Heights88

I am simply acknowledging the messenger and their bias. The NYT has a very strong bias against anything that isn't abiding by the 'smart growth' theory of urban design. NYT has a point of view...nothing wrong with that, but their arguments are not persuasive in my view. The induced demand theory underlying this piece is what I really am attacking. The theory basically posits that building new roads is useless because they will just fill up and the problem won't get better. It's a false argument that is waged inconsistently...do we not build new rail or bike lanes or hospitals because they would just 'fill up'? Well executed Highway / roadway expansions relieve congestion while expanding citizen's access to employment opportunities, commercial ventures, and lower cost housing. I think we could do a better pricing the usage of road use, but overall roads are not the problem. Perhaps the NYT should spend a bit more time looking into the utter catastrophe facing the MTA rather than attacking the Katy freeway.

This is a pretty silly (typical) NYT take...Does anyone remember how terrible 290 was before expansion? The NYT staff lives in a fantasy world where everywhere else is as dense as Manhattan and everything is free. The 'induced demand' argument is really not persuasive, but it's one we continue to hear from anti-development, anti-growth outlets like the NYT.

This is quite the delusional rant...It's pretty plain to see that Hidalgo has demonized moderates in her own party and Conservative voters. Hidalgo has made no "good faith efforts" to reach out to anyone but the hard-core progressive left. Lina's campaign was built on fear mongering with national issues. Mealer campaigned on real kitchen table issues - crime is not a "boogeyman" issue as you make it out to be. I do have to hand it to you...A+ rant with just no tether to reality.

Good governance was pretty much the foundation of Mealer's campaign (Alex's Priorities | Alexandra Mealer for Harris County Judge). It's pretty hard to argue that Lina has governed well - Lina has focused most of her attention on national politics (heavy focus on abortion, pretty much her only campaign theme), fighting local infrastructure projects (except for bike lanes), and engaging in pay-for-play scandals. I see you are very upset about Mealer campaigning with Mattress Mack, but Lina campaigning with Hanoi Jane Fonda last week is just dandy! I understand you are ranting to celebrate your candidate and party's narrow victory, but Lina is just not a great example of engaging in common sense, moderate solutions. She is a devout progressive ideologue who is narrowly focused on politics - it's the only thing she knows.

apartment complex?

Struggling with the regret for light rail to be built here. Do we consider the green, purple, and red line LRT extensions a success? Ridership on these new lines has been pretty abysmal (even controlling for effects of the pandemic). University Line BRT construction is already estimated at $84MM per mile. Building light rail here would likely require at least triple the investment per mile for little to no incremental return.

It's not that rail is not relevant or too old a technology (but that is also kind of true)...it's that it's just not even close to being cost effective. These light rail projects cost $200-500MM per mile (conservative estimates)...highway projects move more people at less than half the cost of rail. The choo choo fans on this board need to come to grips with the fact that cars are far more effective and efficient at moving people to and from decentralized population/job centers.

s3 - it is true many 'Conservatives' oppose such efforts to intentionally limit roadways to car traffic, as you highlighted above. That WSJ oped you cited casts an opinion that road diets are ill-conceived, counter-productive projects that make ordinary peoples' lives worse...that may be a 'Conservative' view point, but it's also defensible, rational, and supported by at least some facts. Bike lanes aren't inherently bad, but there are trade-offs to removing miles and miles of roadway that are used by the vast majority of people for car traffic. Acknowledging and weighing the trade-offs...sounds like a good place to start.

I am not sure how this devolved into a struggle session against crazy 'right wingers.' There are many Houstonians who, with good reason, oppose top-down efforts to reduce roadway access. City and County leadership have utopian visions of removing cars and reducing road ways at taxpayer expense...we can have a debate on whether that's a good idea or not. This isn't a vast right-wing conspiracy.