he would have died anyway if that had been a bus instead of a train. I know this won't change your mind. I only tell you this so you'll understand why no one is even listening to your argument. It's too expensive.

Yes, and amazingly, there has never been a SINGLE accident or fatality on any of those freeways.

The suggestion that anyone who opposes a monorail is settling for mediocrity is ridiculous. I challenge any monorail supporter to show me a monorail installation that even remotely approaches affordability. The assumption that METRO not only has unlimited resources to install fanciful transit systems, but also has unanimous support to do so is a fantasy. Not only am I not the least bit convinced that monorail is more attractive than LRT, but I know that the amount of federal funding that METRO would get for an overpriced rail system is ZERO. Posting your dreams of a transit system if price were no object is one thing. Ignoring the realities of slim majority support for ANY rail, plus opposition by our elected "leaders", and the reduced federal funding and tighter rail requirements from the current administration, is quite another. Calling the rest of us "foolish" for dwelling in reality rather than frolicking in your fantasy is off the mark. "PERIOD".

I'm with mrfootball on this one. Just attach "Homeland Security" to something and there is no limit to the amount of money that will be thrown at it. On the other hand, I sure am glad they are protecting that can of corn in my cupboard. I was getting concerned.

True...but that is not what you said. You said the "the vast majority of these new neighborhoods going in have tens of thousands homes". That is untrue. The vast majority of the subdivisions being built in NW Harris County have hundreds of homes. Some have thousands of homes. NONE have tens of thousands of homes. Now, if you are saying that ALL of NW Harris County is building tens of thousands of homes, that may be true over a period of several years. If you are saying ALL of NW Harris County has tens of thousands of homes in total, that would be true. But, you're post, as written, is untrue.

Hmm...I don't think so. The Woodlands has 25,000 homes, Kingwood has 19,500 homes, Cinco Ranch will have 12,000 at total buildout, and First Colony is up around 10,000. Virtually everything else is below the big 4. Only the Woodlands would qualify as "tens of thousands".

Hate to kick a man when he's down, but we ran the Oilers off. Unfortunately, the owner stayed in Houston.

Torvald, I don't believe it is exactly that school. That school was located on Jefferson, between Smith and Louisiana. It no longer exists. However, the Gregory School on Victor Street is named for the same Gen. Gregory as the original Gregory Institute. Incidentally, Gregory Institue was the original high school for black children in Houston. Gregory School was an elementary school. There is a planned renovation of Gregory School. http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...?showtopic=3249

As a point of comparison, and a reason why you should not do this, Terrell Owens is saying the exact same things, only he is saying it about the EAGLES, the very team that Gaffney says is a great organization. If Gaffney wants to be compared to TO's off-field personality, he is taking the correct path. The question is, why would he want to imitate TO's off-field behavior?

I was tempted to put that in, but I didn't want that to make the post look "flame-ish". However, Laura Miller, as well as some of the public battles among city council-members, add to the resistance that these suburban cities would have to becoming part of Dallas. These feuding council-members would now become Plano's council-members. Plano residents will never agree to that, nor will the other cities, regardless of what "experts" may say about it hurtung the Metroplex. Not to mention the perception that Plano property taxes may go to improve the less desirable parts of Dallas, rather than stay in Plano.

DART is a regional transit agency, so it's success will not rely on the City of Dallas. As for surrounding incorporated cities, this is local politics at its finest. I am sure that these suburban residents are proud to call DFW home, but to give up local control over their neighborhoods to the politicians at Dallas City Hall is another story altogether. Most residents would never vote for that. It has nothing to do with making Dallas appear bigger and better. It has everything to do with politics. You'll notice, this is not even being discussed. The reason is that the city leaders know it could never be approved. I have relatives living in Plano, and the derision they heap on Dallas is incredible, worse than suburban Houstonians trash Houston. It is not that they don't like living in DFW, it is that they can't stand City of Dallas politics. That is why those suburban cities exist in the first place. Dallas must survive and thrive within the limitations that exist. It is not impossible, but it is not easy. The suburban cities must do their part to help. But, joining Dallas City limits will not be part of the solution.

Smart Guy, you were not confusing at all. I understand that you are suggesting that Dallas would annex contiguous towns, as opposed to Fort Worth. I am saying that they cannot legally do that, without permission of those towns. In fact, I believe the towns would have to ASK Dallas to annex them. All of us know that the suburban cities surrounding Dallas would NEVER agree to be annexed by Dallas. They believe that the City of Dallas has huge problems as a city, and would not want to become part of those problems. And the State Legislature is not in the mood to make annexation easier for big cities (mostly, because of Houston's aggressiveness). Dallas, by and large, is landlocked. The only boundary that can expand is the very small southeastern one, but that is all floodplain, and not attractive for annexation. The City must find a way to reinvigorate itself, drawing middle class families back into the city limits. Otherwise, it risks becoming a southern Detroit. In this way, Fort Worth, like Houston, is not in near the dire straits that Dallas is. They are protecting their ETJ, which will allow the city to annex additional tax base when needed. They also can annex additional population in the outlying suburbs. Dallas cannot do this. It can only create new tax base by convincing companies and residents to reinvest inside it's city limits. Since most of the return to the inner city that all cities are experiencing consists of singles and couples, while families continue to leave for the suburbs, it is strangling population growth in landlocked cities like Dallas.

Look at post #17 on this link. http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...&hl=hardy+yards Apparently the remediation is making good progress, but it will take 2 years after that to begin construction.

Well, certainly, the higher the better is one theory. However, a lower level shot might give a good view too. The layout is as follows. First floor, lobby and elevators. 2nd through 7th floors are clerks, DA, and other clerical. No window access. 8th through 11th, courtrooms, window access. 12th, no public access. 13th, future expansion. 14th through 19th, courtrooms, public access. 20th floor, ceremonial courtroom, public access. The north windows have some great views of the bayou, Hardy Yards, etc.

The 2 cranes are for the new UH-D business college building that is being built on N. Main Street, directly south of this development. Their IS work going on at Hardy Yards, but it is remediation, in preparation for construction. It looks to be nearly completed.

Walk in the entrance, go through the metal detector, take the elavator to your preferred floor, and start taking pics. The courthouses are public. On the north and south ends of the hallways in the Criminal Courts Building, there are floor to ceiling windows, allowing the grand view you see in that photo. While the Federal Courthouse will not let you take a camera inside the building, I am aware of no such restriction in the Harris County Courthouses.

Smart Guy, how could Dallas annex a legally incorporated city? Is there something in the incorporation papers of these suburban cities that allows Dallas to do so? State law certainly does not allow it, unless the smaller city voluntarily dis-incorporates, or otherwise ASKS Dallas to annex them, similar to what the town of Houston Heights did to become part of Houston.