Houston19514

Any chance you can cite a source for either of these claims?

Actually, this is the PDF I was thinking of: http://ih45northandmore.com/docs13/05_NHHIP_Seg3_I-69_RollPlot_PH_2-2.pdf The cutaway is just east of Leeland, showing everything at or below grade.

Good news/Bad news: There has been no shortage of interesting and creative ideas for the use of the Dome. But none of them have come with a financing plan.

You're right. I got the wrong impression from one of the "typical section"s in the FEIS. It looks like, at the centerline of Leeland, the I-45 lanes will be about 23 feet above Leeland and dropping fairly rapidly, probably reaching surface level about 150 feet east of the centerline of Leeland (roughly the width of the surface parking lot that is currently across the street from this).

Actually, under the current plan, everything across St Emmanuel from this property will be at or below grade.

I don't think it's for only a portion. I think all segments of the University Line BRT are on the same schedule.

I think our friend Phillip_White pegged it above. The fly-through video very clearly states the address as 3990 Montrose. Since that address is (a) owned by one of the project partners (Univ of St Thomas) and (b) currently a surface parking lot, there doesn't really seem to be any doubt of the location fo this project.

You make a lot of good points. Why I like the architects' vision and their work on the Dome, they kinda failed to do basic due diligence before starting out on the project. As the KHOU story reports, the structural work is not possible because it is now protected as an historical site (b) surrounding the dome structure with a forest such as they envision is a non-starter for Rodeo and probably for the Texans and OTC. I love the concept of filling it with mixed-use, but wonder how feasible it is. Not sure if the financing can work for all involved (could such a mixed-use development really generate enough revenue to provide a return on the investment for the developers and also keep the Texans and Rodeo unharmed, let alone provide them with additional revenue? And I wonder how much traffic such a mixed-use endeavor could generate on non-game, non-Rodeo days. The plan that was voted down was a pretty darned good plan (unfortunately poorly presented/marketed). The latter, pared-down plan that the new County Judge put on indefinite hold was a decent compromise that would have allowed for use and later improvement/possible mixed-use development.

That could make for an amazing hotel and/or residential conversion!

Yes, the Terminal E ticket hall will be closing for the duration of the rebuild. They've been doing some work in the Terminal C ticket hall/TSA checkpoint to increase capacity. United anticipates completing move-out of Terminal E ticket hall in August (EDIT: Apparently very early August, as in Monday August 2) When the program is completed, the space that was the Terminal E ticket hall will be the new Terminal E security screening area. Something like 17 lanes, one of the largest in the country. RE: Parking. last Thursday I had pre-paid parking for Terminal C. Finding a spot took nowhere near 30 minutes, but available spaces were pretty limited. One does need to plan for some extra time.

This brochure says "Proposed Grand Re-opening Spring 2022". That seems ambitious at this point too. I imagine they've had some setbacks from the pandemic.

For the record, you're the only one suggesting that we compare Discovery Green or any other project to Post. If you want to do that, have at it.

Are you really trying to claim that Discovery Green has not been successful? FWIW, I was not comparing the projects, but the comments/complaints/criticisms from HAIFers. We were treated to the same arguments against Discovery Green as we're hearing about Post. Bad location. People won't venture over there. No one will drive in from outside downtown to go there because of parking/traffic/bad location, etc etc. It's too far from everything else downtown. It's not on the way to or from anything else.

This thread reminds me of the Discovery Green thread. Thank goodness there are developers and others in this city with more vision than the average HAIFer.

It looks like it's 1.2 trillion, not 3.5, and has not yet passed the Senate.

The state has nothing to do with the tollway expansion (extension). FWIW, per the HCTRA/Hardy Toll Road Connector website, construction of the tollway lanes to downtown is scheduled to start in September. The Quitman overpass was scheduled start construction in April. Does anyone know if that has started?

Too many people driving around Houston who should not be driving.

It's under the "Lease" section of the Transwestern site, not the "Sale" section. And the listing says "200,000 square feet". It seems like the building is surely a good deal larger than that. Very curious. (and a little odd that Transwestern lists the address as 6623 Fannin, instead of 6519.) Perhaps they are looking for a lease/management deal.

Also not exposed to salt water.

That would be an amazing problem to have. Let's hope for it.

There doesn't really seem to be one consistent name used. One hears "light rail", "Metro rail", "the train".

Re: electric rates. It’s not that electricity is expensive in Houston. It is actually relatively inexpensive. But Seattle has very inexpensive electricity because it is blessed with a ton of hydroelectric generation (much, if not all, of it federally subsidized).

This is exactly the kind of "argument" I was talking about earlier. The bulk of the added capacity provided by the NHHIP is for transit and HOVs, NOT for single-occupant vehicles.

"Regional mobility" also includes inner loopers accessing downtown, inner loopers accessing points of the city on the other side of downtown, car-poolers, users of transit services, downtown dwellers (and other inner loopers) accessing suburban jobs, etc, all of whom will benefit from this project, not just suburbanites. Regional mobility is the mission of the HGAC. Interesting that the suburban reps are fulfilling the mission while the city and county reps are shirking theirs, focusing instead on more parochial concerns.

Write to the County Judge, county commissioners, the Mayor, city council members. And TxDOT at HOU-piowebmail@txdot.gov I thought there would be official comment sites available again, perhaps they will be coming soon.