IronTiger

Or a simple thread is started and you start to clutter it with pro-mass transit propaganda. When that doesn't work, you pull out copied and pasted articles, or use insults.

Monterey's Little Mexico on 290 is now closed, is this related to the highway expansion? It must have happened VERY recently...

If we charged mile for mile what it takes to build, maintain, and operate both rail lines and highways, then it would be cheaper to pay tollways. And if we're going to play "blame the politicians" for having less light rail funding, then I blame whiny NIMBYs on why some freeways (e.g. Spur 5) are just stubs.

I wouldn't say lack of zoning causes the "fights", it's that the Super Neighborhoods (IIRC from Swamplot, which educated me) were supposed to decide this sort of thing for themselves and create their own identity. Houston's strength comes from its neighborhoods, after all...

There's almost every type of fast food in the region represented in the tunnels below downtown Houston, but they're only open on weekdays.

And that would violate #6 of my list...condemning property...

Broken image...

One of the things that people who know a little bit about Houston talk about is the historic lack of zoning that the city has. This results in random old commercial buildings just thrown in with houses, creating a very mixed layout. To some, it's ugly. Some embrace it. While I only make it to Houston one to two times a year (I wish it were more), I've found another similar city that does it, Bryan, Texas, which also had similar rules. As College Station was mostly built past the 1940s, it puts strict zoning rules in place, so as a result, it's thoroughly unremarkable and boring (and it lacks things to do on weekends, but that's beside the point). Bryan, though, seems more interesting. It's older, and could be perceived as "uglier", but I find myself to be a fan of it. Houston isn't ugly to me, but I can see how it can be to others because of no zoning. (Note that zoning will not produce a better looking city necessarily, see Philadelphia). I love that you can see clearly converted houses doing work as commercial businesses (that seafood restaurant that banned kids after 6, for one). But I'm not here to talk about Houston being ugly (there's other threads for that). The real question is: Houston's no-zoning. Love it? Hate it? Accept it?

I think Houston lacks some of the "polish" that Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin tend to have, but to me, Houston has a lot of what I call "city-ness". Bryan has it. College Station doesn't, partially because it's newer and perceived to be nicer. It's pretty tough to describe, but it's best when you combine a somewhat aging road with a plethora of random businesses. But if you consider that to be ugly, there's plenty of neighborhoods just outside of 610 that have huge houses and lots of shade...and if you don't like that, then... Oh, and I consider this quote: to be mostly true of ANY city, and Houston has a proportion so it's not ALL bad. Compare those same proportions to different cities even within Texas, like, say Waco, and you'll find that Houston comes out quite on top.

I don't know, but HAIF en Español hasn't been touched in nearly 4 years...

Well, maybe "concern" is not the right word, and for all intents and purposes Randalls has been dead for years, but to me, it still represents "Houston" to me (after all, it still has a visible presence off of 290) and still a piece (albeit a shrinking one) of Houston's competitive but interesting grocery market. Maybe I'm just nostalgic.

Whole Foods has been in Houston since the AppleTree days, but I'm more concerned on the future of Randalls. The most plausible scenario is having the brand hacked to pieces, with the remaining Houston grocery stores (Fiesta, Kroger, H-E-B, Whole Foods, and the no-name GSC supplied groceries) feasting on the remains. That's not to say there won't be one or maybe two Randalls leftover, but they'll be GSC supplied as well. However, at the way things are going, that's not guaranteed.

Please don't lecture me on ignoring things. I can pull up several examples just on this thread, but I've wasted enough time trying to argue with you.

So, what you're saying is you can take a thin enough statistic (2 hours in a day on ONE BRIDGE) that you use to validate a claim, then claim all roads are inefficient. That's the thinnest argument for rail I've seen yet.

A two-track railway is pretty useless if there's no trains on it. And frankly, I'm not about to trust some mass transit advocacy website that lacks citations for blanket statements like that. It would be like if I pulled up a page on why global warming is a fraud and it's from a far-right wing website. But hey--I was right! You were never into debates in high school or college, were you? If we compare mile per mile the maintenance cost of running Amtrak vs. running the national highway system, you'll see that Amtrak doesn't cover every city in the U.S. by a long shot. And before you start quoting Amtrak making revenue, it charges people out the nose and still manages to lose money.

Do you have actual evidence of that or are you going to use just numbers that your view supports / good old B.S.? I think we've done this with the Roman highway analogy already. Comparing Houston to Indonesia, Qatar, and India is laughable. If we're going to play that game, then I'm going to say that you can at least drink Houston tap water without getting sick.

And once again, Slick completely misses the point. You stated yourself that there's no budget in the taxpayer-funded transportation department, yet you are pushing for expensive taxpayer-funded transit. That makes no sense.

And that's the one that's a block down from the Trader Joe's.

Both Kroger and H-E-B vary drastically between markets, so one H-E-B can be selling MacBooks (H-E-B Plus, Woodway) and one is selling cheap jewelry (H-E-B, north Bryan). My local Kroger always has had a terrible international selection, consisting of little more than Asian stir fry mixes and Sriracha sauce.

Could happen...depends on how far it stretches. About five years ago, when I was with my cousins following the passing of our grandfather, my Florida-turned-Northeastern based cousin who spent some time at Rice regretted that there were no Trader Joe's in Texas. Of course, that's different now, since her sister-in-law takes somewhat regular trips up to the former Alabama Theatre with her husband (who stayed in Houston after Rice), and with at least two TJ's in town now surely must put an additional (but major) strain on Randall's.

Kroger's continued dominance (it picked up old Safeway/AppleTree stores, and later some Albertsons) and the rise of the Supercenter didn't help either. It also didn't help that Safeway tends to do a "one size fits all" approach, which screwed the chain as a whole over, while H-E-B, Kroger, and Fiesta wisely pick their merchandise mix accordingly.

There are many reasons to boycott Kroger, but this isn't one of them. Was it insensitive? Yes. Should the employee who OK'd this be fired? Probably. Is this grounds for a private lawsuit? In this day and age, yes. Did the Kroger overlords in Ohio have anything to do with it? No. Nor any other Kroger in Houston (and there are lots of them).

I'd like to see Randall's become an independent supermarket again, which is entirely possible, but so much damage has been done it will take years to undo.

I recently read that Safeway was pulling out of the Chicago market, effectively ending the Dominick's name (though I believe that the name will survive). However, I'm concerned about Randalls, which was acquired at about the same time, and hasn't been doing too great in Houston as of late. Is it possible that Safeway will get rid of Randall's and leave the Houston market?

Well, considering we're talking about interurban downtown travel to buses connecting rich suburbs (who still prefer cars), then that's not a good comparison...but then again...why are YOU talking about efficiency?