IronTiger

I read somewhere that the Inner Loop has 15% of Houston's area and 20% of its population (I may have those numbers flipped, but oh well). As for "people wanting alternate methods of transit", remember that a number of light rail initiatives passed, and unless there was some serious corruption going on, that means that people in the Outer Loop had to vote for light rail, even though there was slim to no chance that they would ever use it. Even if you account for people that worked in the Inner Loop, that still might not have necessarily given the green light for it. So clearly, the people DID want some sort of rail. I believe that despite the "induced demand" theory promoted by pro-rail charlatans and/or people who slept through stat, widened freeways really are the better choice at reducing congestion (and there is data that proves that). However, even TxDOT admits that freeways aren't expandable forever and you start becoming ineffective after a while. 6 lanes wide in any direction is about the limit as far as freeways go and the Katy Freeway pretty much is maxed out. Now, back to the subject: will rail help? It may or may not, depending on the density and where the rails go (and building more rails to compensate for this also will start becoming ineffective as well, so building a highway-like network of rails isn't the best strategy). I personally detest the idea of transfers, and I think people do, too, which is why the light rails would need to go outside to the suburbs (less stops, in between, of course) or the commuter trains need to go into the loop.

Given that 1983 was before my time (and the 1980s were very tumultuous) there's no telling what the early 1980s heavy rail system would've really been like, especially since the recession in the 1980s put a damper on everyone's plans. I wanted to seek the truth in my two-part timeline: I'm not sure if I'd like Lanier or not, but I was certain that didn't do anything illegal or threw out a vote because he didn't like it.

Wow, they went straight from the farm to fried? That's awesome (fresh-tasting I imagine) and would be like a barbecue joint having a full-scale farm and slaughtering option out back.

[Continued...] By March 1991, METRO has spent $60,000 since 1985 to reinforce or to change minds about rail. This included sending two to see Atlanta's rail system in regards to a then-current plan about rail wouldn't destroy a neighborhood: the plan was to send rail down Richmond (gee, sounds familiar, doesn't it?) but it didn't work. This also included sending people to Orlando to see the then-current monorail plan which was in place in some areas like Disney World. March 12 1991 - A bill that would force another election on the $1 billion is approved in the Texas Senate 28-0. Toward the end of March, METRO has decided on a $1 billion rail system that will be monorail or another elevated system. The plan is highly controversial but is predicted to win 5-4 in favor. Lanier has "fallen out of favor with Houston's political power structure" due to his rail opposition ("Big vote looms for embattled city rail plan - Despite opposition, Metro board expected to vote yes", 3/25/91) The vote passes. But... A March 31 article, "Both sides of rail issue binding the ties" reveals some major contribution ties in the pro-rail set including Whitmire's five pro-rail METRO appointees who won the vote, which refutes an accusation of a pro-rail supporter accuses the anti-rail group with a conspiracy while denying there's anything with the pro-rail group. April 1991 - The House hears several versions on what could be done with METRO. The compromise version is a bill that would give another vote for rail. One of the rail opposition politicians cited a poll that a majority wanted another rail vote. It is important to note that the public was not given a choice on how much would be spent on rail or where it went. Whitmire said that a rail plan was "critical to solving Houston's traffic and environmental problems" while Lanier thought that the reason METRO doesn't want a second vote because they were afraid they'd lose. He'd be eating those words soon... May 1991 - Another bit of compromise is proposed so that METRO would have to get 2/3 (6 out of 9) on votes. This is because the 5-4 split would win every decision whether rail or not. However, that proposal was halted by Ron Wilson on a technical problem. ("Metro board vote bill hits technical stoplight "). The project is still controversial even within Houston. Many claim the plan was drastically altered from what they voted on and would rather spend it on roads. As an aside, this is the first mention of John Culberson, who did argue on the referendum. The bill ultimately ends up dying. June 1991 - A bill affecting term limits is close to being completed, which would prevent Whitmire (and extension, her METRO appointees) from being re-elected. Lanier contributes, which would ultimately be his undoing as the same term limits created prevents him from being re-elected in '97. But that comes later. July 1991 - A Houston Chronicle poll reveals that 56% want METRO to drop the billion dollar monorail plan (and focus on streets/roads/sidewalks), with another 17% wanting light rail. Only 16% wanted the go-ahead, which was Whitmire's position. ("Most in poll don't want monorail ", July 2, 1991) In July 1991, Tom DeLay manages to convince a House panel (national) to deny additional funding for a rail system until a " a reasonable consensus" was found. Before anyone here says "I knew it!" keep in mind that... ...and conversely, the first phase of DART would get $48 million while Honolulu, which was "also considering a monorail system similar to Houston's" got $28 million. Getting $500 million from the Feds would be a tall order even if the monorail plan had gotten better backing. Meanwhile, Lanier decides to go against Whitmire in the next mayoral election. Lanier considers it a revenge move for the events of late 1989. Sylvester Turner was also running. ("A measure of revenge in mayor's race ", 7/21/91) August 1991 - Lanier officially announces his candidacy. One of his main platforms is his anti-monorail stance. October 1991 - After a vote, Congress gives $30 million to METRO in addition to the $147 million in rail appropriations. However, METRO can't spend it unless they can provide "strong consensus" on how it should be spent. November 1991 - Crunch time. The candidates include Whitmire (who can still compete due to term limits, she was mayor throughout the entire 1980s and was going for a sixth two-year term, something no Houston mayor had done), Turner ("vying to become the city's first black mayor, set the tempo in June when he declared his candidacy on a "law and order" platform."), and Lanier, who managed to link crime and transportation issues when he announced his candidacy. Lanier wants to divert the monorail money to "beefing up the police force and rebuilding inner-city streets." Turner never liked the monorail project but wanted a new inner-city project. It's a tight race. (The rigorous race for mayor - Challengers seek end to Whitmire rule , November 3 1991). The result is a blowout loss for Whitmire, gaining 20% of the vote (a fourth candidate, a socialist refinery worker, got only less than .25% of the vote) By the end of November, the monorail project is all but dead. With the biggest supporter and the person who installed the pro-monorail supporters out of the picture, and Lanier wanting any new mass transit system to be put to the public vote (which would be the case), rail wouldn't be seen in Houston until 2004. And while Lanier was anti-monorail, he wasn't anti-transit: both he and Turner wanted to build commuter rail using existing tracks, which he appended during the campaigns. January 1992 - A year before "Marge vs. the Monorail" is released, METRO and the new Lanier-based team (Lanier replaced three of Whitmire's people) officially kill the monorail plan and was diverted to other sources, presumably with the "community support" granted earlier. Work to create a commuter line using existing tracks (partially to take advantage of a $500 million option created by Congress in a large transit bill, but they'd have to act by March) in the early 1990s but goes nowhere, but a commuter rail system still is fascinating today over 20 years later... So...what happened was far more complex than "Lanier killed the monorail plan approved by the people" because, first off, that's a lie (which I always suspected). The point is, Lanier was politically out of office for two years while the monorail plan collapsed under its own weight, and Whitmire and her appointees were dealt a crushing blow in the 1991 election. DeLay, too, wasn't instrumental in killing it (not that he was supportive of it) either, and John "Scapegoat" Culberson wasn't functionally in the picture yet. If the "will of the people" had been that strong, they would've heartily backed METRO's monorail plan (which the City of Houston didn't vote on) or backed them up when DeLay was holding back funds, or re-elected Whitmire. I hope that this timeline informs and educates (all sources from Houston Chronicle articles)

The Katy Freeway isn't going to be widened. The next step will probably be semi-autonomous vehicles that will be able to detect traffic situations and communicate with other cars and systems. (I have a friend who's in civil engineering) You see, congestion isn't solely based on the number of cars on the road. When an impatient jackass decides to cut through three lanes to get to an exit and cars start braking (thus, causing a "shockwave"). If we all drove better, congestion would be less of an issue, which is why smarter cars will actually help. Rail isn't the silver bullet in traffic congestion, and in all situations it's cost-effective only in dense environments (Eastern Seaboard, India, NYC, Great Britain).

How many HISD schools have closed without replacement in the last ten years? I can think of Anson Jones and Dodson, but that's it.

The monorail was a bit from a forum post on City-Data, which tends to be pretty unreliable (I don't want to spread false intel)...but the late 1980s are archived in the Chron, so constructing a rough timeline could be done. Unfortunately, it's far more complicated then I thought, so this is the timeline from 1983 to February 1991. 1983 - An aerial rail system is proposed for Main Street and shot down (mentioned in "Transit firms vie for slice of Metro pie", 2/28/88) Jan. 1988 - Vote done on $2.6 billion transit system (road + rail), it passes. ("Transit firms vie for slice of Metro pie") Feb. 1988 - METRO begins to draft up futuristic rail plans. Guess who's the METRO chairman at this point? Lanier! ("Transit firms vie for slice of Metro pie") This transit system would "link the city's major employment centers - downtown, the Texas Medical Center, Greenway Plaza and Galleria-Post Oak - as well as serve southeast Houston neighborhoods and possibly the Astrodome". Sound familiar? Aerial lines are discussed, but still unpopular. September 1988 - A circular downtown plan is being studied at this point. At this point, no one if it's going to be monorail, trackless trolley, mag-lev, light rail, or anything. The only thing is that they want to avoid is calling it a people-mover, noting the systems in Detroit and Miami that failed to gain much ground. ("Getting around in high style - Downtown circulator idea studied") December 1988 - Lanier cans a symposium because he wants to get more information on other city's transit systems. At this point, Lanier is still METRO Chairman and stated pro-rail. ("Lanier still favors rail despite delay") January 1989 - By this point, METRO has approved a layout "which will run in a U-shaped configuration from northwest Houston to the north edge of downtown - to be entirely grade-separated.", but opposition is building, this time from a church in Midtown worried about the vibrations and noise. For Main Street, it's recommended that the rail system will be a subway and the street will be a no-traffic transit mall. November 1989 - The METRO board rejects the $1 billion 20 mile plan under Lanier's rule but not solely from him, believing "the line was too costly and would not draw sufficient ridership." (1/20/90, "Two dozen firms vie to build high-tech city transit system") December 1989 - Lanier leaves METRO. January 1990 - Private firms begin to come in and make all sorts of proposals. February 1991 - Flash forward to a year later (yes, I know there's a hole) but by this time METRO's current plan is like so: With the project now behind schedule and overbudgeted, and Lanier no longer part of METRO (or pro-rail) but not mayor yet (that's still Whitmire), the Texas government works on a bill to delay rail by throwing the 1988 referendum and putting it to another vote. The risk that METRO will award a contract out of fear (their schedule was set a year ago) is high. It is noted that Of course, March 1991 is when things would start kicking into high gear with the Texas state government decided to step in and force METRO (which was created by them) to make some changes while revealing that there was some palm-greasing going on in the pro-rail set, but that's another story. In short, it's obviously more than Big Bad Lanier stopping the Will of the People and more a complicated political battle. And it's still 7 more months until Lanier was elected mayor. EDIT: Yes, I do intend on finishing my timeline. Another day, another post.

Well, we already have some dude taking a dump in yards in the Heights... ...to be honest, I thought this was some sort of proposal to allow public nudity a la San Francisco.

There were two different proposals. The early 1980s plan, the heavy rail plan everyone talks about was defeated in the votes. The second was voted on (and won) but given to Lanier to implement, which he chose not to because he thought it was economically unfeasible (a monorail loop). If this was illegal or highly controversial, it would have been dragged to the courts, or at the very least, hurt his re-election prospects (which it didn't, he won by a huge margin each time until term limits finally pushed him out in 1998).

^ The early 1980s heavy rail system lost in the ballot box by a significant margin (62-38), and that was before the bust, and anyone thinking that the government was going to give Houston a free ride (plop the entire funds into their lap) is mistaken. On this, I'm glad METRO isn't running this operation, and Gulf Coast Rail District at least has reality in mind in its cost estimates (unlike METRO and its grossly underestimated $640 million for four lines). On the other hand, it borrows from the Eastern Seaboard style "ride the rail to the light rail, then transfer" problem and becomes in essence, a slightly faster but way more expensive park and ride.

HISD may be losing students in some areas, but remember, the only school HISD ended up closing last year was Dodson Elementary. NFISD kept its students, but lost most of its teachers and facilities, with HISD only absorbing a few schools and the students. Either way, absorbing NFISD isn't a relevant argument to importing kids either, especially given that the NFISD kids were already (at least for the most part) citizens who were taxpayer supported (barely, at least).

One of the things you're missing is that Michigan is a state that has been LOSING people for years and thus has more space in schools to play around with. Texas is rapidly GAINING lots of people and thus importing even more people makes no sense. And no, the state didn't "give" North Forest to HISD for infrastructure purposes. It was a consistently failing ISD that was shut down by the state because they were terrible. To note: only 15% of the teachers were re-hired by the HISD, and three old elementary schools and another alternative high school were demolished entirely (that's Tidwell, W.E. Rogers, Lakewood, and W.G. Smiley Career & Technology).

I'm surprised that Houston doesn't have a (licensed, at least) whiskey distillery already. After all, even College Station has one...right next to the microbrewery.

Even if they wanted to restore the facade, there's no telling if the 1960s facade irreparably damaged the originals (see 806 Main).

Yeah, but if they're using that as a defense against school funding cuts, you're now putting pressure on the taxpayers indirectly (at least) by saying they have to still support this with their tax money, which tends to defeat the purpose (if they still need tax money, then it's a losing proposition and doing more harm than good) and a good political reason to oppose it. Making some extra money can be from varying sources (like advertising on school buses) but it shouldn't involve holding the state hostage for funding. See what I mean?

Tricky. The idea of importing students, once you get over the initial idea, since although they would pay for tuition, the stress that would put on the school district would be a losing proposition overall (stress on class sizes, school capacity, etc.). And remember, public schools aren't supposed to make a profit. That's what Perry and his pals have been trying to convert the state schools (UT, A&M) to, and it's becoming a problem. These things are supposed to be taxpayer supported.

That's gonna be loud...

I hope "significant renovations" isn't a code word for "demolition".

Has it reopened? Was thinking of checking it out this week.

Huh. I didn't know the uncanny valley effect extended to writing too. It sounds almost human, but not quite.

Also, since the Edit time is elapsed...Sears did dry cleaning?

I'm thinking Memorial City too. For further reference: they're driving on one of the divided four lane roads (looks like Gessner) and upon actually reaching Sears, look what we have here: Does this look familiar? I'm sure that the Garden Center was converted into additional retail later, which is what we're seeing.

Typically the primary cause for damage in at least houses is rain. A properly roofed house and its floors will last decade, if the roof falls in and the water starts getting into the floors, it's toast and will be a nasty wreck when the bulldozers finally take it out. Freeways tend to last about 40 years before substantial replacement is needed, that can attributed to less erosion but heavy stress (trucks, mostly). Towers are not subject to that stress. If the old Days Inn/Holiday Inn is to be reopened, any structural damages would likely be caused from vandalism or erosion (again, exterior parts only), unless there were other problems (being a hotel, it was probably built relatively cheaply). That's just a thought, I'm not an engineer.

I know that there was an A&P and Whole Foods in that same Alabama Theater commercial center (not at the same time, obviously) but not Jamail's. Of course, I don't know if that's fully true either...

Well, I wasn't even thinking "curves and palm trees" (although Galveston's a bit short on palm trees since Ike), I was just thinking how much more attractive the seawall itself it could be (and more functional), without getting rid of the parking. Unfortunately, all the landscaping won't do much for the beaches themselves, which have never been particularly great (even when seaweed/tar/sargassum ISN'T washing up)