Jump to content

Texasota

Full Member
  • Posts

    2,778
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Texasota

  1. Oh, so they're linking it up with the little spur behind UH? https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh-35-harris-county.html Great, just what campus needs. An active freeway running through it.
  2. What do you mean by location?
  3. On the positive side, the Planning Department would agree with you: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Commissions/committee_walkable-places.html My understanding is that the plan is also to update the transit corridor standards and make them mandatory.
  4. That link appears to require Flash. Since it is no longer 2007, here is a link to an ESRI-hosted map: https://esrimedia.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=77f3cad12b6c4bffb816332544f04542
  5. Well done BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) - which this appears to be - really does offer most of the same benefits as light rail. It will come down to the details, but I think it's looking good so far. Look at this way: at any time of day, regardless off traffic, the buses can run a consistent speed and schedule. Also, my understanding is that ticketing will be done on the platform (like with the light rail) rather than while boarding, which speeds and simplifies the boarding process. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer rail too, but this looks like it will be almost equivalent. To me, the biggest issue with BRT is that it's too easy to cut corners - an agency will announce a BRT line, but then theyll start chipping away at what makes it BRT rather than a bus. So far, this doesn't look like it will have that problem.
  6. Not at all the same. Frequent stop signs for short, rarely traveled stub streets are a very different animal from a single intersection with a well-traveled street.
  7. That response was wildly inappropriate, unprofessional and downright bizarre. But... Your message was basically telling him he was running his business wrong and that "people are confused." Based on how defensive his response was, there might not actually *be* a good answer to this, but I wonder if you wouldn't have gotten a better reaction phrasing the post differently, like: I'm still a little confused - is Taste essentially the tenant at Sterling House going forward, or is it more like a short-term pop-up? Is the plan to have more than one tenant in the building - something like Taste on the ground floor and a bar on the second floor? Sorry about all the questions. I'm really excited to see this house maintained and turned into a great new asset to the community; I just want to make sure I understand what I'm talking about when I talk it up to people. I think the "people are confused" thing in particular is what stuck out to me. Even if it's true, that takes the conversation away from two guys talking and makes it into something that could be interpreted as much more aggressive or accusatory, especially to someone as incredibly defensive as this guy apparently is.
  8. A good point - that's a pretty glaring omission. Still, much closer to bagels than the bread circles Einstein sells.
  9. Because they don't have access to an infinite amount of money? A phased approach seems perfectly reasonable to me.
  10. I wonder if any thought has been given to making Pecore one-way. That way everybody wins...
  11. Those are old bike lanes. If you look at the new Bike Plan, they're not considered part of the city's "high comfort" bike network. Now, it remains to be seen to what standard the new lanes will be consistently (or not) built.
  12. I'd like to see actual road sections of what they're proposing here. I assume Pecore is staying two lanes and I can't imagine they're planning on tearing out the esplanade - surely the "4-to-3" conversion applies only to the section that actually has 4 lanes - Shepherd to Pecore.
  13. Oh, ok. I for one completely misunderstood the point you were trying to make. You are absolutely correct that a number of club promoters/owners, particularly in parts of Midtown, Washington, and, previously, Downtown, explicitly want white people and would turn away anyone who didn't meet their skin tone requirements. I do think it's a specific group that behave that way though. I have no idea whether that includes the Sterling House people. Anyway, I read your post *very* differently than this explanation. Thanks for the in-depth response to everyone.
  14. Development in the floodplain upstream from a major city? What could possibly go wrong?
  15. Oh come on. Using "Manhattan" as a catch-all bogeyman is obnoxious, and, guess what? New York City has minimum parking requirements! The Heights will *never* be anywhere near Manhattan in terms of density. This is more about making better use of the existing parking we have *and* letting the market do what it does best if more is indeed necessary.
  16. Yeah that seems like enough. Or at least spin this nonsense into its own thread.
  17. That would be nice, but it doesn't look like that's the plan. That's a standard nasty big box strip mall (that even appears to house a Michael's) behind the giant parking lot. That being said, the rest of the site is way better than it could have been, so... hurray?
  18. Eh, I've actually biked more than a few times on Shepherd and (with a group) it can actually be pretty nice. Traffic gets pretty light north of I-10 at various times of day and you can easily take a whole, excessively wide lane quite comfortably.
  19. Sort of. Except there's an enormous median with grocery stores and stuff in the middle. Don't get me wrong; I would love to see the number of car travel lanes cut down. I just think (regarding the road design) that a huge part of the problem is the distance between stop lights. People speed because the street is so wide AND because there's no reason to stop.
×
×
  • Create New...