Houston19514

Interactive map here: https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip.html

Fifth and Sixth Hyatt Regencies are opening soon (Baytown and Conroe). Unlikely to be a Hyatt Place or Hyatt House because it's not planned to be that type of hotel. It could still be a Hyatt Regency. No reason a city of 7+ million people is limited to six Hyatt Regencies. Nevertheless, among Hyatt brands, it seems Grand Hyatt might be the most likely. (And Hyatt is far less well-represented in Houston (and everywhere else for that matter) than Hilton or Marriott.) Similarly, a city of 7+ million people is not limited to only 2 Autograph Collection hotels (We actually already have 3 in the metro - Grand Galvez is now flying the Autograph flag). But for other reasons this is very unlikely to be an Autograph Collection. Same applies to Tribute Portfolio - just having two (also Tremont House) already doesn't make it impossible or even unlikely we would get another. But for other reasons, very unlikely to fly that flag. Similarly, the fact that we already have a JW Marriott (actually we already have 2), doesn't exclude that flag from consideration. In fact, I would consider JW Marriott to be a pretty strong contender. W doesn't seem likely - to me W seems like kind of a tired brand anyway, but it doesn't really seem like the vibe a Medical Center conference hotel would be going for. Also from the earlier post, InterContinental seems like one of the least likely, as they already have a location in the Medical Center. Kimpton is unlikely as it's just not that kind of hotel. Hilton and Embassy Suites are not upper upscale. Among the Hilton brands, the most likely flags would be Waldorf-Astoria and Conrad.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that is from an earlier plan and that cap was deleted from the FEIS/ROD plan. I don't think Cleburne even goes over the freeway in the FEIS/ROD plan.

I don’t think there is an Almeda cap

No. You only get to count the new transit riders, not the ones who switched from bus to rail. Aside from that, do you have anything at all on which to base your prediction that Honolulu’s rail may be a lower per new passenger than the NHHIP? One of the problems with these comparisons is that I don’t know of any source of estimates of how many people use a stretch of freeway every day? We have vehicle counts at various points but AFAIK we don’t even have total vehicle counts for an entire freeway or stretch of freeway, let alone a total passenger or person count. Based on car counts, increased capacity and projected ridership of Honolulu‘a rail (which is very unlikely to be achieved… show me a transit project that achieved its projected; they are very rare ), I’d be shocked if NHHIP doesn’t come out ahead.

Of course you would just count new passengers (and products). Using our red line as a comparison would only make sense if you were comparing it to a Highway project built around the same time.

Calculated on a per person transported, the I-45 project will almost certainly cost a fraction of the Honolulu rail project, not even counting the goods transported.

TxDOT has made it very clear from the beginning and over and over and over, that they are not funding the cap parks.

LOVE those framed photos. Anyone know where one could purchase those?

.. Are you new here? 😉 The wonder would be if the Chronicle did report on it.

Not a bad idea, but FWIW Dallas is not even in the tallest building game and has t been for many many years.

The only pre-expansion data I've seen is in the Chron article you linked. With the number of times we've seen the claim made that "within five years, peak hour travel times on the freeway were longer than before the expansion," and similar claims, one would have thought someone would have provided a comparison of post-expansion data with pre-expansion data. The only one who did is the Chronicle, and their data showed improved travel times. From the data they say they examined (and that was shared), they cannot honestly conclude that congestion was worse after the expansion than before, because they did no such comparison. The only thing they can honestly conclude is that congestion is increasing from year to year (thanks, Captain Obvious - again, that will tend to happen in a metro area growing as Houston does from year to year). I'm done engaging with you on this, Samagon. You can carry on as you please.

What statement is true? I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that peak travel times are worse than before the expansion. We know their source. They cited it in the article. Their source is the City Observatory study, which did not discuss or compare or provide pre-expansion data. Again, City Observatory compared 3 years post-expansion commute times with 6 years post-expansion commute time. It is dishonest to use that comparison to claim that post-expansion commute times were worse than pre-expansion commute times, and disingenuous (at the very least) to use that comparison to "prove" that the expansion was unsuccessful. https://cityobservatory.org/reducing-congestion-katy-didnt/

The Chron analyzed: Barker Cypress to Taylor (19 miles): Pre-expansion 33 minutes. Post-expansion 27 minutes They also did Taylor to Barker Cypress (also 19 miles, of course): Pre-expansion: 23 minutes. Post-expansion: 18 minutes. The 50 minutes (and over) post-expansion time pulled from the City Observatory study was peak-time for Pin Oak to downtown (30 miles). Not really a legitimate comparison. With work like that, you might be able to get a job at the New York Times. 😉

Not sure which article you are saying we can agree wasn't lying. This Chronicle article confirms that the New York Times/City Obervatory/OP in this thread were all lies. In fact, the numbers in your linked article show that travel times decreased in the several years following, and as as a result of, the expansion, not increased as was falsely claimed. Thanks for proving my point. Quotes from the linked article: "Expanded Katy Freeway shaves minutes from commute" "the drive home on this gargantuan slab of concrete actually used to take longer." "Four years after the project was completed, a comparative analysis of drive-time data for a three-year period before and after the expansion shows that at both peak and non-peak periods of the day, it takes less time to traverse the Katy Freeway than it used to."

What do you imagine the fastest option would be for a BRT? FWIW, I've started digging into it a bit. It looks like LA Metro's BRT Route 754 averages 12 miles per hour. If we got the Silver Line down to 20 minutes, that would be about 14 miles per hour. One of the dirty little secrets about mass transit - it's not necessarily fast

If you want to cause an uproar, just draw some sports fields on the UT land. That would be a sure sign they are secretly planning to force a full-fledged four-year university on our poor benighted little village. 😉 Whining about the PUF starts in 3...2...1...

Good to know. But I would hope they could get it below 25-35 min. The current schedule shows 27 minutes end-to-end, not 45ish. They need to work for 20 min.

Would it really make a run-time difference? Some times the light will be green when the bus arrives at the light; some times it will be red. With stations before the light, if it's green when the bus arrives, it stops at the station before the light, missing that green, causing delay. Conversely, with stations after the light, they get to the station on that green light and carry on. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, they have ability to override the traffic signals if they need to in order to stay on schedule. Of course the dedicated BRT lanes are different from a standard bus route, but I recall reading some information that indicated that "far-side" stops had operational advantages over "near-side" stops.

All of which (including minimizing the footprint) was already the plan.

To directly address the question posited in the thread title, the premise of "fixing traffic" is holding transportation projects to an impossible standard, especially in a metro area growing as Houston does. "Fixing" traffic is not the goal. Moving people and products is the goal, and that is why we keep widening (and improving) highways. It would be just as unfair/dishonest to hold a mass transit project to the standard of "fixing" traffic; they don't; never have; and never will. But cities keep building them, because they move people. Even if it were true that the Katy Freeway was more congested five years after expansion than it was before (and again, that is NOT true), that would not necessarily mean the project was a failure. It's hard to deny that the Katy Freeway moves many more people and products than it did before the expansion. That is a positive result and a success. THAT is why we keep expanding highways.

Well, I guess I can't guarantee they didn't look at pre-expansion travel times, but if they did, that only elevates their level of dishonesty. The fact is, they told us what numbers they examined and they showed us the numbers. Nothing from pre-expansion. READ THE REPORT! https://cityobservatory.org/reducing-congestion-katy-didnt/ Again, there we have seen zero evidence that "within five years, peak hour travel times on the freeway were longer than before the expansion." It is a lie.

Remember this from back in May of 2012, Kathy Whitmire extolling the wonders of Honolulu’s rail system. Well, it turns out that sometime soon (“early 2023”) the first part of the 20 mile "better rail system" might be completed (yes, you read that right - more than 10 1/2 years later, it has yet to carry its first passenger). Does anyone think Kathy has figured out why she got 20% of the vote in her last election attempt in Houston?

It was indeed. Orchestrated by our city and county "leaders". Shameful.

Nothing very concrete here. The cap was already planned. As to the commitment to consider cantilevering frontage roads along depressed sections . . . The only depressed section is where they are installing the cap; so if they cantilever the frontage roads it will reduce the available space for a cap park; and perhaps more important, is an area where they are already planning to take VERY little additional right of way. Even more to the point, I just looked again at the plans. The plan already includes cantilevered frontage roads on the depressed section in Segment 2!