IronTiger

An article I found stated that the original Pantry opened in 1999, and in the 2000s had a gas station there as well. It's very strange--the Fairfield one is about as far away as it is. Really too bad they let it go fallow and the lease lapse...seems like a great location and size for a Central Market.

I know quite well the old etymology. I was confusing the name of the store with a similarly-named store at St. Louis' Northwest Plaza (an outdoor shopping center later converted to a shopping mall, which eventually closed and was demolished)

Not sure. Don't know how old it is, but I doubt that they would advertise that openly if it was something that the general public would've frowned upon at the time (homosexuality, that is, not drinking, though some people probably frowned on that too). Remember, there was the "Gay Gift Box" at Westbury Square in the '60s, or so.

Pierce Elevated itself went through a substantial rebuilding/repair project that stripped it of everything but the support poles in 1996-1997. No doubt at the time work was done to ensure that the Pierce Elevated would last for several more decades. The highway cannot be widened without additional buildings being condemned, either. Here's a snippet from a 1997 Chron article after the reopening, bolded parts for importance.

Yes, there's a whole mess of roads that are in various "stub" condition. Bellaire extends an awfully long way into Katy, near the old Eureka Yards, Ella Blvd. starts and continues (they recently made an extension of it near Acres Homes, taking advantage of an intersection designed for it) 20 miles to Spring (that is, if they complete it), and others I've undoubtedly missed. What I want to know is if there's actually active plans to build anymore Kirby segments.

Because the Pierce Elevated wasn't very old at all. Highways are built to last--the ramps at Beltway 8 and Interstate 10 were maybe about 17 years old (I can't remember the exact number) before they were dismantled...TxDOT probably didn't like the fact that they weren't very old.

One of my pictures, taken 8/30/13: Naturally, it looks different than it does now... (sorry you have to tilt your head, can't figure out how to make it right)

Uh...good? I mean, the road still serves a purpose, and freeway removals are super-rare (the San Francisco removals were taken out mostly because earthquake damage made them unusable, others were simply superseded by a larger highway, etc.) Repairing it and upgrading it (maybe make it more attractive) would be the best option in this case, though to be fair, sinking it and actually designing it with a plaza above it instead of attempting to graft one on later (Klyde Warren) would've been nice.

From the stub at Beltway 8 to the part at 59 where you could bump over the paved-over railroad tracks (this is the route I went to see my cousins), Kirby Drive has been one of the earliest roads in Houston I was aware of and knew, but are there actually any plans to build more segments of it? - Since the early 1990s, some sort of industrial yard was added at Kirby south of Holmes. - In the late 1990s, Reed Road four-laned. According to OpenStreetMap, Kirby is supposed to go down Reed Road part of the way before going south. - Between 2010 and 2011, a segment was added between south of Airport Blvd. - Around 2005, Kirby was built south of Orem, with the intersection being designed to accept further additions of Kirby north. - Anagnost and Almeda Genoa is where Kirby would eventually go, but the intersection isn't designed to accept the "stubs" that Kirby would add onto. - Beltway 8 South built "stubs" for Kirby when it opened in the mid-1990s. - South of Shadow Creek Road, another Kirby section was built. They actually appear to have incorrectly "stubbed" out Kirby requiring the end of where Kirby was supposed to be demolished and rebuilt. When all is said and done, Kirby will extend some 15 miles from US-59, but I have no idea how far in the future that will even come close to being done. Does anyone know on the status of linking Kirby up?

And here I thought it was the dude with the suit and tie running for mayor, not the old man...

Either way, it would've taken years for anything to take effect since existing structures would be grandfathered in.

I'm wondering if those "two Sears stores" may have not been in Houston. Baybrook Mall was one in Houston, but there are suggestions that it was it: - Sears in Ross Park Mall, PA, had a McDonald's inside (not Michigan) (link) - The fact that they mentioned Holiday Plus, which was primarily in the North--they did not mention it anywhere else, and had to refer to it as a "hypermart" because it would be unfamiliar with Houstonians. - McDonald's didn't sign a contract with Wal-Mart until 1993 (the article was from 1991, so those must have been anamolies). Baybrook Mall must have been the only other one, a true rarity!

I've determined that Holiday Plus wasn't in Houston at all, based on evidence gathered mentioned on the "McDonald's inside Sears" thread.

I never knew that the Transco Tower (Williams? Psha, it's Transco) was not just an office in the Galleria area, it's connected to one of the Galleria's parking garages.

ROW should be acquired, but we don't have to build it yet. Remember, TxDOT owns ROW for TX-35 to go to Loop 610 and beyond, but it's not built (if ever). Both have been growing since the 1980s. College Station isn't the best litmus test in comparing to Houston, but it's more similar then say, Europe.

The current transportation system is rather congested, but not "desperate" enough to build some elaborate, reactionary, and extremely expensive mass transit (of course, we are imagining things here). The rhetoric of how highways create sprawl (also: the bypass in College Station, Texas, my hometown, did not develop much of anything for years, and most of the commerce is still along the business route), how anyone wanting to expand highways or limit light rail growth in areas is either some backwards loser or the Antichrist, and a lack of subtlety of how anyone who's driving ought to be riding mass transit, whether they like it or not.

Politics plays a huge role in light rail, too: in Portland it's far easier get people to extend MAX then add more highway capacity. Streetcar fans talk about it as if it was a conspiracy (as do other forms of media), but I'm glad we agree on something. Even long freight trains can go 80 mph on relatively straight level ground, which includes passenger trains.

The privately owned lines were going bankrupt, the few that weren't bought by GM either ceased entirely or were bought by the government. It's unfortunate, but it's what happens with capitalism. It's also worth noting that streetcars are romanticized in media, which wasn't quite the case in reality... Thing is, they can. But it's not very profitable to move people, which is why they stopped doing. It's even less profitable to move other certain types of cargo that trucks do. That's why there's less railroad spurs and less railroads than there used to be. Europe can have a good passenger-centric rail line because it's significantly denser than the United States is.

A used car does just fine for most purposes, and that's assuming a monthly pass on a transit system would be $100. If I was an urban dweller where I didn't need a car or have a particular desire to go anywhere else (other cities), then yes, it makes sense. However, since you seem to have a lack of understanding how others prefer to live and prefer to cling to conspiracy theories, not to mention that nearly all cities have more road usage than other public transit use (even with better mass transit), what makes "sense" is a rather loose concept. In fact, one could argue that lower ridership is actually a benefit, as it provides freedom to read a book or do whatever you like. A high ridership mass transit line means that people are cramped like sardines inside, leaving no one to do anything except wait when it's over.

Ah, so this is the 806 Main building. I took a picture of this last August when they had the lower floors gutted to an open concrete shell.

Dollar for dollar, highways serve more people (and is compatible with their driveways), and even as nice as the light rail is in area that are serviced, the highways are still more popular, because they provide more freedom. Light rail is designed to satiate a bare minimum of comfort: there's no eating, no smoking, etc. I can't eat a hamburger in the light rail, or smoke on the light rail (I don't smoke, in case you're wondering), but I can in my car, but if they had eating and/or smoking, the light rail would be dirty, smelly, and generally unpleasant. Cars represent freedom, if you wanted to eat, smoke, or blast music from the stereo, you can. That is one of the reasons why highways are inherently more popular than public transit.

The Park and Rides are there, technically, and they get pretty good ridership. Well, in downtown Dallas, there are several stops, plus a underground/skyway system (not nearly as good as Houston's, I agree) and *gasp* even a streetcar that's not part of the main light rail network. The real question is, how do you make mass transit more popular? If the answer is "let's kneecap the highways to encourage ridership", that's a lousy answer and basically means "No, mass transit is the inferior choice so we must make highways worse to get more people on board", which is akin to a politician trying to undermine his opponent's campaign because no one would vote for him otherwise. If that's not true, then how do you propose a solution? I see mass transit as a helpful option. It's not to going significantly reduce congestion, but it is there, and that's an important thing for some people. Also, on a related note, I would like to see Columbia Tap Rail Trail converted to a BRT line and move the bike path to a safer route.

Mass transit, light rail specifically, should be approached (read: marketed) in a way that it shouldn't be seen as a leftist plot to force everyone to use public transportation. Therefore, I think it would be in the best interest of mass transit enthusiasts to not confirm fears. It could be argued (and it's been mentioned on HAIF before) that one of the attracting things about Houston is that it doesn't rely a lot on public transit. I think in terms of mass transit, I think there should be light rail, not heavy/commuter rail, running out to the suburbs. Why? Because transfers suck. That's why people take cars. It's simply house-->car-->parking garage/work-->walk? rather than house-->walk/bike/car-->LRT station-->WAIT-->LRT-->work-->walk? which is the way it is in Dallas. It's even worse if it's house-->walk/bike/car-->commuter rail-->WAIT-->train-->another station of some sort-->WAIT-->work-->walk? or a variation thereof. Keep Houston Houston has argued that the reason why Dallas light rail doesn't get a high ridership is because there's highways. My argument is that it's poorly designed: lookie here. Price notwithstanding, let's take a look. For example: Two lines travel toward Plano, yet there's a dozen stops on both. When there's that many stops, many choose to take the highway because even if there's a stop due to a jam, you at least have the freedom of taking your own car. By making the orange line an express line from Uptown to Downtown Plano, those specific problems will disappear. (It's also worth noting that the NYC subway line has routes instead of a set line).

I beg to differ, but okay. If METRO had talks with Union Pacific, then we might see something maybe by 2020. Who knows?

"Transit" is not necessarily "mass transit" and CAN mean other forms of transportation, which includes highways and things like tollways and HOV lanes. The backbone of any mass transit system involves roads of some sort, and if you don't figure highway builds and expansions into the future of the city, fine. I'm cool with that. This is a subjective thread, remember?