Highway 288

[Ross]

4 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

Choices have consequences. We can't subsidize the suburbs forever.

Where else would you have the workers at the Medical Center live? It's not like they can all afford to live in town, especially if they have kids, and HISD doesn't have enough schools to handle an influx that large. And, even if they wanted to live somewhere near work, say in the Third Ward, Garnet Coleman has worked very hard to prevent the "wrong people" from moving there by tying up land via the Midtown TIRZ, and preventing "gentrification".

[BigFootsSocks]

22 hours ago, IronTiger said:

They're not widening the freeways for extra chump change, that's for sure, although when 288 was planned, those were to be free express lanes. Anyway, the reason they can't build a light rail to Pearland (even if TxDOT was entirely up to the idea) is that Pearland is outside Harris County, meaning that in terms of funding Brazoria County would have to come up with a way of funding any sort of joint project (at best, good luck getting that county on voting for it), or Pearland literally gets a free ride in terms of rail. (There was a thread about two years ago on this topic I think, plus see page 1 of this topic). Plus, even if things did work out in terms of funding and a commuter rail-type light rail was being laid down 288, then this quote could just as easily apply to that rail system.

 

 

I'm with you up until that last line. I'm not exactly sure why, but when I find that out, I'm sure it'll be a hypocritical revelation on my part. 

[gmac]

7 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

Choices have consequences. We can't subsidize the suburbs forever.

 

Why not? Downtown has been subsidized forever.

[IronTiger]

39 minutes ago, BigFootsSocks said:

I'm with you up until that last line. I'm not exactly sure why, but when I find that out, I'm sure it'll be a hypocritical revelation on my part. 

Well, the reason I threw in the last line, was let's just say that it all worked out. TxDOT leased the median to METRO, who agreed to build an extension of the Red Line down to Pearland. Brazoria County agreed to pay for half of the line, and somehow the tickets and funding all worked out.

 

Now, I could be wrong, but I can imagine there still be complaining on HAIF on METRO paying for half of an ~8 mile track to Pearland and operating it when improvements could be made to the inner loop while Pearland gets rail access. Of course, I could also go by the fact that it's the Internet, there's always something to complain about.

[samagon]

On 10/5/2016 at 0:01 AM, IronTiger said:

They're not widening the freeways for extra chump change, that's for sure, although when 288 was planned, those were to be free express lanes. Anyway, the reason they can't build a light rail to Pearland (even if TxDOT was entirely up to the idea) is that Pearland is outside Harris County, meaning that in terms of funding Brazoria County would have to come up with a way of funding any sort of joint project (at best, good luck getting that county on voting for it), or Pearland literally gets a free ride in terms of rail. (There was a thread about two years ago on this topic I think, plus see page 1 of this topic). Plus, even if things did work out in terms of funding and a commuter rail-type light rail was being laid down 288, then this quote could just as easily apply to that rail system.

 

 

 

Which is a silly argument because it's the Harris country toll road authority building the thing. Residents of Harris county are paying for this so residents of Brazoria county can have a quicker commute?

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

 

Which is a silly argument because it's the Harris country toll road authority building the thing. Residents of Harris county are paying for this so residents of Brazoria county can have a quicker commute?

 

I don't think this is an HCTRA project.  I think it's a TXDot project.

[SkylineView]

This is not a[n] HCTRA project.  It's TXDOT.  For reference....

• TXDOT (with project):  LINK
• HCTRA (without project): LINK

[august948]

Anyone know if it's going to use TxTag as the native toll tag?

[august948]

On 10/5/2016 at 4:33 PM, ADCS said:

 

Choices have consequences. We can't subsidize the suburbs forever.

 

Choices cut both ways.  Some employers will (and do) leave the core to make it easier on their workers (and management).  As for subsidies, the core city and it's suburbs have a symbiotic relationship.  Neither can exist in current form without the other.

[IronTiger]

52 minutes ago, august948 said:

Anyone know if it's going to use TxTag as the native toll tag?

I would assume it's being built by TxDOT but operated by HCTRA.

[august948]

25 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

I would assume it's being built by TxDOT but operated by HCTRA.

 

I would think that is right except that on the HCTRA system map on its website it shows the Grand Parkway tollway owned and operated by TXDOT and directs you to txtag.org.  Then again, HCTRA runs the east part of the Westpark toll road and FBCTRA runs the west part.  In this case, I've already found a reference to Brazoria County TRA building and running the last 5 miles of the 288 toll road (the part in Brazoria county).

[IronTiger]

21 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

I would think that is right except that on the HCTRA system map on its website it shows the Grand Parkway tollway owned and operated by TXDOT and directs you to txtag.org.  Then again, HCTRA runs the east part of the Westpark toll road and FBCTRA runs the west part.  In this case, I've already found a reference to Brazoria County TRA building and running the last 5 miles of the 288 toll road (the part in Brazoria county).

Well, if I recall correctly, the roads that HCTRA operates are wholly in Harris County (most of Westpark, the entire Beltway, Hardy Toll Road, the HOT lanes in freeway medians). Grand Parkway crosses Montgomery County and Fort Bend County, so it's possible that it's TxDOT running the show to avoid being run by several jurisdictions.

[Houston19514]

3 hours ago, IronTiger said:

I would assume it's being built by TxDOT but operated by HCTRA.

 

Why would you assume that?

[IronTiger]

4 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Why would you assume that?

Because that's how the Katy Tollway was built, and yes, I do have references to back that up.

 

http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6688-1.pdf

 

(See Page 216 of the PDF).

[Houston19514]

On 10/11/2016 at 9:03 PM, IronTiger said:

Because that's how the Katy Tollway was built, and yes, I do have references to back that up.

 

http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6688-1.pdf

 

(See Page 216 of the PDF).

 

Except HCTRA Contributed to the funding of the Katy Managed Lanes and was involved pretty early on.  So to say TXDOT built it and HCTRA manages it doesn't quite give the full picture.   Is there any indication of such funding or involvement by HCTRA for 288?

Edited January 18, 2017 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the 288 toll lanes are being financed and built, and will be operated and managed by a private entity under agreement with TXDOT.

[JLWM8609]

2 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the 288 toll lanes are being financed and built, and will be operated and managed by a private entity under agreement with TXDOT.

That entity is Blueridge Transportation Group

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh288-toll-lanes/developer-summaries.html

[ADCS]

17 hours ago, august948 said:

Neither can exist in current form without the other.

 

Sure, but that's not much of an issue if you'd like to see that form changed, is it?

[august948]

1 hour ago, ADCS said:

 

Sure, but that's not much of an issue if you'd like to see that form changed, is it?

 

I assume you mean depopulate the core in favor of the suburbs, right?  That would certainly solve a lot of inner loop traffic headaches.  Then we might not need toll lanes on 288.

[ADCS]

3 hours ago, august948 said:

 

I assume you mean depopulate the core in favor of the suburbs, right?  That would certainly solve a lot of inner loop traffic headaches.  Then we might not need toll lanes on 288.

 

Ha. Try again.

[august948]

8 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

Ha. Try again.

 

Ok. 

 

How about we force employers out, say to the Beltway, and then convert the downtown towers to all residential?  We'd need to Katy Freeway-ize the Beltway but by spreading out the employment along the course of the Beltway we'd eliminate the daily in and out bottleneck thereby obviating the need for new toll lanes on 288.

 

Or we could flatten downtown for McMansions.  Because, you know, there are reasons that people don't all flock to cramped, high-rise living.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by august948

[ADCS]

Just now, august948 said:

 

Ok. 

 

How about we force employers out, say to the Beltway, and then convert the downtown towers to all residential?  We'd need to Katy Freeway-ize the Beltway but by spreading out the employment along the course of the Beltway we'd eliminate the daily in and out bottleneck thereby obviating the need for new toll lanes on 288.

 

Or we could flatten downtown for McMansions.  Because, you know, there is are reasons that people don't all flock to cramped, high-rise living.

 

 

 

Right. We subsidize other options that would otherwise be unavailable were it not for state intervention, and then throw a fit when someone wants to put a train line in.

 

Point being, it's all the same thing - policy choices.

[august948]

26 minutes ago, ADCS said:

 

Right. We subsidize other options that would otherwise be unavailable were it not for state intervention, and then throw a fit when someone wants to put a train line in.

 

Point being, it's all the same thing - policy choices.

 

Everything is subsidized, one way or another.  It's just a matter of how to balance the subsidies to get the greatest bang for the buck.

 

Nothing wrong with trains, by the way, if they solve the congestion problem in the real world.  Personally, I'd just like to be able to get around better during rush hour.  Before or after is no problem in this city (thanks to our extensive freeway system and mostly gridded street network).  If a train would do that better than managed lanes, once again in the real world, then that's a solution I would support.

[ADCS]

16 hours ago, august948 said:

 

Everything is subsidized, one way or another.  It's just a matter of how to balance the subsidies to get the greatest bang for the buck.

 

You can't possibly believe this has anything to do with the real world.

 

The primary driver of transit policy in this city is not efficiency; it's making sure the wrong people stay out of the right neighborhoods. It's territoriality and NIMBYism. Just check out the TCR fights if you don't believe me.

[august948]

18 minutes ago, ADCS said:

 

You can't possibly believe this has anything to do with the real world.

 

The primary driver of transit policy in this city is not efficiency; it's making sure the wrong people stay out of the right neighborhoods. It's territoriality and NIMBYism. Just check out the TCR fights if you don't believe me.

 

That's typically handled by house prices, but if not, they aren't doing a very good job since you can take a bus (subsidized) to both River Oaks and West University.  As a matter of fact the roads in both places are public (subsidized) and so accessible for anyone with a car/motorcycle/moped/scooter/bike/pair of shoes (although I guess you don't really even need a pair of shoes to walk River Oaks et al.)

 

[IronTiger]

41 minutes ago, ADCS said:

 

You can't possibly believe this has anything to do with the real world.

 

The primary driver of transit policy in this city is not efficiency; it's making sure the wrong people stay out of the right neighborhoods. It's territoriality and NIMBYism. Just check out the TCR fights if you don't believe me.

 

Sounds like you're implying veiled racism to me, but then following that same logic, are you seriously arguing that "If you don't like trains, you must be racist"? While I'm glad for you that you don't have any questions about who you're voting for, falling back on an argument like that just proves August's point...managed lanes are better and more efficient for transportation and transit.

[SkylineView]

HCTRA financed $237.5M of the I-10 lanes. They were going to finance $400M of the 290 managed lanes, but when the project was rescaled, they dropped the number to $200, and agreed to throw the I-10 lanes back to TXDot to make up the shortfall (LINK).  

 

They have no part in the 288 project (construction or operation).

 

I remember a quote (but cannot find the reference) to the effect that HCTRA wanted to focus on on expanding / operating toll (only) roads and focus less on managing / optimizing managed lanes running in the middle of untolled highways.

[ADCS]

21 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

 

Sounds like you're implying veiled racism to me, but then following that same logic, are you seriously arguing that "If you don't like trains, you must be racist"? While I'm glad for you that you don't have any questions about who you're voting for, falling back on an argument like that just proves August's point...managed lanes are better and more efficient for transportation and transit.

 

None of that follows in the least bit. The dislike for trains seems to be ideological primarily, as they chafe against a certain conception of "freedom" that's popular around here. Cars are seen as promoting "freedom", even though no one is proposing to abolish cars, and the implementation of more lanes and elimination of potential rail routes leaves us less free to choose modes.

 

You're the one projecting racism there - it's more classism in my mind. Just look at the Heights fight over beer and wine sales if you don't think it's there.

[IronTiger]

1 minute ago, ADCS said:

 

None of that follows in the least bit. The dislike for trains seems to be ideological primarily, as they chafe against a certain conception of "freedom" that's popular around here. Cars are seen as promoting "freedom", even though no one is proposing to abolish cars, and the implementation of more lanes and elimination of potential rail routes leaves us less free to choose modes.

 

You're the one projecting racism there - it's more classism in my mind. Just look at the Heights fight over beer and wine sales if you don't think it's there.

 

I wouldn't say "no one is proposing to abolish cars" with that much confidence, as some far-left publications really DO seem to support the "They hate private automobiles and force us to ride public transportation" fear that some train opponents have. However, I agree that is not the view of the majority. While rejecting trains on a purely ideological basis is wrong, it's equally just as wrong to push trains on an ideological basis.

 

Sometimes I have this sneaking suspicion that the only people who really like trains as public transportation (besides the fringe anti-car wingnuts, that is) are a grown version of the wide-eyed kid from a small town (or at least a city that lacks rail) riding the trains in the "big city" (or Europe) for the first time (or at least the first time in a while), and holding to ideals of public transportation instead of the realities that go along with it.

 

I'd be lying if I said that this sort of thinking didn't influence me on rail. So on 288, would rail be awesome? HELL YEAH! But is it practical and pragmatic? That's a harder question...

[ADCS]

13 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

 

I wouldn't say "no one is proposing to abolish cars" with that much confidence, as some far-left publications really DO seem to support the "They hate private automobiles and force us to ride public transportation" fear that some train opponents have. However, I agree that is not the view of the majority. While rejecting trains on a purely ideological basis is wrong, it's equally just as wrong to push trains on an ideological basis.

 

Sometimes I have this sneaking suspicion that the only people who really like trains as public transportation (besides the fringe anti-car wingnuts, that is) are a grown version of the wide-eyed kid from a small town (or at least a city that lacks rail) riding the trains in the "big city" (or Europe) for the first time (or at least the first time in a while), and holding to ideals of public transportation instead of the realities that go along with it.

 

I'd be lying if I said that this sort of thinking didn't influence me on rail. So on 288, would rail be awesome? HELL YEAH! But is it practical and pragmatic? That's a harder question...

 

I think many of them realize that cities develop around the infrastructure provided for them, and in ways influenced by that infrastructure. We put auto-centric infrastructure in (and always at a high capital investment), we will have an auto-centric city. Likewise, if there is a comprehensive rail system, development will take advantage of that system. The musculature builds around the bones.