Houston19514

The GPA first said that Segment F-2 was being developed for "local" needs. When we pointed out that the need was greater to the north of us, then they switched their answer to saying that it was being developed more for "regional" traffic needs. Now after they presented the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study, they say that building it in Montgomery County won't serve the "local" needs of Spring, and that should take precedence over "regional" needs. We repeatedly have asked for the traffic studies to back up their claims that the traffic in Spring far exceeds that of current and future Montgomery County. We have been asking for these studies for over two years now. We've been told that they'd been completed, but that they're not ready to be presented until the Final EIS. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of northern Harris County and Montgomery County and north of that can see that the growth patterns are greater in Montgomery County and north, more so than in Spring. If the purpose is to help relieve local and regional traffic, as they say, the need would be greater further north than Spring. BTW, hurricane evacuation is no longer listed as a primary objective, since the only portion currently builds FLOODS when it rains. Plus, how much sense does it really make to collect traffic all along the Grand Parkway only to have it exit at I-45 and wait in line to go north?

So, if I may summarize, you think the Northern Alignment better serves regional and local transportation needs because it is Not In My [your] Back Yard. Did I get that about right?

(And by the way, you just sound silly claiming that the GPA first said the the F-2 Segment was being developed for local traffic needs. The whole of Grand Parkway is being developed tp serve the regional mobility needs of metropolitan Houston area; it has always been thus and has been so stated. Local transportation benefits are a happy side-effect. But then we're used to you sounding silly when it comes to the Grand Parkway, e.g. your claims that it will have an 800-1500 foot R-O-W, that it will have no connection with I-45...)

Mainly because of urbanization in the Tomball area and commuters looking to travel to the Woodlands area or I-45 corridor for employment.

Also, there is already a large population in the area who are candidates use the tollway.

Which other Grand Parkway sections do you think would be more profitable?

I wasn't disagreeing with you or being argumentative. I was just curious as to your reasoning (I most often find your opinions to be well-reasoned and based on facts, rather than emotion).

I think it is clear the F-2 section is not a sure thing to be built. However, I rate the probably of F-2 being built over 50% (my best guess is 60%) for these reasons

1. Hurricane evacuation. Although not as critical as the southern and western sections, F-2 would aid in evacuation and help minimize problems like the collossal jam on I-45 at the Woodlands during Rita.

2. Profit. F-2 is surely the section of the Grand Parkway with the most profit potential, and all potential players (HCTRA, TxDOT, Cintra) want to tap into the money.

3. Need. As north and northwest Harris County fully urbanize, there will be a critical need for this facility.

I think it is highly unlikely we'll see a corridor width greater than 400 feet wide. I would be very surprised if this project gets converted into a Trans-Texas Corridor. I just don't see that as a realistic possibility.

As for serving the regional interest, F-2 will be a huge asset and will fill a need for east-west travel in north Harris County. It will be particularly beneficial to the Tomball and surrounding area, which is becoming a large population center. A few neighborhoods in Spring might have some negative impact, but the region overall will receive a great benefit. So from the regional perspective, this project should move forward.

As for the ultimate outcome, I certainly hope we see HCTRA in charge as opposed to Cintra.

Why do you think the F-2 section has the most profit potential?

By the way, the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study is on the Grand Parkway Association's website:

Northern Alignment Feasibility Study

After looking it over briefly, I think their comments at the hearing sound perfectly "acceptable." That is basically the conclusion the study came to.

I just looked up information from the U.S. Census Bureau. I have posted it in the skyscraper forum under the Texas/Southwest section. Anyway, U.S. Census studies the same 11 counties as the NCTCOG. Now you can go look up how NCTCOG studies the population which they do watch closer then U.S. Census because the NCTCOG works with North Texas muncipalities and agencies to forecast things like water needs, power, infrastructure, schools, fire services etc. This the U.S. Census Bureau because it studies population at a more national level then local level.

U.S. Census Bureau MSA map

http://ftp2.census.gov/geo/maps/metr...s_0603_rev.pdf

NCTCOG 2006 population estimate brochure.

http://www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/pop...opestimates.pdf

Huh? The NCTCOG study that estimates 6,000,000 + covers 16 counties . Look at the link you posted. (And you have not made your case that the NCTCOG watches "closer then U.S. Census." I suspect they use some different criteria and some of the same, gathered from the very same sources)

What I'm hoping for is that NO agency allocate any monies for the Grand Parkway Segment F-2. Not TxDOT, not HCTRA, and that we don't sign any agreements with CINTRA or any other CDA. I think this project is a huge waste of money and doesn't serve the regional or local transportation needs. I still think that the Northern Alignment Feasibility Study needs to be discussed further before it is so readily dismissed.

I find it very interesting that we were told two years that that particular study would be given just as much weight as all the other alignments and options and that it would be the cornerstone of this Public Hearing. Yet, there were no advance copies given out of the study, just a re-hash of the same old tired DEIS with outdated charts/graphs/maps from the year 2000.

When asked where the study was, we were told that some "revisions" had to made by the Grand Parkway Association to it before it could be released and that it would be presented for the first time in a limited format (hard copy of text on table alone) at the Public Hearing. They told us they had to "tweak" it! And then during the aerial map presentation, the narrator to the video stated that "it did not fit the purpose and need of the Grand Parkway Association?" Does that sound acceptable to anyone?

In your opinion, how would the Northern Alignment serve the regional or local transportation needs better than the F-2 alignments being discussed?

Actually, for your information, since you weren't there, the kind folks from the Trans-Texas Corridor brought it up. They weren't around for the other two Public Hearings, but they were out in number at this one, along with full-color posters all around. Basically, what they said was, that since the Grand Parkway Association has no money, and TxDOT has no money, and HCTRA has walked away from all negotiations (since last October), that now CINTRA is being courted to help fund the Grand Parkway Segment F-2. CINTRA is the entity that is now in discussions with Gov. Perry to help the Trans-Texas Corridor. If CINTRA is brought in to build Segment F-2, then it will become a leg of the TTC, at which time the corridor will widen up even further. Of course, they also said that all this will be more fully discussed in the final EIS, at which time yet another Public Hearing will be scheduled. Maybe you'll be free that night to attend.

So, you are agreeing then, that it is clearly not the Grand Parkway organization's plan to take an 800-1200 foot R-O-W. That the only way a R-O-W anywhere near such numbers would come into play would be IF no other funding source can be put together, and IF the HCTRA remains uninterested, and IF CINTRA maintains an interest, and IF the state approves CINTRA's participation and IF..., and IF... Quite a string of contingencies that have to play out before there are any condemnations of 800-1200 foot R-O-W's, let alone the 1500 feet you are alarmed about.

So the U.S. Census Bureau has a different stat then the NCTCOG. NCTCOG which studies the numbers more closley then the US Census puts Dallas over 6 mil. The US Census Bureau puts DFW just short of 6mil. At any rate DFW seems to have topped Philadelphia. Which is no new news, but comes from another source.

It has little to do with studying the numbers "more closely." The NCTCOG numbers are for a different (and larger) geographical area than are the census numbers. Hence the larger population estimate.

It was brought up during the DEIS presentation last night at Klein Collins; weren't you there? I was...

No, I was not there. So, it was "brought up." Very slick answer. By whom was it "brought up?" Was it you or one of the other NIMBY's?

It strikes me as highly unlikely that the Grand Parkway would have 800-1200 foot R-O-W's when the massive Katy Freeway is confined to something like 500 foot R-O-W's.

^^But at least those are full five-level interchanges now.

Yes, they are. And no doubt this one will be some day too.

Pineda, where do you get the idea of an 800-1200 foot right of way for the Grand Parkway?

Yep, Trae, when questioned as to how the Grand Parkway would "interface" with I-45, we were told that the entire approximately 1000' span would be an overpass right over I-45. No exits, no ramps, no nothing.

That cannot possibly be correct. Part of the purpose of the Grand Parkway is to connect to the radial freeways (e.g., I-45).

They may have said the Grand Parkway (or Segment F-2) project includes no "direct connectors". That just means you will have to exit Grand Parkway onto a frontage road and then get on the I-45 frontage road to enter I-45, rather than just take a ramp directly from Grand Parkway to I-45. I hate when they do that, but it happens pretty often in Houston. Beltway 8 @ I-45, Beltway 8 @ Eastex for example.

Interesting! Could the hotel be making a comeback?

Wow. I've never seen 2 locations for an anchor in the same mall. Especially surprised that it woudl happen in such a relatively small mall.

Dillard's has done that at quite a few malls.

St. Louis is water-based as well.

I agree. But that's because good news doesn't sell.

If the Chronicle wanted to help Houston, they could start by finishing their construction work and quit making people walk the tightrope on Texas in front of their building.

Understood, but what they give us is not news at all. It's just tired old cliches repeated ad nauseum.

What a bunch of crybabies. One article finds a couple of people out of 200,000 to complain about Houston sprawl, and now, everyone wants to curl up into a ball and cry.

nmainguy, am I to understand that your partner's hotel is willing to forego the revenue from future festivals because of this? Somehow, I kind of doubt it.

TJ, like your memory of politics, you are employing revisionist thinking. There were PLENTY of complaints about Houston sprawl during the Super Bowl. And, by the way, the NBA and MLB WISH they could get 200,000 to attend their events. This event was second only to the Super Bowl in economic impact.

Look, I understand that there was little at this event that was attractive to white suburbanites (or white city dwellers, for that matter). But, too lambaste the entire event because a Chronicle reporter coaxed a few TRUE, but negative comments out of a tourist, is a bit of overkill. $200 million was left in Houston by these tourists. Other than nmainguy's partner (and a few waiters), the hospitality industry was very happy that Essence was here. Houston's convention people are actively trying to woo them back.

I haven't heard this kind of whining since Jacksonville held the Super Bowl. You people sound like a bunch of grumpy old men. In REAL big cities, the locals shrug off the occasional negative remark as life in the big city. I'm as big a booster of this burg as any, but I recognize that some people will not appreciate it. So be it.

For the rest of you, worry not. The quilting convention will be back next year. Houston will be safe from criticism and excitement.

Here Here!! And why, oh why, does the Chronicle have to coax negative comments from visitors EVERY time there is a significant event in Houston? That paper does more damage to Houston than the oil bust or Enron collapse. It's like they have forms for writing articles:

Dateline: Houston. The [fill in name of event] was held in Houston this past weekend, drawing [fill in number] visitors from around the world. Vistors were heard to complain about the traffic, the humidity, and how spread out everything was. Some visitors commented that they prefer the thicker, more aromatic humidity of New Orleans. Others said they prefer their humidity with mouse ears. Still others said they prefer the traffic of midtown Manhattan. Nobody seemed to enjoy their time in Houston.

Houston19514,

Check you PM inbox. I have a special message for you.

Kiss Kay Bailey's arse all you want, but she has done nada for rail in Houston.

Jockstraps also provide support, but they don't build light rail. Money does.

http://hutchison.senate.gov/transpor.htm

WASHINGTON, DC -- Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison issued the following statement on passage of the Houston Metro ballot initiative:

"Now that this hard-fought - and often heated - campaign has come to a close, it's time to put differences aside and move forward. Houstonians have spoken in support of light-rail. It's time to get to work to ensure Metro builds a world-class transportation system that addresses Houston's pressing mobility needs. I am committed to helping them in every way possible to achieve this goal."

First, as you can see by reading my post, my "don't be an idiot" statement was regarding your complaints about her statements in Dallas, statements which were correct and appropriate in every way.

Second, regarding her support or actions for rail in Houston, what, exactly,would you have had her do at this point that she has not done? (After all, it's not her fault that Houston's local politicians and populace has taken this long to get on the rail program... do you want her to come to Houston and starting laying rails down Richmond herself, or what?)

Sorry, I don't understand. What's your point ? Is there something wrong with that ? Please re-read the section.

My point is.... why should efforts be made to attract more nightlife (as you suggested), when that is what has been developed and is being developed WITHOUT any special effort to attract it?

Not the kind of talk you expect to hear from our Senator.

Texas has two Senators elected to serve the entire state. She has on office on Smith St.

Other than her "seeming to" have supported rail, she has served Houston poorly.

Don't be an idiot. She said nothing untoward or inappropriate AT ALL. Her home is in Dallas, for crying out loud. So why should she not be able to refer to it as "our area"? And her other comments were just statements of fact (eg, Dallas has taken the lead in rail development)

She has also been strong and consistent supporter of rail for Houston.

I think you are on to something (Redscare & VelvetJ). It is as if there is this conservative undertone that has been tightening in CBD. I also notice your talking about the night scene downtown etc., but it sure seems like there is an underlying resistance or a push against it. It is also interesting that it seems like everytime retail is brought up associated with downtown, that so is night life. Is there some kind of rule book being circulated about what is acceptable and what is not ? HP received grant money for its center which will have night life in it, so why isn't more done to attract more nightlife instead of all this other stuff that there doesn't seem to be just an overwhelming bunch of interest in anyway-AT THIS TIME. Essence might be a prime example of what you mentioned to an extent. It is a major event and definately has a direct impact on Downtown. Wasn't it held at Reliant ? Aren't people supposed to want to be able to go out downtown, eat dinner, maybe check into a hotel downtown, and then catch the light rail to Reliant for Essence and then return downwtown ? Yet I have yet to see the Downtown groups created to promote downtown promoting it ? Downtown saw a lot of business from this event. It's as if these Downtown groups are open on the surface about what to embrace and the area desparately could use anything at thist time, but they don't make an effort to embrace events I guess it doesn't really want to ? I wonder who is silently making these types of decisions ? Did you see how much discussion there was on tv day after day about what a wonderful city Houston was during essence, and all the great places to eat and party.(Well, guess what ?-They were talking about downtown ! These downtown groups definately missed a golden opportunity on the promotion boat this time. Downtown seems like a basketball rim with an invisible lid sometimes...throw in this new drinking law,etc. and read in between the lines ?

What in the name of Sam Houston are you talking about? Most of the "retail' development that has occurred downtown on street level has been all about nightlife, with very little else.

Is anyone going to mention the MASSIVE new Catholic Co-Cathedral being built downtown by St. Joseph's?

Why would it need to be mentioned in a thread about St. Martin's? There is an entire multi-page thread about the new Catholic Co-Cathedral... and you don't have to look too far; it's immediately below this thread ;-)

Isn't that what I said.. admittedly in about 5x the space.

But thats too simple.. i was trying to back it up with examples while at the same time thwarting off naysayers.

Interesting, except of course you said nothing like that at all. Far from acknowledging that the downtown park will have any positive impact, you in fact suggested that we should "not pretend 4 square blocks of grass on the wrong end of downtown is going to make any significant impact." You seem unduly obseessed with the word premiere (and for that matter with NYC's Central Park, while simultaneously telling us you are not comparing anything in Houston to Central Park). Is there a reason downtown Houston cannot have two outstanding parks, serving different purposes and different "communities", one at the front door and one at the back door, so to speak? After all, the Buffalo Bayou Plan is proceeding at the same time as the new downtown park is being developed. (Would it make you happy that the Downtown Park Conservancy actually refers to the park as Houston's "backyard"? By implication that makes your hallowed Buffalo Bayou Park the "frontyard", maybe even the "premiere park" ;-)

I guess I'm still trying to understand your point, and I'm thinking I'm not alone.

Red.. another user said it would be our downtown's premiere park.. I was simply disagreeing and stating why.

I never said make nor tried to imply making houston into nyc. I was merely giving an example of what a premiere city park has that our new one doesn't.... mainly size. I love our parks here.. was just bemoaning the lack of use.

And im not arguing against a rendering.. im arguing against what the render represents.. which is a park due to size and location will never get a big draw from where the bulk of the people downtown are.

Yes.. it will spurn growth.. and that is good... but that still doent bring urban park to where the bulk of the people downtown are now...... which my answer to that is.. we already have the premiere park and potential park(bayou) closer to where the people are now... we just need to do a better job with bringing into into downtown by changing up access on that side of downtown and removing the manmade barriers to growth on that side of downtown.

After all of your rambling in several posts, I can honestly say I have no idea what your point is.

okay, then i guess my source, whom i have complete faith in and who has personal, intimate knowledge of behind closed doors conversations, would give me an earlier date

i just passed along what ive heard, so take it fwiw and dont shoot the messenger.

Chill, man. I merely posted a plain fact that was recently posted on the park's website. No criticism, no emotion, and certainly no shooting of messengers... ;-)

federated is shutting down all macys right or just this one? because a macys is one of the spots taking position in the new development in katy (grand shoppes or what ever). what needs to go in is a ruehl 925. it would be great to have and also position itself next to the new mid-rise development of macy's (if it occurs).

...if they want to be awesome or jawsome is my book they need to make the new section more open and not prison-esque with absolutely no windows. none too style. also, the rolls royce dealership needs to move to the galleria. just think of having a test track which drives through neimans. great idea! haha

All Foley's stores are becoming Macy's stores. So the current Foley's in The Galleria will become a Macy's. The current Macy's store at The Galleria will be closed. That's it.