IronTiger

There are many, many examples in the United States where that has not been the case. Anyway, of course it's popular when it's the first day of a highly publicized rail line AND free rides until May! Call us back when fares are enacted and the new-ness dies down.

Yes, along with "Houston said complete streets must include parking and they won't upgrade any streets unless they have street parking", and "I talked with my buddies in Midtown, I think I have enough evidence that most young people move to cities" That depends. Do you want a daily running train from Houston to Galveston, or something only on special occasions? How many commuters do you think really go from Galveston to downtown Houston (not either/or) or vice-versa? Remember, the electric interurban (which has been romanticized, like other interurban/streetcar systems) was rendered obsolete by the freeway. You can't recreate that. I can imagine a HSR down to Galveston entirely grade-separated, but that's years away.

Well, bad roads can cause more accidents, accidents cause congestion, gas tax can help improve roads, so therefore (in theory) higher gas tax = lower congestion.

The Vancouver Skytrain is built on the exact same technology as the Detroit people-mover system, which loses a ton of money already and has abysmal ridership. While I'm not going to argue on how successful the Skytrain is (but it sure seems to breaking down at inconvenient times), "not having drivers" is not going to save a significant amount of money when you already invest in the stations, vehicles, and infrastructure; in fact, to make such a claim is laughable. Autonomous buses have at least the benefit of using pre-existing infrastructure, but I've never actually heard of a city with such a system currently in place.

This deals with gas stations that have been demolished and then were vacant for an extended period of time, with most of these built in the 1970s or 1980s.

Well, at least you said "it is said" instead of parroting and presenting a rumor/opinion/misquote/extrapolation as fact. The 50 mile figure wasn't an exaggeration. Houston sprawls, and even if there are just a few, it will give an edge to I-45. Besides, I doubt there are that many Galveston commuters to justify running it. The problem, as you can see, is a catch-22. More stations mean more people served but also means slower overall service. Chicago isn't building anymore elevated rail, and New York did in fact bury most of its elevated rail (they're called subways now!) In fact, elevated projects aren't especially popular anymore--elevated freeways are a victim of this. Monorails suffer a stigma caused by the Disney monorails (not taken seriously as a transit option), no clear examples of success (Sydney's removal probably set back monorails years)...this article explains some about this stigma...and the Simpsons episode Marge vs. the Monorail. Well, part of the appeal of monorail in Disneyland is that it works on a point-to-point basis. The Disneyland monorail currently stops at (and correct me if I'm wrong), the Grand Californian Resort Hotel, Tomorrowland, the tram back to the parking garage, and Downtown Disney. It will work better if people go from building to building, and not a mini-commuter rail of sorts (besides, that's what the light rail is for). To make it work, it would have to have free transfers to bus/LRT AND must be built for commuting workers AND make it a more desirable option than what's there...otherwise you'll end up with another Detroit PeopleMover.

A train to Galveston sounds like a great idea in theory, in practice not so much. The distance between Galveston and Houston's downtown is around 50 miles, and including stops, would end up being much slower than the freeway. (Yes, I once thought it was a good idea myself) Of course, you'll also have people telling you on this thread that freeways are worthless and rail is the solution to everything, but there you go.

Monorail requires elevated pillars and is very expensive to build and maintain, even Sydney dismantled theirs.

An unpopular opinion, I know--but because the building is so set-back, it would be nice to see that section of Main reopened again, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.

An elevated heavy rail train will save funds?

While I've seen many gas stations fail in out of the way areas, all of these (well, except maybe that mystery gas station--but it's still pretty good) were in highly visible areas and had good access. A few of the failed and unreplaced gas stations usually have to do with crappy access even though they got a good traffic flow.

So I was noticing while stopped at a slow train on the way home yesterday that rail cars have their height printed on them, about 15' or 16' feet. While that's far more than twice my height, it's not the 22' clearance earlier stated. So here's a cheap plan that doesn't require a bridge (but will require some demolition) Create a new section of railroad with a Y-type interchange on either end. Close off 72nd Street south of Avenue C to make it happen, trains that would've crossed the crossing now go southeast and loop back the other way. The offending railroad in question now no longer crosses Harrisburg at that point, making a clear path for the light rail. (Another crossing at Hughes is added too for going southeast)

That makes me wonder--the Citgo at Braeswood was completely torn up (unknown if they dug out the tanks) but a lot of others left concrete intact, indicating that they didn't dig deep. Does that mean these seemingly inert vacancies are continuing to pollute the soil? That's not good.

There are scads of gas stations built in Houston, and obviously many of them have been redeveloped over the years (especially for highway construction), but what about the ones that weren't replaced after demolition? I can think of a few. Exxon? - At Mangum and 290. Current home to Nick's Grill (suffering due to construction). Sign left intact. Gas station already gone for years. Citgo - Braeswood and Post Oak. Formerly Meyerland Fuel & Auto Center, includes "Quik Mart" convenience store. Demolished in 2013 for reasons not entirely clear. [Wikimapia description] Chevron - Antoine and 290. Demolished, left sign up and converted it to a "For Lease/Sale" sign. ??? - Brittmoore and Hempstead Road. Demolished sometime in the 1990s long before JV Automotive, Brake Check, and three 1980s-era fast foods met their demise. You deserve a cookie if you can remember this one--because I haven't figured it out. Exxon - Westheimer and Addicks-Howell. Closed about 5-6 years and still undeveloped. Is there any reason why so much of them have been demolished without redevelopment, or what?

Yeah, I agree. I have yet to go to downtown Houston without the Foley's building being there (last time it was closed for demo), but my greatest fear was that it would be a hole in the ground for months (or worse, a parking lot).

I'm not surprised that the Rossonian was a victim, the Houston Center pre-construction (if you saw my scans/the Chron slideshow) wiped out a good third of downtown. In terms of building demolitions, it did incredible damage to older buildings, just as much (plus some) as the freeways did.

As much as I wish that it would've stayed low-rise, it is Houston, and the only way to avoid a fiasco like this is zoning. I have to agree with the judge's decision.

You're right! Only you have a clear vision of the future and will make the right choices in moving forward.

I really have nothing against the rich and am not out to squeeze as much money out of them. I wish that the tolls in Katy Freeway were congestion pricing-based like they were supposed to be, though.

That's not particularly good because the farther you commute out does not mean you're richer, otherwise we'd have more super-wealthy subdivisions in the far exclaves.

There was a mention of this in another thread, but it's a question I've wondered myself--METRO seems to be a pretty incompetent agency by itself, and the lack of a unified system across greater Houston (The Woodlands, Pearland) brings it down. What HCTRA and METRO were merged, so that a now-much bigger authority could take tolls and give Greater Houston the transportation system (highways + rail) it needs? Obviously, this could help trim extra people (mostly incompetents) from the system, but it might be a great synergy seeing both work together and both achieve greater things. What do you think?

How do you search for that type of thing? I tried reverse-engineering an upcoming restaurant (known) to see what I should search for, but nope...

Well, it might push people out of the city: a slightly lower paying job may be worth it, they may demand the new tolls to cease--either voting the people who put the tolls in place out of office, or with their feet. But what am I saying, really? Why, they can tear down the Pierce Elevated tomorrow and all that traffic will evaporate like dew on a hot Texas summer.

Blow a bunch of smoke about toll roads, then blame Republicans for all the other things the bill did that they didn't pass? Smart move, I'd say. Hopefully someone can pull a "reverse Culberson" and delete that bit.

Only rich people would drive on it? Or would you think it's "unfair" and demand subsidies for the less fortunate (much like food stamps), this defeating the whole purpose?