More Congestion On Interstate-10

[bobruss]

Speaking of Culberson and his efforts to derail the University Line. His pet project of I-10 which was rebuilt with  close to 20 lanes has now a 20 minute longer commute than three years ago. Just saying pouring more concrete and widening freeways don't solve commute problems and he was an idiot to think it would be the answer to the problem.

Spent over three billion dollars so developers out west could sell more tract homes, and suggest that with his new freeway, life would be a breeze, and so would the commute. He should stick to things he understands.

[nativehoustonion]

You are so right.

[King Owl]

some of you guys are hilarious -- do you really think all those skyscrapers that everyone here gets excited about would be built out I-10 if the freeway were still 3 lanes in each direction?  The answer is not a chance.

 

Congestion would have continued to be absurd if it wasn't widened.  The area is growing.

[Naviguessor]

Going to be absured again, without a doubt.  Guess we should deck-it now. 

[jgriff]

Speaking of Culberson and his efforts to derail the University Line. His pet project of I-10 which was rebuilt with  close to 20 lanes has now a 20 minute longer commute than three years ago. Just saying pouring more concrete and widening freeways don't solve commute problems and he was an idiot to think it would be the answer to the problem.

Spent over three billion dollars so developers out west could sell more tract homes, and suggest that with his new freeway, life would be a breeze, and so would the commute. He should stick to things he understands.

 

I-10 carries more cars now. That was the point.

 

[Montrose1100]

some of you guys are hilarious -- do you really think all those skyscrapers that everyone here gets excited about would be built out I-10 if the freeway were still 3 lanes in each direction?  The answer is not a chance.

 

Congestion would have continued to be absurd if it wasn't widened.  The area is growing.

No one here gets excited about those buildings...

[cloud713]

lol, the Energy Corridor is impressive when driving in from the west, but most of us wish they were in a more urban part of town and were taller buildings, not sprawled campuses.

[bobruss]

No, the point was to make the drive time shorter. That's my point. All of those buildings built out there didn't need to go there. We didn't need to make Houston and San Antonio connect. Lets leave some fields for the migrating birds, the runoff that used to be collected on the Katy prairie and stop all of this suburban sprawl. Downtown Houston is the engine and magnet that makes all of these suburban satellite communities even have an opportunity for existence. Houston's port, airports, petrochemical industry, medical center and all of its infrastructure are the keys to what sells the region.

Culberson even had an opportunity to add a commuter line down the middle of the freeway but he said I'll be damned if I'm going to hold up this expansion for a rail line. Just think if those rail cars full of people were traveling down I-10 every day what a difference it would have made.

 

[LTAWACS]

Culberson and astounding lack of vision have done more harm than good.

And whoever said we don't get excited about those buildings is spot on.

[jgriff]

No, the point was to make the drive time shorter. That's my point. All of those buildings built out there didn't need to go there. We didn't need to make Houston and San Antonio connect. Lets leave some fields for the migrating birds, the runoff that used to be collected on the Katy prairie and stop all of this suburban sprawl. Downtown Houston is the engine and magnet that makes all of these suburban satellite communities even have an opportunity for existence. Houston's port, airports, petrochemical industry, medical center and all of its infrastructure are the keys to what sells the region.

Culberson even had an opportunity to add a commuter line down the middle of the freeway but he said I'll be damned if I'm going to hold up this expansion for a rail line. Just think if those rail cars full of people were traveling down I-10 every day what a difference it would have made.

 

No, the point was to carry more people.  It's easy to make the drive time shorter... move closer in. Highway expansions allow development where the empty land is so people can have big houses for little money. 

 

I have no desire to live out there but I also don't want to impose my preference on other people.

[bobruss]

Look, I really don't want to be argumentative, but what do they do now. Do they double deck the freeway or add ten more lanes so it can carry more cars. There are solutions (commuter trains), for one that would help take cars off the freeway. We don't need more cars on the freeway. That's counterproductive. Plus it uses a hell of a lot more fossil fuel to run all of those one passenger cars to town.

I could care less about all of the buildings out there. I liked it more when the tallest things on 1-10 past Gessner,  were the grain towers on Brittmore and the other ones in Katy. Are you suggesting that we should be impressed by the plethora of pedestrian new 10 - 20 story towers on I-10.  Like the tower in Memorial city with the Godzilla structure on top. Now that's a sight for sore eyes.

I would prefer to see smart growth and efficient transportation solutions with a high concern for quality of life. The point is that continually adding lanes to a freeway is not a realistic solution and unfortunately the powers that were (Delay/Culberson), weren't very smart when it comes to transportation solutions. If people want to live 40 miles from town and sit in traffic for three hours a day and feel lousy when they get to work or home that's their choice and its fine with me. That's not what I consider a good quality of life decision. Add paying over $3.00 a gallon to make that commute and it seems counterproductive.

 

[jgriff]

Look, I really don't want to be argumentative, but what do they do now. Do they double deck the freeway or add ten more lanes so it can carry more cars. There are solutions (commuter trains), for one that would help take cars off the freeway. We don't need more cars on the freeway. That's counterproductive. Plus it uses a hell of a lot more fossil fuel to run all of those one passenger cars to town.

I could care less about all of the buildings out there. I liked it more when the tallest things on 1-10 past Gessner,  were the grain towers on Brittmore and the other ones in Katy. Are you suggesting that we should be impressed by the plethora of pedestrian new 10 - 20 story towers on I-10.  Like the tower in Memorial city with the Godzilla structure on top. Now that's a sight for sore eyes.

I would prefer to see smart growth and efficient transportation solutions with a high concern for quality of life. The point is that continually adding lanes to a freeway is not a realistic solution and unfortunately the powers that were (Delay/Culberson), weren't very smart when it comes to transportation solutions. If people want to live 40 miles from town and sit in traffic for three hours a day and feel lousy when they get to work or home that's their choice and its fine with me. That's not what I consider a good quality of life decision. Add paying over $3.00 a gallon to make that commute and it seems counterproductive.

 

I'm not impressed by any of the towers on I-10 or downtown. They are buildings put there to serve a purpose other than impressing people. I'm not really concerned with taking cars off the freeway. If cars on the freeway are concerning you there is an easy solution.... stay off of them. That's what I do.

 

Yes, continually adding freeways cannot go on forever. Clearly we were not at the point where we couldn't add any more lanes when the last ones were added. Yes, we can add even more if that's the way we want to go or we can add rail.

 

I don't want to live in the burbs but I understand that there are people who value things differently than I do.I don't really care where other people live. I don't have a need to make them conform to the way I want to live. I don't care if someone wants to spend $3.00 a gallon for gas. I don't have a need to put everything downtown so that someone can be impressed by office towers.

[por favor gracias]

Speaking of Culberson and his efforts to derail the University Line. His pet project of I-10 which was rebuilt with  close to 20 lanes has now a 20 minute longer commute than three years ago. Just saying pouring more concrete and widening freeways don't solve commute problems and he was an idiot to think it would be the answer to the problem.

Spent over three billion dollars so developers out west could sell more tract homes, and suggest that with his new freeway, life would be a breeze, and so would the commute. He should stick to things he understands.

He's either an idiot or he got some healthy kickback money (or both).

[por favor gracias]

I'm not impressed by any of the towers on I-10 or downtown. They are buildings put there to serve a purpose other than impressing people. I'm not really concerned with taking cars off the freeway. If cars on the freeway are concerning you there is an easy solution.... stay off of them. That's what I do.

 

Yes, continually adding freeways cannot go on forever. Clearly we were not at the point where we couldn't add any more lanes when the last ones were added. Yes, we can add even more if that's the way we want to go or we can add rail.

 

I don't want to live in the burbs but I understand that there are people who value things differently than I do.I don't really care where other people live. I don't have a need to make them conform to the way I want to live. I don't care if someone wants to spend $3.00 a gallon for gas. I don't have a need to put everything downtown so that someone can be impressed by office towers.

I hear you on that, but the moment people's "values" or "freedom" infringes on others' quality of life is the moment policy change should come into play. If no one lived further than, say, Hwy 6 (and with similar situations in other cities) ...then there wouldn't be the "need" for destroying the natural habitats we occupy, or the resources we consume to implement/maintain the infrastructure in place, or the commute/travel times that come with that kind of infrastructure, or $3/gallon gas.

 

No way we can keep this up w/o introducing subways/rail for much longer. Just try to make a U-turn at I-10 & Gessner or I-10 & Dairy Ashford around lunch time, and some time during that 10 minutes it takes you to do so, remind yourself how much development is yet to take place out there (and further west than that).

[cloud713]

agreed, the west side needs rail before it chokes on its own traffic.. i wonder if/when they will decide to implement the planned light rail line down the i10 HOT lanes.. i suspect it will be hard for HCTRA to give up the money making machine that is the HOT lanes for METRO to come in with rail.

now back on topic. are there any start dates? seems like i saw a delivery date for the second half of 2015 somewhere? is this even one of the vacant apartment buildings or are people still occupying this one Mike Richardson?

[HoustonIsHome]

I've said it already and I'll say it again, traffic alone won't get drivers unto rail.

A one-two punch is needed.

We need to stop making parking so convenient in the core.

1. Go easy on parking requirements. We Don't need these huge parking structures on new condos in the core.

2. 45, 59/69 and 288 should be like 290 and dead end at 610. Hardy can stay.

3. Improve rail and bus coverage in the core.

4. Commuter rail along each major corridor

5. Rail passes should be more accessible and transferable to other transit options. Its stupid that rail passes don't transfer to buses.

Anyway, it doesn't matter how many miles of rail you put in, it won't matter unless its more expensive to drive. Ask Dallas. They have a million and three miles of rail but ridership fluctuates with gas prices

[rechlin]

This is all seriously off topic and probably should be moved into a new thread, but to address some points of the above two comments:

1. HOT lanes don't make METRO much money. I'd guess no more than a few million dollars or so a year with all roads operational. Compared to what it probably cost them to toll-enable the lanes, I don't think they are in it for the money. Therefore I don't see that being an issue. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the whole cost of rail, too.

2. Everyone who rides the METRO regularly uses Q cards. Those have free transfers between rail and buses.

[ig2ba]

No one here gets excited about those buildings...

 

You are right. They usually are just cynical and tell everyone how they could've designed the buildings better.

[luciaphile]

On a thread about roadbuilding (or not) I don't find bobruss and por favor gracias's mild invocation of nature, of what exists and must give way before the roads and attendant sprawl, to be particularly more off topic than the new glass office buildings on I-10. But I'll hand it to ya, the stamina y'all bring to parsing those buildings is impressive.

[ig2ba]

...

2. 45, 59/69 and 288 should be like 290 and dead end at 610. Hardy can stay.

 

...

Anyway, it doesn't matter how many miles of rail you put in, it won't matter unless its more expensive to drive. Ask Dallas. They have a million and three miles of rail but ridership fluctuates with gas prices

 

Is your intent here to kill downtown rather than to build it up? At this stage in Houston's development, making downtown inaccessible to the average worker will mean more office buildings in the suburbs.

 

And this approach of dead-ending all freeways at 610 (assuming you meant to include I-10 too) has been tried by exactly zero cities in North America. All have freeways which pass by or dead-end relatively close to the CBD (like Lincoln Tunnel and 495 to Midtown or numerous bridges tunnels to Wall Street; or the FDR, etc.). Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, and even Paris have freeways closer to their core than this crazy proposal.

 

Seriously, it's too easy to get stuck in the Inner Loop echo chamber.

[mfastx]

Culberson didn't lobby so hard for those I-10 funds to make commute time shorter, or improve regional transportation at all.  His motive is money, and that's where the money was. 

 

This is why all the freeways are being built to nowhere, because developers have snatched up those lands. 

 

It's not about good regional transportation solutions, not about improving commute times, it's about money.

[HoustonIsHome]

This is all seriously off topic and probably should be moved into a new thread, but to address some points of the above two comments:

2. Everyone who rides the METRO regularly uses Q cards. Those have free transfers between rail and buses.

Duh, any fool knows that. But you still miss the point. RAIL TICKETS DONT TRANSFER TO BUSES!!!!!!!!

Further you can't buy no darn Q card at stations. You get into the city and you better have a bunch of dollar bills and 25c pieces because RAIL TICKETS DONT TRANSFER TO BUSES!!!!!! It's a little stupid to have to find your arse to a grocery store to by a Upass. Every darn station needs to sell tickets that transfer to buses.

[HoustonIsHome]

Is your intent here to kill downtown rather than to build it up? At this stage in Houston's development, making downtown inaccessible to the average worker will mean more office buildings in the suburbs.

And this approach of dead-ending all freeways at 610 (assuming you meant to include I-10 too) has been tried by exactly zero cities in North America. All have freeways which pass by or dead-end relatively close to the CBD (like Lincoln Tunnel and 495 to Midtown or numerous bridges tunnels to Wall Street; or the FDR, etc.). Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, and even Paris have freeways closer to their core than this crazy proposal.

Seriously, it's too easy to get stuck in the Inner Loop echo chamber.

Inaccessible? Almost Every darn Houston arterial street is like a freeway. You don't know Houston.

Running the highways to circle the city instead of cut through it will enhance it, but not kill it.

[IronTiger]

Culberson didn't lobby so hard for those I-10 funds to make commute time shorter, or improve regional transportation at all.  His motive is money, and that's where the money was. 

 

This is why all the freeways are being built to nowhere, because developers have snatched up those lands. 

 

It's not about good regional transportation solutions, not about improving commute times, it's about money.

Well, Katy isn't exactly "nowhere", even 10 years ago before construction began (and points along Katy Freeway). As for Culberson's motivation, do you actually have real proof that he wanted Katy Freeway to be widened solely for money, or is that just rhetoric? Furthermore, even if Culberson was in cahoots with the developers, that's hardly a unique situation. You think that palms weren't being greased when they built the rail down Main and other streets?

[Nate99]

Everyone's preferences are on a continuum, so what seems absurd to some seems reasonable to others. 

 

I think there is an equilibrium point with commute times. Even when you go to places with large scale heavy rail, people will still go 90 minutes door to door. I don't think you will ever alleviate that pain. 

 

The "problem" with I-10 is that you have desirable places to live and go to from (nearly) Brookshire to downtown, so it is going to be bad, always, often in both directions. The expansion brought more cars to the area, but that was kind of the idea as I see it.

 

If you have a big city without traffic, you probably have a larger problem than traffic ever was.  

[Slick Vik]

Is your intent here to kill downtown rather than to build it up? At this stage in Houston's development, making downtown inaccessible to the average worker will mean more office buildings in the suburbs.

 

And this approach of dead-ending all freeways at 610 (assuming you meant to include I-10 too) has been tried by exactly zero cities in North America. All have freeways which pass by or dead-end relatively close to the CBD (like Lincoln Tunnel and 495 to Midtown or numerous bridges tunnels to Wall Street; or the FDR, etc.). Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, and even Paris have freeways closer to their core than this crazy proposal.

 

Seriously, it's too easy to get stuck in the Inner Loop echo chamber.

 

Vancouver says hello

[Slick Vik]

Is your intent here to kill downtown rather than to build it up? At this stage in Houston's development, making downtown inaccessible to the average worker will mean more office buildings in the suburbs.

 

And this approach of dead-ending all freeways at 610 (assuming you meant to include I-10 too) has been tried by exactly zero cities in North America. All have freeways which pass by or dead-end relatively close to the CBD (like Lincoln Tunnel and 495 to Midtown or numerous bridges tunnels to Wall Street; or the FDR, etc.). Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, and even Paris have freeways closer to their core than this crazy proposal.

 

Seriously, it's too easy to get stuck in the Inner Loop echo chamber.

 

I don't think it's crazy. If there were commuter rails that came into town it would be very feasible actually.

Look, I really don't want to be argumentative, but what do they do now. Do they double deck the freeway or add ten more lanes so it can carry more cars. There are solutions (commuter trains), for one that would help take cars off the freeway. We don't need more cars on the freeway. That's counterproductive. Plus it uses a hell of a lot more fossil fuel to run all of those one passenger cars to town.

I could care less about all of the buildings out there. I liked it more when the tallest things on 1-10 past Gessner,  were the grain towers on Brittmore and the other ones in Katy. Are you suggesting that we should be impressed by the plethora of pedestrian new 10 - 20 story towers on I-10.  Like the tower in Memorial city with the Godzilla structure on top. Now that's a sight for sore eyes.

I would prefer to see smart growth and efficient transportation solutions with a high concern for quality of life. The point is that continually adding lanes to a freeway is not a realistic solution and unfortunately the powers that were (Delay/Culberson), weren't very smart when it comes to transportation solutions. If people want to live 40 miles from town and sit in traffic for three hours a day and feel lousy when they get to work or home that's their choice and its fine with me. That's not what I consider a good quality of life decision. Add paying over $3.00 a gallon to make that commute and it seems counterproductive.

 

On 45 TXDOT is seriously considering double decking to add more lanes. These people are nutjobs.

Inaccessible? Almost Every darn Houston arterial street is like a freeway. You don't know Houston.

Running the highways to circle the city instead of cut through it will enhance it, but kill it.

 

I don't think so.

Well, Katy isn't exactly "nowhere", even 10 years ago before construction began (and points along Katy Freeway). As for Culberson's motivation, do you actually have real proof that he wanted Katy Freeway to be widened solely for money, or is that just rhetoric? Furthermore, even if Culberson was in cahoots with the developers, that's hardly a unique situation. You think that palms weren't being greased when they built the rail down Main and other streets?

 

Katy is pretty much nowhere, like the Woodlands. Justifying corruption with speculation of other corruption doesn't really solve any argument either.

[Slick Vik]

I hear you on that, but the moment people's "values" or "freedom" infringes on others' quality of life is the moment policy change should come into play. If no one lived further than, say, Hwy 6 (and with similar situations in other cities) ...then there wouldn't be the "need" for destroying the natural habitats we occupy, or the resources we consume to implement/maintain the infrastructure in place, or the commute/travel times that come with that kind of infrastructure, or $3/gallon gas.

 

No way we can keep this up w/o introducing subways/rail for much longer. Just try to make a U-turn at I-10 & Gessner or I-10 & Dairy Ashford around lunch time, and some time during that 10 minutes it takes you to do so, remind yourself how much development is yet to take place out there (and further west than that).

 

It's all corruption: developers, politicians, construction, concrete, and gullible people who think having a giant house in the middle of nowhere is the american dream. But the basis of all this is cheap gas, once that is gone then the idea of suburbia will collapse in Houston unless there are serious investments in rail.

[IronTiger]

Vancouver says hello

Yeah, a city with proportionally worse traffic than other cities of similar size.

On 45 TXDOT is seriously considering double decking to add more lanes. These people are nutjobs.

How are they "nutjobs"? Frankly, people like you and David should be applauding the fact that it means that there'll be less demolition for right of way.

Katy is pretty much nowhere, like the Woodlands.

Remember the "Inner Loop echo chamber" statement above?

Justifying corruption with speculation of other corruption doesn't really solve any argument either.

The original argument was speculative anyway. Besides, if you believe the "other side" is corrupt and evil while your side is Honest and True, then you're deluding yourself (this goes for any political orientation)

But the basis of all this is cheap gas, once that is gone then the idea of suburbia will collapse in Houston unless there are serious investments in rail.

We are not going to get involved in this discussion again.

[ig2ba]

Vancouver says hello

 

Well, I guess that's better than "DERP". Notice how your example is the most expensive city in North America. Houston, on the other hand, has the highest COL-adjusted after tax income in the United States, well, probably in the world actually. Vancouver is actually one of the poorest cities in Canada in terms of median family income. Its family income is not even as high as Houston's per capita, and that's before accounting for their out of control housing costs.

 

They have natural and man-made growth boundaries that Houston does not have and most cities in the world don't have.

 

They are continuing to create new or expand 3 freeways at the moment. They of course expanded the limited access road in Stanley Park in recent years. No word of any freeways being torn down there, unlike the Houston proposal.

 

Oh, and even there, two freeways are closer to the middle of downtown than the closest freeway (North Loop) would be in the Houston proposal. So somehow, the proposal is even more extreme than the extreme example we can find. Niiiiice. Let's do that.