ToryGattis Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 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 More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 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 More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 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 More sharing options...
samagon Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 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 More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 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 More sharing options...
ToryGattis Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 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 More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2015 Author Share Posted November 14, 2015 Absolutely, on all counts. Note that the homes facing the Katy were in the zoned villages along there.Master-planned is basically de facto zoning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 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 More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 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 More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Curious how many were torn down for the Grand Parkway. There's a neighborhood it cuts through between 249 & 45. Or maybe 45 and 69, can't remember which segment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 You mean the one made of mobile homes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 I thought it wasn't mobile homes but maybe it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesL Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 I also think we need to have a comprehensive arterial plan in Houston - this is something that we've put off for far too long. Like this one? http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/mobility/MTFP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Like this one? http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/mobility/MTFP As long as we're treating suburban neighborhood collector streets as arterials, we don't have a comprehensive plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 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 More sharing options...
ADCS Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 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 More sharing options...
samagon Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 complete aside, but did you know that it's illegal to use money from gas taxes to pay for any kind of public transit? Not that it matters, cause the gas tax doesn't even come close to paying for infrastructure as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesL Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 As long as we're treating suburban neighborhood collector streets as arterials, we don't have a comprehensive plan. I don't understand what you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 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 More sharing options...
astros148 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 when does get go back on the ballot? why didnt metro include it this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 These things take time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeves2 Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 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 More sharing options...
terra002 Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Yes yes yes yes yes yes! I would love to see airport transit and some connections to the west side of the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 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 More sharing options...
scarface Posted October 1, 2016 Share Posted October 1, 2016 I don't even think about cost per project anymore when at the end, most of the these projects around the nation mostly come from federal tax $$$. Might as well bring some of that to Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativehoustonion Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 The Harrisburg Bridge looks almost competed. Does anybody know when it will open? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 So whatever happened with this compromise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 Looks like the ball's in METRO's court to come up with a new Richmond rail referendum. Although it looks like METRO isn't at all interested in building more rail anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.