mfastx

6 minutes ago, Urbannizer said:

A new project named Camelia Apartments is proposed here. 792 units (!) , 4Q 2018 Start - 2Q 2021 Completion 

 

http://www.constructionwire.com/Client/Report/Details/3139949?reporttypeid=1

Don't think that link is working, I'd be very intrigued if this is legit. 

16 hours ago, Trae said:

At a projection of 59,500 riders on 22 miles, the University BRT would have more than enough ridership to justify it being rail. It'd have the 8th highest ridership per mile out of all light rail systems in this country. Even better, the Inner Katy line would have the 4th highest riders per mile if it were a light rail system. Some short-shortsightedness going on by making these lines BRT. But such is Houston nowadays, where people band together to stop another flagship university from forming.

Agreed.  I'm very dubious of that project btw.  If it were rail, that projection would be much more easily attainable.  

I like the idea of connecting the airports by rail, but I am a little disappointed at how much light rail they're proposing in what they call "dense" areas.  The actual "dense" areas have no rail going to them at all (basically the entire west side of Houston).  For the one rail line going towards the west side, having it in the middle of I-10 will also limit ridership.  

But BRT can work as well so hopefully something gets done on the west side.  I just think it's backwards, BRT is better served on the east side areas with fewer population. 

This thing is sexy.  Love the orientation. 

One of the better garages in Htown. 

It's no Deyaar Post Oak but I'll take it! 

Even if the TCR station isn't in an optimal location, it makes too much sense for Amtrak to be moved there.  One thing that would have to happen is that a platform compatible with Amtrak must be constructed.  Amtrak's superliner cars which are used on the Sunset Limited can only be accessed via a low floor platform (15" above the rail).  Typically, HSR trains use high floor platforms (48" above the rail).  

Also, the platform would have to be built adjacent to the existing UP trackage.  Presumably, the HSR platforms will be elevated if the rendering is anything to go by, so you'd have platforms elevated and at ground level.  

Currently, the Sunset would have to do a short reverse move to access the station.  The Sunset already does a reverse move leaving Houston eastbound and reverse moves are fairly common on Amtrak, so this shouldn't be an issue. 

Ultimately, the benefit of having one station for both Amtrak and TCR would be to allow both passengers to access food options, rental car and parking which would be at the station.  Optimally, you'd have all the bus companies at the station too to make things even more efficient.  

All that being said, I don't see this happening. 

Now that's how you do a garage. 

I'm not sure it makes much sense to not have a line that hits San Antonio, San Marcos, Austin, Round Rock, Temple, Waco and Ft. Worth.  Lots of ridership potential there all in a straight line. 

20 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

It's called politics, the same engine running the bullet train. Right now there is no incentive to push for it politically. But once this bullet train gets going then the next thing is going to be how can we connect the region to it. Plus you're comment is looking at things very short sighted. Not desirable RIGHT NOW is true. You could have said the same thing about Memorial City 20 years ago. You think the train is just going to exist with no economic impact? It's going to have a massive impact politically and economically on both cities. It's a great location because it's literally a pivot point in the city. Really this train could help Houston finally get the transit system it deserves.

Understood and agree with most of what you said.  It's just a minor annoyance and I understand that the incremental cost associated with taking it downtown would likely be greater than the incremental return.  Real estate is likely a large component of funding this project, and there's more "opportunity" at the NW mall site than in downtown.  I really get all that.  My only concern is that unless the train station is significantly closer to a large employment center than Hobby, many people will still opt to fly.  If you have to schlep your way though 610/I-10 traffic to reach your final destination after you get off the train, what's the advantage to that over doing the same thing from Hobby?  For Westerners it's better geographically, but the ideal location obviously would be a station in Downtown.  Not only can you have the same garages with parking, rental cars and other ground transportation, but you also have the option of taking light rail or simply walking to your final destination, as there is much more within walking distance in downtown than anywhere else.  You don't capture that market share if your station is outside of the city.  I still support the project of course, I just felt compelled to point out the obvious shortcomings of the Houston station location (Dallas' is much better). 

17 hours ago, Ross said:

Given the potential routings, I suspect that NW Mall to Downtown on the bullet train would be at least 15 minutes, and the cost would be high enough to be uneconomic for the train owners.

It'd probably be more like 5 minutes.  Acela takes only about 10-15 minutes to get from Rte 128 station to Back Bay in the Boston area, a distance far greater than NW Mall to Uptown.  And this would be faster.  

2 hours ago, IronTiger said:

LOL to the "why not downtown" arguments. If this is supposed to be an airport alternative, why does it have to be downtown? If HAIF had existed back in the 1960s, would there be just whole pages of complaints about the future Hobby Airport being outside of the Loop?

It's supposed to be better than just an airport alternative.  It has to be if this project is going to be successful.  

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I think this is a great location. This is going to encourage a light rail line to Downtown from Uptown. Plus you can extend the build out of Uptown because of the BRT line with more stores, etc. This is exciting! Not a fan of dallas but I'm def a fan of Houston becoming a major hub for many economic reasons. 

Strongly disagree, this is a terrible location.  If we can't even get light rail to the Galleria, what makes you think we would get it out here anytime soon?  To be honest it doesn't matter that much, because most people would just drive to the station anyway, but there is definitely a market share of business travelers this won't capture due to the inconvenient location in Houston.  If the station is in a random area of town, there's less of an incentive to take the train over flying.  If you have to rent a car and drive wherever from the station, might as well rent a car and drive wherever from the airport.  It's a shame because this is such a great project, but this is not a desirable area of town.  

Finally some development in this area! 

4 hours ago, kbates2 said:

Have we ever even tried to pass a grade separated rail plan?  

Yes, and it was passed, then Houston elected a mayor that intended to kill it, and he did. 

Like the catch of the pigeon's wings mid-flight. 

Gotta say that parking structure looks really bad so far lol.   Hopefully there's cladding or something. 

2 hours ago, cspwal said:

 

The sunset limited runs up along 90A and then through the inner loop on the tracks that go past Higland village and through Memorial Park, and then it turns down the Washington ave corridor.  They could probably reroute to the NW mall location, but it would be out of the way some

Yup, they could just back up on the wye after making the turn instead of continuing to downtown.  Probably won't happen but it's a neat idea, and certainly would be an upgrade over the existing Amshack. 

I agree.  It'd be much better if the site were consolidated with other transportation, like Greyhound and other buses and Amtrak.  Much better to have everything in one place.  Unfortunately, I don't think the Sunset route makes it all the way up to NW Mall.  Also it being a private endeavor would likely complicate things with Amtrak.  Maybe Greyhound can move their operations there eventually. 

That is incredible.  Seems so rare for a building in Houston to have a really cool lighting scheme.   Love it. 

A heavy rail transit system here would certainly be successful in my view.  Much more successful ridership wise than the current light rail system.  A few short light rail lines don't make much of an impact, but a faster heavy rail transit system that reaches out into the suburbs, much like Washington DC's system, would generate a lot of ridership.  Regarding subway vs above ground, I'd imagine that only a few small portions would be in a subway (such as downtown, uptown, TMC) but most of it would be above ground.  

It'll never happen of course, but it's fun to dream.  

37 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.  I agree with you as to the utility of urbanized area population vs. metropolitan area populations.   A couple things:  

Houston's urbanized area was at about 5.3 Million in 2010.  In the latest Demographia report (which is the source of your numbers), Houston's 2017 estimate was about 6.2 Million (not about 5 million as you reported).

 

The 2010 number you report above for Chicago is not a comparable number to the 2017 number you reported. The 2010 number is from the US Census Bureau, while the 2017 number is from Demographia.  According to Demographia, Chicago's urbanized area in 2010 was 9.023 Million.  In 2017, it was 9.14 Million.  See page 105 of the Demographia 2017 report.  In 2015, Chicago's urbanized area population 9.156 Million.  (See Page 21.)  So even using the preferred metric of urbanized areas, Chicago is indeed losing population.

 

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize they were from different sources.  I initially cited the 2010 US Census numbers that say about 5 million in 2010.  

Even so, calling Chicago a "failed city" is a bit of a bombastic comment in my opinion.  It's still an extremely important city in the US and worldwide.  If it drastically loses population over the course of the next several decades, then maybe it's a failed city. 

2 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

There's actually not a lot of buses on the weekend. Not sure why you think there is? Yes there is rail, again not sure why think it's a couple of blocks away. The Red Line  station on  State Street and Grand Street is the closest stop near my lake shore and ohio street address, which is about 3/4 of a mile away.

Now that we're a little back on topic I'll respond lol.  Not sure where you're trying to go on the weekend but there's other buses that run then.  Can you give me an example of somewhere you can't get to on the weekend?  I quickly googled a route from that intersection to Union Station and you could take the 29 only like a block away from that intersection.  Also, I don't think 3/4 mile is very far.  I routinely walked that when I rode the 25 home from high school every day growing up.  

Quote

Regarding Houston's metro buses that don't operate on the weekend, yes there are some park and ride buses from the suburbs that don't operate on the weekends however, and correct me if i'm wrong because i may be wrong, but all of Metro's local routes operate on the weekend. Chicago cta buses on the other hand have lots of local routes that don't operate on the weekend. For a transportation system that almost prohibits you from operating a car within downtown Chicago and practically forces you to ride public transportation or walk, having so many local routes not operate on the weekend is woefully substandard.

The example you posted seemed to be an express route, not a local route.  Growing up I seem to recall a handful of non-P&R routes in Houston that didn't operate on weekends, but I don't feel like taking the time to look at all the schedules. Anyway, that's just typically how it is in a more developed city.  Between walking, Uber, taxis, bikeways, buses and rail, there's plenty of non-car ways to get around Chicago.  I'm really surprised that you feel like you can't get around up there. 

Quote

How it all ties into the retail district is that people have choices in how they reach those shopping districts or how they choose to ignore those districts and instead  shop online. Why would a Houstonian drive to a retail district in downtown when they could drive to a better one in the Galleria with plenty of free parking and security? If i lived in downtown (which i did for many years) why would i want to walk for half a mile in the heat to reach a retail district filled with panhandlers? I suppose i could get into my car and drive within downtown to the proposed district but once i get in my car i can easily reach any district. Anyways, we have a retail district already in downtown and it's privately funded. It's called the tunnels. It's awesome and unique, embrace it.

 

 

I think what's driving the development of this and other downtown districts is the growing downtown population.  Many people are more than willing to walk half a mile to do some casual shopping.  The infrastructure improvements that are coming with it are appreciated as well.  Many of the businesses in the tunnels are not open on weekends and are generally not accessible from street level unless you know where to go.  Obviously it remains to be seen how successful it will ultimately be so who knows. 

2 hours ago, The Pragmatist said:

 

I'm not here to argue about the transit systems. I just wanted to correct your assertion that Chicagoland isn't seeing a population decline.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-census-population-loss-met-20170322-story.html

 

 

I took my numbers from the urban area estimation: here's the 2010 estimate and 2017 estimate I found.  I prefer the urban area designation as it does not take into account arbitrary civic boundaries such as city/county lines.  I feel that it's the best representation of the population of cities in general.  Clearly by other metrics it's a different story.  

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

^

 

Yeah, the mfastx posted some bad information all around on Chicago metro population.  2010 population 9,461,105, not 8.5 million.  There are no census estimates for 2017, but in 2016 the estimate was 9,512,999, having peaked in 2014 at 9,543,893. 

See clarified post above. 

10 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

For example I live in the Streeterville neighborhood of Chicago. You can think of it of their Med Center. Huge hospitals, Northwestern Med, Law and Business schools are here and just a few steps from the Navy Pier; the most visited attraction in Illinois. So not exactly a remote area of Chicago. So lets say i want to ride the CTA bus outside my apartment today (Sunday). Wait i can't, it doesn't even operate on the weekends. Only on weekdays and only during rush hour, and only for a couple of hours of rush hour. So please tell me how that's better than Houston's Metro?

 

http://www.transitchicago.com/bus/121/

 

Chicago's public transportation has to be the most overrated system i have ever ridden. And yes it is a failed city. The city is bleeding population growth and bleeding citizens literaly. Outside of the gleaming towers in downtown the city is a disaster.

 

Anyways, I'm just going to assume you're being sarcastic because you don't know anything about public transportation.

Try using Google maps to see the most optimal route for your trip during the weekend.  There's plenty of buses that operate on weekends in Chicago in your neighborhood.  You could also walk a couple blocks (gasp) and use the rail.  There's plenty of routes in Houston that don't operate on the weekend as well, so I don't see your point there.  

Here's why it's better than Houston's Metro: Chicago has almost 4 times more daily riders on their bus system than Houston.  They also have another 800,000 or so rail riders, and that doesn't count METRA ridership.  Their total daily ridership is 1,850,000 while Houston's barely approaches 300,000.  So yes, their transit is miles ahead of Houston's even with their aging rail infrastructure and it's not close. 

Chicago's urban area might not be growing as fast as Houston's, but it is not losing population.  It was at 8.5 mil in 2010 and is at about 9.2 mil in 2017.  Houston's is about 5 mil.  Official city limit populations are arbitrary and therefore meaningless if that's what you're going by.  

I do respect the fact that you're so proud of Houston that you'd say its transit system is better than Chicago's lol.  

EDIT: I just realized that this is wildly off topic lol, so this will by my last response on the subject in this thread.  I'd love to continue the discussion in a transit thread if you'd like. 

17 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

I've been living in Houston for more than 30 years. I recently moved to Chicago because my wife is a doctor and we decided to pursue an opportunity at Northwestern Medical.

 

I will most certainly make judgement calls. Houston's overall mobility is better than Chicago's. Public transportation inside Chicago's loop (their downtown) is really only accessible via CTA buses. There are tracks and stations around downtown but, it does only that, it goes around in a loop around downtown, hence the name. Auto traffic for commuters into the Loop is horrendous at all hours of the day and night. I have not been on the commuter rail (METRA) yet since i live in the city so i don't know if it's good or bad, however i often read news alerts about METRA disruptions due to various reasons. Regarding retail districts in general, The Galleria puts the Magnificent Mile to shame. The mag mile is a joke, yet the city of Chicago is all too willing to dump money on that street in lieu of much needed attention on the south side. The most visited Chicago attraction according to Yelp is the Navy Pier, again pretty much a joke. The privately owned Kemah boardwalk is more fun. Overall Chicago is a failed city and a specific section of the city; the Southside, if it were a country would be considered a failed state due to its violence, decay, corruption and a lack of caring. The parts of the city that are livable are dying as well due to high taxes. So yes, I will make a judgement on Houston. Houston is winning. Houston, please don't become like other liberal cities. Stick to a mass transportation mobility plan based on buses and stay away from subsidized retail districts. In my opinion Houstonian's  will continue to prefer Amazon.com for most of their retail and will go to a high end district like the Galleria for their high end needs. Houston if you're reading this, please don't buy into the fallacy that the Metro rail has spurred downtown development. It has not and nor will it ever.

Couldn't disagree with you more about Chicago.  Their public transportation system is miles better than Houston's.  I've been there many times to visit a friend of mine who lives there and my experience was totally different.  Chicago is a hub and spoke system that radiates out from downtown in all directions.  It's extremely convenient and much superior to Houston's system, obviously.  Ridership numbers will say as much.  Calling Chicago a "failed city" is ridiculous.  

I'm just going to assume you're being sarcastic and trolling us lol. 

Looks good from where I'm sitting.  Let's reel 'er in, fellas! 

So I'm assuming these buildings are lit up nicely just for the Super Bowl and will go back to being dark and bland right after?