Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nolaboy

It’d be tough, but Houston could get down with freeways

Recommended Posts

Uh-oh, he's back to copying and pasting forum threads again. 

 

Here is a big hint: telling us the same thing over and over again isn't going to change facts.

 

And copying and pasting forum threads/articles us the impression that you are not only a liar (given the multiple-choice backstory), but a simpleton who cannot understand the magnitude of highway projects and a troll who cannot think for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even read what I said before saying that I was wrong? I agree with you that reducing capacity will reduce the number of trips in that area. Where I disagree with you is that you're making the assumption that it will force walkabiilty and I don't see that happening at all. I expect that difficulty with efficiently moving workers into the center of the city will drive more companies to locate satellite offices on the periphery so that they can be closer to their workers.

San Francisco and Manhattan are very questionable examples to use because they have geography that forces density. Houston doesn't. There are far less compelling reasons to locate inside the loop than there is in either SF or Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh-oh, he's back to copying and pasting forum threads again. 

 

Here is a big hint: telling us the same thing over and over again isn't going to change facts.

 

And copying and pasting forum threads/articles us the impression that you are not only a liar (given the multiple-choice backstory), but a simpleton who cannot understand the magnitude of highway projects and a troll who cannot think for himself.

 

The fact is adding capacity adds traffic. I gave various examples all around the country and even in other countries. If you choose to ignore this, that's on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even read what I said before saying that I was wrong? I agree with you that reducing capacity will reduce the number of trips in that area. Where I disagree with you is that you're making the assumption that it will force walkabiilty and I don't see that happening at all. I expect that difficulty with efficiently moving workers into the center of the city will drive more companies to locate satellite offices on the periphery so that they can be closer to their workers.

San Francisco and Manhattan are very questionable examples to use because they have geography that forces density. Houston doesn't. There are far less compelling reasons to locate inside the loop than there is in either SF or Manhattan.

 

It has added walkability in Milwaukee, Seoul, San Francisco, New York, Madrid, Paris, and Portland, basically all the cities where freeway removal has taken place. Is that not enough evidence for you? Or is Houston just so different and unique it can not be compared to any other city, as you usually say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has added walkability in Milwaukee, Seoul, San Francisco, New York, Madrid, Paris, and Portland, basically all the cities where freeway removal has taken place. Is that not enough evidence for you? Or is Houston just so different and unique it can not be compared to any other city, as you usually say.

Your responses are once again proving why you consistently get labelled as a troll, because, as usual, you are ignoring any nuance to the situation and slandering whoever you have a conversation with. At no point have I ever claimed that Houston is unique. I have however pointed out that density is highly reliant on geography. If you're attempting to claim that being surrounded by water on three sides, such as both San Francisco and Manhattan are, has no impact on how those areas have developed, then you are a fool.

Milwaukee has consistently lost population for the last forty years. It's not particularly surprising that they have a lower transit demand as a result. Houston by comparison has grown dramatically during that same period. Again, I would count that as a significant difference.

Portland has an urban growth boundary and strong government controls on density, as opposed to Houston which has no growth boundary and weak controls on density. International cities have so many differences that it's difficult to isolate a single factor.

Basically, what you're saying is that every city will react the same way to a change like removing a highway and I'm saying that is an incredibly simplistic statement without considering contributing factors. You're like a doctor who prescribes the same medicine for everything. Regardless of the patient or the symptoms.

BTW, you might want to compare the list of cities that have removed freeways to the list of cities that have constructed new freeways in the same time period. Which list do you think is going to be longer?

Edited by livincinco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your responses are once again proving why you consistently get labelled as a troll, because, as usual, you are ignoring any nuance to the situation and slandering whoever you have a conversation with. At no point have I ever claimed that Houston is unique. I have however pointed out that density is highly reliant on geography. If you're attempting to claim that being surrounded by water on three sides, such as both San Francisco and Manhattan are, has no impact on how those areas have developed, then you are a fool.

Milwaukee has consistently lost population for the last forty years. It's not particularly surprising that they have a lower transit demand as a result. Houston by comparison has grown dramatically during that same period. Again, I would count that as a significant difference.

Portland has an urban growth boundary and strong government controls on density, as opposed to Houston which has no growth boundary and weak controls on density. International cities have so many differences that it's difficult to isolate a single factor.

Basically, what you're saying is that every city will react the same way to a change like removing a highway and I'm saying that is an incredibly simplistic statement without considering contributing factors. You're like a doctor who prescribes the same medicine for everything. Regardless of the patient or the symptoms.

BTW, you might want to compare the list of cities that have removed freeways to the list of cities that have constructed new freeways in the same time period. Which list do you think is going to be longer?

 

You do realize that some of the cities that have removed freeways have MORE traffic than Houston right? Paris, New York, and Seoul. Yet somehow the traffic has gone down in the areas where freeways were removed. People have the ability to adapt. I'm acknowledging that it has a chance to work in Houston, while most simply laugh at the idea without looking at examples all over the world where it HAS worked, similar with your theories about rail transit. Nothing makes Houston special in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong. Think outside of the box.

“The amount of traffic on city streets is, to some degree, a function of how easy you make it to get there, and how much automobile capacity you provide,” said Radulovich. “Providing more automobile capacity often gets you more vehicle trips, removing it often gets you fewer.”

Yes let's make it more difficult to get to downtown so more businesses will flee to the suburbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes let's make it more difficult to get to downtown so more businesses will flee to the suburbs.

 

Tell me how it would be more difficult to get in and out of downtown. From 45 north and south, 59 north and south, 10 east and west, there already are ramps to get in and out of downtown. The only difference this would make would be for people who are cutting through downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that some of the cities that have removed freeways have MORE traffic than Houston right? Paris, New York, and Seoul. Yet somehow the traffic has gone down in the areas where freeways were removed. People have the ability to adapt. I'm acknowledging that it has a chance to work in Houston, while most simply laugh at the idea without looking at examples all over the world where it HAS worked, similar with your theories about rail transit. Nothing makes Houston special in this regard.

Again, you're once again missing my point. The fact that this has succeeded in places with high density doesn't surprise me at all.

Paris - removing a highway blocking access to the Seine.

New York - removed a highway blocking the waterfront.

San Francisco - removed a highway blocking the waterfront.

Seoul - restored an urban river and created a park in a city that desperately in need of park space.

These are all cities that had a high level of density already. Creating open space is desirable in each of those cities because of the minimal open space that exists. Each of those had a strong urban population before the removal.

The other cities that you've referenced, Milwaukee and Rochester are both shrinking cities that removed unnecessary capacity. Milwaukee removed a functionally useless freeway from a city that has lost approximately 25% of its population over the last 50 years. Rochester similarly has lost 33% of its population since its original highway system was completed.

By means of comparison, Houston's population has grown by 400% over the same time period. I don't think that anyone is likely to seriously argue that the inner loop of Houston has the same appeal as living in Manhattan, San Francisco, or Paris, so yes, I do think that it's reasonable to question whether Houston would have the same results as those other cities if we removed capacity from the freeways.

Houston has a much more decentralized job market than the cities that you referenced. Many companies choose to locate in the periphery today. I'm not arguing that removing capacity from downtown is going to cause gridlock, I'm just stating that it will be another reason for companies to consider following the example of Exxon rather than the example of Chevron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you're once again missing my point. The fact that this has succeeded in places with high density doesn't surprise me at all.

Paris - removing a highway blocking access to the Seine.

New York - removed a highway blocking the waterfront.

San Francisco - removed a highway blocking the waterfront.

Seoul - restored an urban river and created a park in a city that desperately in need of park space.

These are all cities that had a high level of density already. Creating open space is desirable in each of those cities because of the minimal open space that exists. Each of those had a strong urban population before the removal.

The other cities that you've referenced, Milwaukee and Rochester are both shrinking cities that removed unnecessary capacity. Milwaukee removed a functionally useless freeway from a city that has lost approximately 25% of its population over the last 50 years. Rochester similarly has lost 33% of its population since its original highway system was completed.

By means of comparison, Houston's population has grown by 400% over the same time period. I don't think that anyone is likely to seriously argue that the inner loop of Houston has the same appeal as living in Manhattan, San Francisco, or Paris, so yes, I do think that it's reasonable to question whether Houston would have the same results as those other cities if we removed capacity from the freeways.

Houston has a much more decentralized job market than the cities that you referenced. Many companies choose to locate in the periphery today. I'm not arguing that removing capacity from downtown is going to cause gridlock, I'm just stating that it will be another reason for companies to consider following the example of Exxon rather than the example of Chevron.

 

What about New Oreans planning to remove the Claiborne Expressway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about New Oreans planning to remove the Claiborne Expressway?

You mean New Orleans whose population was 627k in 1960 and is currently estimated at 369k?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean New Orleans whose population was 627k in 1960 and is currently estimated at 369k?

 

Again, how would removing 45, 59 and 10 along downtown actually affect the companies in downtown? People that are strictly coming in and out of downtown would not be affected because they already use those exit ramps. Also, removal of freeways which are barriers would help street life which would cut off the barrier between EaDO and midtown to downtown, which could spur more residential developments as well. If the companies left from downtown, I think it would be for reasons besides the removal of freeways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me how it would be more difficult to get in and out of downtown. From 45 north and south, 59 north and south, 10 east and west, there already are ramps to get in and out of downtown. The only difference this would make would be for people who are cutting through downtown.

 

Right, let's remove I-10 through downtown. Oh, that's right, I-10 doesn't go through Downtown. It's also the main East-West freeway across the Southern United States, carrying large amounts of truck traffic and other long distance vehicles. are you really suggesting that those folks should be routed to surface streets? Same thing for 45 and 59, they are major routes to other parts of the country. Not every driver is headed for Downtown, especially outside of rush  hours. And, honestly, traffic here is just not that bad, although I would not want to see it routed on surface streets with signals. That's how it worked 50 years ago, and traffic sucked, especially if you were trying to get through Houston to go somewhere else.

Edited by Ross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, how would removing 45, 59 and 10 along downtown actually affect the companies in downtown? People that are strictly coming in and out of downtown would not be affected because they already use those exit ramps. Also, removal of freeways which are barriers would help street life which would cut off the barrier between EaDO and midtown to downtown, which could spur more residential developments as well. If the companies left from downtown, I think it would be for reasons besides the removal of freeways.

I think that maybe I need to understand exactly what you're proposing before I comment further. It sounds like you're suggesting that 10, 45, and 59 all run up to the edge of downtown, and then, do what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that maybe I need to understand exactly what you're proposing before I comment further. It sounds like you're suggesting that 10, 45, and 59 all run up to the edge of downtown, and then, do what?

 

Take the ramps into downtown, and then back out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, let's remove I-10 through downtown. Oh, that's right, I-10 doesn't go through Downtown. It's also the main East-West freeway across the Southern United States, carrying large amounts of truck traffic and other long distance vehicles. are you really suggesting that those folks should be routed to surface streets? Same thing for 45 and 59, they are major routes to other parts of the country. Not every driver is headed for Downtown, especially outside of rush  hours. And, honestly, traffic here is just not that bad, although I would not want to see it routed on surface streets with signals. That's how it worked 50 years ago, and traffic sucked, especially if you were trying to get through Houston to go somewhere else.

 

Those people could go on 610 and avoid downtown altogether. Also going on boulevards downtown doesn't really add that much time. For example exit st. joseph taking 45 north, and go straight until you hit the ramp. It takes 5 minutes. I think 5 minutes is worth the sacrifice of a lively boulevard in a dreary downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take the ramps into downtown, and then back out.

So you're proposing that I-10 ends on one side of Houston and restarts on the other and that anyone traveling through Houston is routed to the loop and the same for 45 and 59?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that maybe I need to understand exactly what you're proposing before I comment further. It sounds like you're suggesting that 10, 45, and 59 all run up to the edge of downtown, and then, do what?

 

im not speaking for him but i just had an idea spawning from what you said. if you rerouted the traffic on 45 around downtown, to go up 59 and then over along 10 for a stretch you could eliminate the whole i45 overpass around the west side of downtown, opening it up to midtown and the north west. 59 is submerged along a small part of its stretch past downtown, when your driving past the Toyota Center. they could continue that trench past the GRB and Minute Maid, and build park space over the highway connecting the East End with downtown. it would function like the downtown connector in Atlanta, but without splitting downtown in half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're proposing that I-10 ends on one side of Houston and restarts on the other and that anyone traveling through Houston is routed to the loop and the same for 45 and 59?

 

Yes

im not speaking for him but i just had an idea spawning from what you said. if you rerouted the traffic on 45 around downtown, to go up 59 and then over along 10 for a stretch you could eliminate the whole i45 overpass around the west side of downtown, opening it up to midtown and the north west. 59 is submerged along a small part of its stretch past downtown, when your driving past the Toyota Center. they could continue that trench past the GRB and Minute Maid, and build park space over the highway connecting the East End with downtown. it would function like the downtown connector in Atlanta, but without splitting downtown in half.

 

That's reasonable too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

I'm kind of frightened that you don't recognize that is unworkable. Frightened, but not necessarily surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not speaking for him but i just had an idea spawning from what you said. if you rerouted the traffic on 45 around downtown, to go up 59 and then over along 10 for a stretch you could eliminate the whole i45 overpass around the west side of downtown, opening it up to midtown and the north west. 59 is submerged along a small part of its stretch past downtown, when your driving past the Toyota Center. they could continue that trench past the GRB and Minute Maid, and build park space over the highway connecting the East End with downtown. it would function like the downtown connector in Atlanta, but without splitting downtown in half.

Interesting concept, but would require an awful lot of study. The problem is that the highways that we are talking about (I-10 in particular) are major arterials for the movement of freight in the US. Projections call for 53 million tons of freight to move through the Houston area annually by 2035. It's kind of important to consider where that's going to go.

I agree that it's less than optimal to have it go through downtown, but how it is moved needs to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of frightened that you don't recognize that is unworkable. Frightened, but not necessarily surprised.

 

Like I said I've seen it work in other cities. A boulevard is a catalyst for street life. It's not unworkable. I posted numerous studies and facts from experts saying how this actually REDUCES traffic. I think for downtown to have a future it would be good, because right now 59 and 45 particularly are barriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said I've seen it work in other cities. A boulevard is a catalyst for street life. It's not unworkable. I posted numerous studies and facts from experts saying how this actually REDUCES traffic. I think for downtown to have a future it would be good, because right now 59 and 45 particularly are barriers.

I-45 and I-10 are major freight arterials for the US and in particular for the Port of Houston which is a major engine of the economy of the region. Sorry if I'm not "thinking out of the box" enough for you, but I don't find routing 53 million tons of freight onto the loop or surface streets to be a workable solution.

Edited by livincinco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I-45 and I-10 are major freight arterials for the US and in particular for the Port of Houston which is a major engine of the economy of the region. Sorry if I'm not "thinking out of the box" enough for you, but I don't find routing 53 million tons of freight onto the loop or surface streets to be a workable solution.

So freight > street life, people, quality of life. Got it. Screw people everything is just about $$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So freight > street life, people, quality of life. Got it. Screw people everything is just about $$$

The gross area product of the Houston region was $421B in 2011. The economic impact of the Port of Houston was $179B and it is estimated that 1.1 million jobs in the state of Texas are impacted by the economic activity of the port. Do you think that harming the competitiveness of the port might harm the quality of life of a couple of people?

Yes, I consider the competitiveness of the port more important than the quality of street life in Midtown.

Welcome to the real world.

http://www.colliers.com/~/media/files/marketresearch/unitedstates/markets/texas/houston/2012/2012_houston_economic_outlook.ashx

Edited by livincinco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those people could go on 610 and avoid downtown altogether. Also going on boulevards downtown doesn't really add that much time. For example exit st. joseph taking 45 north, and go straight until you hit the ramp. It takes 5 minutes. I think 5 minutes is worth the sacrifice of a lively boulevard in a dreary downtown.

 

So, you want to spend a ton more money to add 3 extra lanes to 610 to carry the through traffic? And, you are utterly, and completely clueless about taking surface streets to get through town. You've never done it, or you wouldn't be saying that. I remember when there were no freeways through downtown, and we had to take surface streets. It took over an hour just to go through town.

 

You cannot name a city where a major cross country highway has been successfully removed in favor of a boulevard.

 

In the real world, taking the traffic off 45 and routing it on to St. Joseph Parkway results in giant traffic backups at every light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gross area product of the Houston region was $421B in 2011. The economic impact of the Port of Houston was $179B and it is estimated that 1.1 million jobs in the state of Texas are impacted by the economic activity of the port. Do you think that harming the competitiveness of the port might harm the quality of life of a couple of people?

Yes, I consider the competitiveness of the port more important than the quality of street life in Midtown.

Welcome to the real world.

http://www.colliers.com/~/media/files/marketresearch/unitedstates/markets/texas/houston/2012/2012_houston_economic_outlook.ashx

You sound like Robert Moses when he tried to overpower normal people like Jane Jacobs. Guess what, neighborhoods matter, and Jacobs won the fight. You probably would've wanted freeways going through manhattan in the interests of freight and cars. But it didn't happen that way, and New York has most of the fascinating neighborhoods in the country because people cared more about their neighborhoods than cars and 18 wheelers. Guess what the most interesting part of Houston is? midtown, because it's walkable and lively. knocking down 45 would make it even better. I think freight still finds a way to get where it needs to go. If it has to go around on 610, oh well. Isn't 610 on the way to the port of houston anyway? If you're going to sell your soul for money, well what can I say to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably took surface streets through town in Bermuda on one of those 98 degree 100% humidity days that never happened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound like Robert Moses when he tried to overpower normal people like Jane Jacobs. Guess what, neighborhoods matter, and Jacobs won the fight. You probably would've wanted freeways going through manhattan in the interests of freight and cars. But it didn't happen that way, and New York has most of the fascinating neighborhoods in the country because people cared more about their neighborhoods than cars and 18 wheelers. Guess what the most interesting part of Houston is? midtown, because it's walkable and lively. knocking down 45 would make it even better. I think freight still finds a way to get where it needs to go. If it has to go around on 610, oh well. Isn't 610 on the way to the port of houston anyway? If you're going to sell your soul for money, well what can I say to that.

I'm going to go sit by my pool now. It's been nice chatting with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you want to spend a ton more money to add 3 extra lanes to 610 to carry the through traffic? And, you are utterly, and completely clueless about taking surface streets to get through town. You've never done it, or you wouldn't be saying that. I remember when there were no freeways through downtown, and we had to take surface streets. It took over an hour just to go through town.

You cannot name a city where a major cross country highway has been successfully removed in favor of a boulevard.

In the real world, taking the traffic off 45 and routing it on to St. Joseph Parkway results in giant traffic backups at every light.

I have taken surface streets many times to go through downtown actually. There are a number of streets parallel to st. Joseph that one can go on as well. As I've posted earlier the traffic actually lessens when you reduce capacity. What do you not understand about that? And the Claiborne expressway will be removed soon. Do you know what was there before? A lively African American area of town. But freeways for the most part trampled on the rights of minorities because they had no power or say. But of course who cares now right, as long as we have our freeways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably took surface streets through town in Bermuda on one of those 98 degree 100% humidity days that never happened.

So are you signing up for 2014 golden gloves? There is a senior division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I do that? The severe beatings have clearly turned your brain to mush.

 

 

EDIT: But I did turn another 15 miles on our beautiful bayou trails this afternoon!   :)

 

Including this bridge...

 

SKDT1004.jpg

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken surface streets many times to go through downtown actually. There are a number of streets parallel to st. Joseph that one can go on as well. As I've posted earlier the traffic actually lessens when you reduce capacity. What do you not understand about that? And the Claiborne expressway will be removed soon. Do you know what was there before? A lively African American area of town. But freeways for the most part trampled on the rights of minorities because they had no power or say. But of course who cares now right, as long as we have our freeways?

 

One of the reasons why freeways were put in their original place is because that's where land value was the cheapest. Not EVERYTHING is a racist plot.

 

The fact is adding capacity adds traffic. I gave various examples all around the country and even in other countries.

It doesn't work in reverse. Oh, and in case you try to stand by the San Francisco example, take this quote, from Wikipedia.

 

The final compromise took a two-way freeway down to ground level at Market Street, where Octavia Boulevard - a widened Octavia Street on the former freeway right-of-way — would continue to Fell Street.[14] The completed project opened on September 9, 2005, and has been seen generally as a success.[9][15] However, the South of Market neighborhood actually got a wider freeway, closer to ground level, in the space where the double-decked road had been.

The Central Freeway was never really utilized to its capacity (it essentially went nowhere).

So freight > street life, people, quality of life. Got it. Screw people everything is just about $$$

Quality of life is kind of irrelevant if your surface streets are constantly pounding with traffic.

I posted numerous studies and facts from experts saying how this actually REDUCES traffic

No, you didn't. The "Freakonomics" people and the other random people/bloggers aren't experts.

If you choose to ignore this, that's on you.

Are you kidding me? You've ignored my posts and most of the others in this forum. You didn't answer those because you couldn't win, and I've lost count (livincinco, Montrose1100, among others). I asked you about highway removals and tunnels and you couldn't give me a straight answer after I asked about two or three times.

Well, I guess I'm done here. You can go back to playing SimCity 4 (where demolishing and rebuilding freeways is quite easy and carries no repercussions, as you've stated), or Wii Sports (where you're an amateur boxing champion), all while staying out of the heat you despise. Have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken surface streets many times to go through downtown actually. There are a number of streets parallel to st. Joseph that one can go on as well. As I've posted earlier the traffic actually lessens when you reduce capacity. What do you not understand about that? And the Claiborne expressway will be removed soon. Do you know what was there before? A lively African American area of town. But freeways for the most part trampled on the rights of minorities because they had no power or say. But of course who cares now right, as long as we have our freeways?

 

You've never taken Houston surface streets when there was no freeway to carry the rest of the traffic, and have no idea what driving was like in that situation.

 

I couldn't care less about New Orleans. It's a penny ante town with a bleak future. I don't even like to visit there. Fortunately, the last of my relatives to live there died in 1893.

 

Removing freeways isn't going to bring back the neighborhoods that were there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound like Robert Moses when he tried to overpower normal people like Jane Jacobs. Guess what, neighborhoods matter, and Jacobs won the fight. You probably would've wanted freeways going through manhattan in the interests of freight and cars. But it didn't happen that way, and New York has most of the fascinating neighborhoods in the country because people cared more about their neighborhoods than cars and 18 wheelers. Guess what the most interesting part of Houston is? midtown, because it's walkable and lively. knocking down 45 would make it even better. I think freight still finds a way to get where it needs to go. If it has to go around on 610, oh well. Isn't 610 on the way to the port of houston anyway? If you're going to sell your soul for money, well what can I say to that.

 

NYC is not Houston. As many have mentioned, the geographical and historic constraints and drivers are much different.

 

45 doesn't go through Midtown, it's more the dividing line between Downtown and Midtown.

 

Midtown isn't that lively. We lived there for 5+ years, and moved to the Greater Heights area for more room, better shopping, better schools, and fewer street people. Midtown is not a place to raise a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound like Robert Moses when he tried to overpower normal people like Jane Jacobs. Guess what, neighborhoods matter, and Jacobs won the fight. You probably would've wanted freeways going through manhattan in the interests of freight and cars. But it didn't happen that way, and New York has most of the fascinating neighborhoods in the country because people cared more about their neighborhoods than cars and 18 wheelers. Guess what the most interesting part of Houston is? midtown, because it's walkable and lively. knocking down 45 would make it even better. I think freight still finds a way to get where it needs to go. If it has to go around on 610, oh well. Isn't 610 on the way to the port of houston anyway? If you're going to sell your soul for money, well what can I say to that.

This thread just keeps getting funnier and funnier. You're talking about Manhattan as an example of NOT selling their soul for money. Manhattan which exists in its current form only because of the parasitic financial industry that is pretty openly known to be willing to do anything to increase their profits?

You are so entertaining!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYC is not Houston. As many have mentioned, the geographical and historic constraints and drivers are much different.

45 doesn't go through Midtown, it's more the dividing line between Downtown and Midtown.

Midtown isn't that lively. We lived there for 5+ years, and moved to the Greater Heights area for more room, better shopping, better schools, and fewer street people. Midtown is not a place to raise a child.

That's the point. 45 divides midtown and downtown. Removing the pierce elevated would get rid of the division.

Midtown IS lively. Probably the most lively neighborhood in houston. But I agree probably not the best place to raise a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point. 45 divides midtown and downtown. Removing the pierce elevated would get rid of the division.

Midtown IS lively. Probably the most lively neighborhood in houston. But I agree probably not the best place to raise a child.

 

im starting to like the idea i wrote up more and more about diverting the 45 traffic around downtown by means of a submerged 59 park/tunnel, cutting over to i10W for a minute before routing back north on 45 again. like livincinco said, it would be complicated, but im sure they could figure out a way to have some dedicated 45 main lanes that travel along those corridors without having to make a bunch of exits changing highways in both directions. IMO there really isnt much of a point in having 45 go around downtown. they are trying to figure out a way to reroute traffic around downtown as we speak. unfortunately im pretty sure the design they are looking at involves using the existing elevated highways and routing all of the traffic in a one directional loop around downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons why freeways were put in their original place is because that's where land value was the cheapest. Not EVERYTHING is a racist plot.

It doesn't work in reverse. Oh, and in case you try to stand by the San Francisco example, take this quote, from Wikipedia.

The Central Freeway was never really utilized to its capacity (it essentially went nowhere).

Quality of life is kind of irrelevant if your surface streets are constantly pounding with traffic.

No, you didn't. The "Freakonomics" people and the other random people/bloggers aren't experts.

Are you kidding me? You've ignored my posts and most of the others in this forum. You didn't answer those because you couldn't win, and I've lost count (livincinco, Montrose1100, among others). I asked you about highway removals and tunnels and you couldn't give me a straight answer after I asked about two or three times.

Well, I guess I'm done here. You can go back to playing SimCity 4 (where demolishing and rebuilding freeways is quite easy and carries no repercussions, as you've stated), or Wii Sports (where you're an amateur boxing champion), all while staying out of the heat you despise. Have fun!

Right. The guys who were quoted in the articles are nobodies.

Tom Radulovich, president of board of directors of BART

Don Bergstrom, Portland traffic engineer

California department of transportation

San Francisco municipal transportation agency

Sam Schwartz, chief engineer NYCDOT

And the study written by two professors and a research fellow that analyzed SEVENTY cases of reduced road capacity, which states "traffic problems are usually far less serious that predicted,” and “widespread, long-term disruption is hardly ever reported.”

But hey we have redscare, livincinco and Ross!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the study written by two professors and a research fellow that analyzed SEVENTY cases of reduced road capacity, which states "traffic problems are usually far less serious that predicted,” and “widespread, long-term disruption is hardly ever reported.”

 

 

But how many freeway removals involved roads that feed hundreds of thousands of commuters into a central business district and serve as major cross country routes? Do we want Houston to be the outlier that has traffic problems far more serious than predicted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me how it would be more difficult to get in and out of downtown. From 45 north and south, 59 north and south, 10 east and west, there already are ramps to get in and out of downtown. The only difference this would make would be for people who are cutting through downtown.

so you're proposing to put all these additional people on downtown streets and that doesn't make it more difficult to get in and out of downtown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midtown IS lively. Probably the most lively neighborhood in houston. But I agree probably not the best place to raise a child.

trying going down san jac on sunday.....you'll get a nice "show"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. The guys who were quoted in the articles are nobodies.

Tom Radulovich, president of board of directors of BART

Don Bergstrom, Portland traffic engineer

California department of transportation

San Francisco municipal transportation agency

Sam Schwartz, chief engineer NYCDOT

 

 
OK, find me where any of them were in favor of downtown highway removal, not specific cases. No? I thought so.
 

And the study written by two professors and a research fellow that analyzed SEVENTY cases of reduced road capacity, which states "traffic problems are usually far less serious that predicted,” and “widespread, long-term disruption is hardly ever reported.”

 
Those aren't freeway removal projects, though. It's often a case of taking a narrow city street, four lanes in each direction, no turn lane, and turning it into two lanes, bike lanes, and a left hand turn lane. Do you have a link to the abstract? Were they in cities with shrinking or growing population? Was there a recent alternative built to render the old road obsolete? 
 
I'm not asking you to find were they advocated removing freeways in cities, because they probably didn't. Wouldn't want to burden you. 
 
Oh, and here's one more thing.
 
This is Interstate 78 in New Jersey heading into Holland Tunnel to exit at New York City. It's one of the few places where there is a gap in the Interstate Highway System. (picture from Wikipedia)
I-78_Feeding_Holland_Tunnel_jeh.jpg
 
And that's just a stub heading into New York, not cross traffic. All that car exhaust, all that noise, and probably a total pain just to cross a street...yessir, that's going to make our neighborhoods great and walkable.
Edited by IronTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how many freeway removals involved roads that feed hundreds of thousands of commuters into a central business district and serve as major cross country routes? Do we want Houston to be the outlier that has traffic problems far more serious than predicted?

 

Fear mongering, great tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fear mongering, great tactic.

 

So basically advocating that removing freeways in any situation results in negligible differences in traffic.  Can I assume that you then further believe that removing all freeways would result in no incremental traffic gain and if not, please explain your rationale for determing where the tipping point occurs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how many freeway removals involved roads that feed hundreds of thousands of commuters into a central business district and serve as major cross country routes? Do we want Houston to be the outlier that has traffic problems far more serious than predicted?

 

http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/disappearing-traffic/resources/disappearing-traffic/?

 

http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/SmartMobilityReport.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The first link was about bridge closures--many of them temporary. If you close a few lanes of a simple bridge, people will find alternative routes. A total and permanent closure of a major freeway that carries not only local but cross country traffic is not going to be anywhere close.

 

For the last four pages, you've pointed at Milwaukee, San Francisco, and Portland (not to forget Seoul, too) and blubbered about how they're no different than highways that go through downtown Houston, which is completely false.

 

And unsurprisingly, you ignored my last post because you couldn't come up with a way to retort it with links that you pulled from Google.

Edited by IronTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first link was about bridge closures--many of them temporary. If you close a few lanes of a simple bridge, people will find alternative routes. A total and permanent closure of a major freeway that carries not only local but cross country traffic is not going to be anywhere close.

 

For the last four pages, you've pointed at Milwaukee, San Francisco, and Portland (not to forget Seoul, too) and blubbered about how they're no different than highways that go through downtown Houston, which is completely false.

 

And unsurprisingly, you ignored my last post because you couldn't come up with a way to retort it with links that you pulled from Google.

 

Would you rather that freeways barge through manhattan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...