IronTiger

It's almost certain that Culberson is backed by a larger force, one that helps him stay re-elected and one that doesn't want rail. I find it difficult to imagine that Culberson is rubbing his hands together and twirling his mustache (that is, if he had one) to prevent rail on Richmond, despite what the more pro-rail of us think otherwise. It's common knowledge that most politicians have some deep-pocketed friends that help them stay on (NRA and other big interest groups)

Well, southeast of Almeda and OST, there's some vacant plots of land in that industrial center...and I think if they reconfigured that area (GSC is moving soon, which will open that bunch of warehouses, they could be sectioned off into new tenants; additionally, the National Guard Facility at Bertner and OST could be used). That way, we could move the golf course off of Hermann Park and open all that area up to redevelopment, some zoo parking [and then of course use the original parking to make more zoo, as discussed], some fields to play frisbee or whatever. Perhaps another "bark park" to keep the dogs off the area.

What I find most intriguing from the renderings is that they'll still call it Galleria III.

That would make for a rather strange interview. "Sir, why did you assassinate Congressman John Culberson?" "Well, you see, I'm a big fan of light rail..."

Link. Basically, the Addicks Dam subdivision, which has two streets of Interstate 10 in the middle of the Energy Corridor (been there since the '50s) has been totally bought and will be cleared. Personally, I think this is a great thing, as they finally got everyone to agree on a buyout (as their land value has shot up, and by extension, taxes), plus Park Row can connect to Dairy Ashford. location here if interested. I think it's been too long, as the area has suffered poor access since the Katy Freeway widening. Prior to this, Red Haw and Blackhaw were connected to a two way road (this two way road ended just west of Blackhaw), and the two way road connected back to Eldridge. The railroad was on the south side of this road, and beyond that, the westbound frontage road. After the widening, this little access road went away and was replaced by the new westbound frontage road, so they'd have to drive a mile and a half out of their way to get in and out. So if they wanted to go to eastbound Interstate 10, instead of going east to Eldridge, they now had to go all the way to Highway 6, make a u-turn at the turnaround lane, and then go back.

Holiday Inn will be moving into the old Savoy, even though it is technically owned by investors. While a 30-story Holiday Inn seems to have been stretching it (it was probably one of the "overbuilt" properties in the 1980s, I'm guessing), how is it structurally compromised? After all, while the old Holiday/Days/HoE Inn may not be worth saving, remember that Westin renovated the historic Book-Cadillac Hotel in Detroit, which originally had over 1100 rooms in its 29 story shell, many of which had very small, very out of date bathrooms (HI basically standardized hotel room size, of which B-C predated). The current layout has just about 455 rooms and 67 condos, which is far less the original count.

Less traffic does tend to lend points to pedestrian friendliness. Sidewalks aren't always everything. I suppose another major factor is lighted areas. I can understand not wanting to walk under a bridge if it's poorly lit, but such a thing like that is easily solved.

Huh, I didn't know Ted Poe was a Republican. This does kind of change things. You see, I was under the assumption that the people that wanted rail down Richmond were the anti-highway, left-wing types (not that those types of people are not part of the anti-Culberson crew, they most definitely are). It's just too bad I really don't like METRO and their light rail plans to begin with. It's kind of like the posters wanting both sides of the Ashby high rise debacle to lose...

That could accurately describe many politicians on both sides.

Construction for the BRT, maybe?

So they updated the imagery to as recently as this March, so now I can see the Grand Parkway/290 interchange fully, and I can't make heads or tails of it. I saw a rendering that basically looked like they were going to make it a five stack, but from the aerial, it looks like Grand Parkway is going back to ground level, as if to possibly submerge under 290. But another look at that PDF suggests something else, something I didn't see before. Notice that the frontage roads for 99 are blue, except around 290, where they're chlorine-colored. Notice also that where they put the 290 frontage road at the 99 junction is currently undeveloped and not on the same ROW as the existing westbound frontage road (in that map, westbound is "up"). This suggests that 290 will stay where it is on ground level, then the frontage roads of 99 and 290 rise over the railroad (which makes sense) to provide the second "level" directly over the 290 mainlanes, the Grand Parkway would be at the third level, and the ramps compose the 4th and 5th. Now, would two additional bridges fit under the existing flyover ramps? I sure hope so!

Eh. I can understand why it might not be what some people want to go to, but it's another thing to extrapolate that to "their business model is flawed, it won't work"

That statement coming from a person who admits he rarely ventures outside the Inner Loop, this is pretty funny...and according to COH, only 15% of Houston's land is inside the loop. Yeah, I know you were exaggerating, but I have a feeling there are parts of the city you didn't know existed. Go out and explore...I guarantee you'll find some great places.

Fixed.

I honestly think that both of those were valid in a way...Katy Freeway has frontage roads that do seem a bit too wide in parts, some extra ROW would've been nice, but rail down Katy Freeway would've been an enormous project (no way that they just would've left the MKT intact under any circumstances), and the only reason the frontage roads seem too wide is that they're three lanes normally (which isn't especially unusual) and widen out near intersections to provide dedicated right/left turn lanes. [EDIT: The placement of the entrances/exits is another issue entirely] As for Uptown, BRT really is the better choice considering METRO's plans and methodology. I can understand Houstonians' frustrations toward Culberson, and whether he's actually thought through these types of things logically with it is rather ambiguous at best, but I can't fault those decisions.

Well, D&B has different games than what you find on your Xbox or PlayStation...besides, the argument is kind of flawed because it's a bit like saying "You can get beer and wine cheaper at the supermarket, therefore there's no reason to go to bars and spend more money"

You don't really want to see Fairfield Inn in downtown Houston unless you favor the idea of having a relatively cheap, modest hotel, which Fairfield is...it was originally conceived as a competitor to Days Inn, which is what it's replacing! If they're going to not implode the hotel, they should make it something nice and something to be proud of. Don't do an expensive renovation into a cheap hotel...again, if they want to do that, they should just move a Marriott flag from an older hotel in downtown to this one, and convert THAT to Fairfield.

What made you think that? I mean, I don't have a lot of faith in what's left of Jillian's (which D&B largely bought) or GameWorks, but D&B, really?

Topic title says it all, what's the most pedestrian unfriendly neighborhood in Houston? Before people start rattling off the usual suspects, I don't mean petty complaints, like "I don't like walking under bridges" or "Businesses are far too set back from the street", or anything that tends to mess with the "urban ideal", but truly troublesome areas. Narrow sidewalks next to fast roads (like, say, a non-ADA compliant width sidewalk or less next to a road with no ROW between the curb and private property), a lack of any sidewalks (and what's left isn't even, that is, even a mountain bike would have a difficult time), no crosswalks at stoplights, no curb cuts, et cetera.

There are lots of broad strokes being painted: "Culberson doesn't understand mass transit" is one, but I honestly don't think METRO does all that well either (for reasons, see my post on page 1). "Culberson is anti-rail" is another extremely popular one, he just doesn't run street running light rail on Richmond...an important difference, which is irrelevant if you're blinded by love of light rail and the All-Important Original Plan, but it's a difference none the less. Of course, politicians are supposed to be painted in broad strokes: you can stack those things (anti-whatever, think of your own examples) to make deliciously easy to hate.

Ah, and the ugly "freeways vs. rail" argument rears its head. A key difference is that the highways actually connect to each other and form a truly national "grid" while individual rail projects don't even do that and are mostly pork. Interstate 10, for instance, connects California to Louisiana, and of course goes through Houston with dozens and dozens of other cities. A national HSR system (or at least something with potential for connection, providing common gauge etc.) IS rail based, and WOULD be valid for discussion for federal money discussions.

A few remarks: • This is neat! • What's the highway at :15? • It's remarkable how Foley's kept a lot of the same "look" even up to its demise decades later.

Houston was largely unplanned and rail should try to work around that, not make it worse. Cutting up major roads (which is partially the whole fiasco got started) is NOT a good idea.

I'm a bit split: there needs to be a Richmond-based line, but Culberson's attempt to stop is ridiculous and a little unfair. Then again, I'm not a fan of the Houston METRO, which works like either like a really slow version of a good rail system or a really expensive version of a BRT. Perhaps, we should go all in to make it underground.

I saw some pictures, and I thought it looked pretty good, and in a way, this is far better than any half-baked "pedestrian plaza" idea some people have, for a few reasons: 1. It truly shares the road. When people often talk about complete streets, "sharing the road" and other urban transit ideas, there's often this underlying anti-car sentiment. There are some people who honestly don't have anti-car beliefs, but others do (see "dog whistles", like the "mongrel neighborhood" thread was talking about). 2. It's only temporary, and this is not just for motorists' benefit, it's for people too. A permanent pedestrian plaza may look nice but a lot of the times it's deader than dead. With an actual reason to come out, it makes it feel more "alive" and achieve what the planners want to achieve. 3. Houston's traffic grid is good enough that at least in terms of Washington Street, primarily car-driven businesses (I saw a Shell, Sonic among them) could still be accessed.