9.5-mile urban rail route from Highland Mall to Riverside Drive (Houston: construction, utilities)

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

WAIT!!! There's an actual PLAN?

Like I said...

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

Seems the opposition is a little more than anecdotal.

Never said it wasn't. Just find the humor when people present "my friends don't like it" as a scientific poll.

Originally Posted by scm53

I don't have time to find all the details, but there is some pretty well founded thought that the numbers were cooked so that Highland came out on top. Not so sure it was an objective ranking of alternatives.

Conspiracy everywhere! Man the barricades!!

Seriously, I've seen the analysis and the counter-analysis and I think they're both credible. That's the tough part about planning for a future condition that doesn't exist yet. So much of it is educated guesswork mixed with facts, that depending on how far out you're looking, you can support or deny almost any project's worthiness.

The G/L argument, to me, boils down to - "this is where it would work today, and we *need* it to work today in order to keep rail momentum going". That's pretty powerful. The PCCC planners, from what I've seen, acknowledge that there is demand in that sub-corridor, but that aspirational and future development-related factors weigh more heavily. I think that's a powerful argument (if a bit more nuanced) as well.

I think the biggest take-away, for me, is that all of the sub-corridors work; there wasn't one that was obviously a "don't do this". It's the prioritization that has created the controversy.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

One additional thing I suspect to be true is that Hancock tunnel kills any chance of cap-and-cover I-35.

Can't be sure right now because I don't believe the cap-and-cover idea has advanced much beyond the conceptual stage. Of course, any engineer will tell you that with enough time and money, they can build (or build around) anything.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

One additional thing I suspect to be true is that Hancock tunnel kills any chance of cap-and-cover I-35.

cap and cover was killed when actual engineers looked at it and said it wasn't feasible.

Even if that wasn't the case, the proposal for cap and cover was downtown, not up at hancock.

And I don't believe the proposed hancock tunnel goes under 35 (adjacent to and close, but not under)?

[gpurcell]

I know its just conceptual...but its a concept I think we should really avoid doing anything that could render it impossible/prohibitively expensive in the future.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Novacek

cap and cover was killed when actual engineers looked at it and said it wasn't feasible.

Even if that wasn't the case, the proposal for cap and cover was downtown, not up at hancock.

And I don't believe the proposed hancock tunnel goes under 35 (adjacent to and close, but not under)?

1) Never happened.

2) Cap and cover will have to take down the upper deck and have a descent phase. Guess where that would be likely to occur--yep, right at Hancock

Edit: OK, I think I see how it goes now....under the little stretch of Clarkson up onto Airport

3) Can't see how it doesn't go under I-35 given the routing of the Red Line there....but that's the answer I am interested in.

Edit: Ok, I think I see where it goes now...under that little bit of Clarkson and then onto Airport. Looks REALLY jammed in there.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by jb9152

I apologize for poking a little fun at your phrasing. I know what you're trying to say, and I don't necessarily disagree with the point. It's just humorous to me when people base electorate-wide conclusions on conversations they've had with a few like-minded friends and acquaintences.

Don't apologize, I don't care. I'm not going to argue with you.

Just please learn the lesson quickly. This plan = no rail for Austin.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Don't apologize, I don't care. I'm not going to argue with you.

Just please learn the lesson quickly. This plan = no rail for Austin.

You're arguing with yourself, then. As I've said, I have no dog in this hunt. All of the sub-corridors have reasons to do them. It's the prioritization that people are objecting to, and that's one of those debates that's based on facts built into projections and assumptions. Very tough to make an objective analysis, but I think that both the PCCC planners and the L/G folks have done a very good job with laying out their arguments.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by jb9152

You're arguing with yourself, then. As I've said, I have no dog in this hunt. All of the sub-corridors have reasons to do them. It's the prioritization that people are objecting to, and that's one of those debates that's based on facts built into projections and assumptions. Very tough to make an objective analysis, but I think that both the PCCC planners and the L/G folks have done a very good job with laying out their arguments.

Again, I'm not arguing with anyone. If you agree that this proposal is destined to fail on the ballot because of the route, then we agree, otherwise we don't.

[verybadgnome]

Having grown up with the DC subway system I think it is smarter in the long term to place stations in areas with the capacity for high density growth (cue zoning board) rather than areas with a moderate amount of existing density that is not at the end of its life cycle.