Jump to content

Culberson And METRO Reach Compromise


Slick Vik

Recommended Posts

Logical fallacy? Do trees not absorb carbon dioxide?

 

Carbon dioxide is involved with climate change, but it is absolutely *not* a pollutant that is directly harmful to humans (we breathe it in and out perfectly naturally).  The pollution buffer being discussed here is for other tailpipe emissions and especially particulates (mostly from diesels). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Carbon dioxide is involved with climate change, but it is absolutely *not* a pollutant that is directly harmful to humans (we breathe it in and out perfectly naturally). The pollution buffer being discussed here is for other tailpipe emissions and especially particulates (mostly from diesels).

So this isn't really a good description of the respiratory system; yes we inhale many different chemicals but the alveoli in your lungs are only capable of allowing O2 to pass thru the blood barrier, and CO2 is "dumped" into the alveoli to be expunged when you exhale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carbon dioxide is involved with climate change, but it is absolutely *not* a pollutant that is directly harmful to humans (we breathe it in and out perfectly naturally). The pollution buffer being discussed here is for other tailpipe emissions and especially particulates (mostly from diesels).

My point was more trying to use the "common sense" argument in general, even if it was true. If that was true, then a few trees in a yard should negate the effects of air pollution, and because of its trees overall, Houston's air pollution wouldn't be a problem at all.

Anyway, living near the highway also has more noise and more light. (The walls of course are for noise, not air pollution)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should build water walls on each freeway. As water has good adhesion properties, it would cling to the smaller particles of emissions.

 

Or maybe they could force all diesels exhaust to go through a big water bong attached to the tailpipe.

 

Then we could get rid of the feeders and build houses right up on the freeway!

 

I'm of course being facetious.

 

To one of the points about removing the feeders and putting in other exits, I think the biggest point as to why this won't work is access to businesses that have been established along the feeders. ADCS had mentioned taking ROW from behind these establishments to create an access road to them, but that would cost a lot of money, and as the businesses are designed facing the freeway feeder roads, access to these places wouldn't be ideal without huge investment to relocate signs, and create efficient access paths.

 

As Houston has already taken steps towards less frequent freeway exits and entrances (and ones that are better situated to ease the transition both on and off the freeway). Outside of a tenuous claim that feeders create a healthier society, it just seems in my mind that it's a huge investment for what would be at best a minimal gain to the flow of traffic. The downsides outside of taxpayer costs are huge, more vehicle miles, lower ease of access, more confusion, forcing some streets to act as higher flow arteries than they were designed to act as with the existence of feeder roads.

 

A far better use of the funds that would be required to get ROW, rebuild, widen arterial roads, etc. would be to put in more and diverse public transit options. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other advantage of frontage roads, which hasn't been mentioned yet, it makes it possible to widen freeways. I am sure that there are many cities that would've liked to widen their freeways but couldn't because of the houses along it, making it politically impossible and a huge amount of ROW to purchase. But if you have commercial establishments, it makes it easier to do such a thing. People get unhappy if dozens of houses are ripped down to widen a freeway, but (unless you're a bit of a weirdo like me), they don't care nearly as much for gas stations, a Burger King, and a slightly aging but otherwise viable motel being wiped out, because those things are replaceable.

Would I be wrong to say that the Katy Freeway widening wouldn't have faced nearly the resistance it did if it wasn't for all those homes that DID face the freeway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other advantage of frontage roads, which hasn't been mentioned yet, it makes it possible to widen freeways. I am sure that there are many cities that would've liked to widen their freeways but couldn't because of the houses along it, making it politically impossible and a huge amount of ROW to purchase. But if you have commercial establishments, it makes it easier to do such a thing. People get unhappy if dozens of houses are ripped down to widen a freeway, but (unless you're a bit of a weirdo like me), they don't care nearly as much for gas stations, a Burger King, and a slightly aging but otherwise viable motel being wiped out, because those things are replaceable.

Would I be wrong to say that the Katy Freeway widening wouldn't have faced nearly the resistance it did if it wasn't for all those homes that DID face the freeway?

 

Absolutely, on all counts.  Note that the homes facing the Katy were in the zoned villages along there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Master-planned is basically de facto zoning

 

But it's voluntary zoning, not forced by faceless bureaucrats that have their hands out for extra cash.

 

Absolutely, on all counts.  Note that the homes facing the Katy were in the zoned villages along there.

 

And, there weren't that many houses taken by the widening. It was mostly businesses and Old Katy Rd.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's voluntary zoning, not forced by faceless bureaucrats that have their hands out for extra cash.

 

 

And, there weren't that many houses taken by the widening. It was mostly businesses and Old Katy Rd.

For the Northwest Freeway widening, 12 houses were torn down. For Katy, I don't have numbers, but I counted on Google Earth, that number is closer to 40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we're treating suburban neighborhood collector streets as arterials, we don't have a comprehensive plan.

What would you suggest for arterials? Widen Westheimer to 6 lanes like an LA arterial? Widen and straighten Shrpherd/Greenbriar? There aren't any good options here because of the way the City developed and the inconvenient placement of bayous and other drainage structures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you suggest for arterials? Widen Westheimer to 6 lanes like an LA arterial? Widen and straighten Shrpherd/Greenbriar? There aren't any good options here because of the way the City developed and the inconvenient placement of bayous and other drainage structures.

 

Well, inside the loop, things are about as good/bad as they're going to get. I think lower Westheimer serves its role perfectly fine, as do most of the arterials where the surrounding roads are in a grid pattern.

 

It's when you get to the parts of the city that were originally developed as suburbs, and the surrounding roads are in a spine pattern, that you run into problems. In my current part of town, that's Dairy Ashford, Kirkwood and Wilcrest. Spines demand large arterials (3+ lanes in each direction), and we simply don't have the space to expand them.

 

It's going to be expensive and politically challenging to get those roads expanded to where they need to be, but it can be done. Perhaps a penny tax on gas within the city limits could get moving in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you're referring to.

Referring to the way the main arterials like Kirby stubs are built, they are supposed to function as main traffic corridors, but instead just collect residential side streets. Residential streets connect to bigger roads called "collectors", which then connect to 4/6 lane arterials, and the way things are going, there's a step missing.

Someone can probably explain it better than I can, but I'm going to bed, and using a phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 10 months later...
On 11/28/2015 at 7:41 PM, astros148 said:

when does get go back on the ballot? why didnt metro include it this time

 

Great news! Seems that Metro is building up momentum for a new bonding authority in 2017. They have done some great work in reimagining the bus lines and lining up political support. The 90A commuter line isnt my first choice, but see how it helps build support for future lines.

Metro Could Soon Go Back To Voters With A New Transit Referendum

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Treeves2 said:

 

Great news! Seems that Metro is building up momentum for a new bonding authority in 2017. They have done some great work in reimagining the bus lines and lining up political support. The 90A commuter line isnt my first choice, but see how it helps build support for future lines.

Metro Could Soon Go Back To Voters With A New Transit Referendum

 

 

So the next question will be how much are they going to ask for and how much more is it really going to cost ('cause you just know that what they tell us will be way under the real cost.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 8 months later...
  • The title was changed to Culberson And METRO Reach Compromise

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...