More Congestion On Interstate-10

[por favor gracias]

Anyone getting a new house with a mortgage in a crowded city would pay more. That would continue forever.

 

Make more posts like this. They are easier to respond to.

We would all pay more for the roads, gas and services to be extended out 30 to 50 miles in every direction.

[ig2ba]

Just to be clear, why do oil companies (amongst others) "feel the need" to bribe politicians?

 

Whom are you quoting? The only one that I saw who used those words is you.

[ig2ba]

We would all pay more for the roads, gas and services to be extended out 30 to 50 miles in every direction.

 

Even car-dependent cities spend more on housing than on transportation. In denser, more compact cities, the cost of housing increase is not offset by a drop in transportation expenses.

[IronTiger]

IronTiger, my quote:

"No one is saying that freeway construction is always corrupt, or that rail projects are always squeaky clean. Look in the mirror, man."

That was in response to ig2ba's quote:

"Proof? ____ that! Freeway construction is always corrupt. How can it not be? Rail projects are always squeaky clean. Whenever the most logical explanation for unfavorable (to you) results is incompetence or on people having different preferences, you are usually wrong. It is corruption and evil intent!"

Not sure what's "unclear" about what I wrote there.

I created a thread responding to the allegations that corruption exists everywhere and that while not denying that Culberson worked with developers on Interstate 10, suggested that the light rail line had some "palms greased" on it. This was replied with sarcasm about "freeway construction is always corrupt" and "rail projects are always squeaky clean" which you tended to miss.

If you want to think this is the result of "incompetence," feel free...but I don't appreciate it when people try to patronize me or marginalize my point with the tiresome "paranoid, conspiracy" BS. Like I said earlier, two pigeons blowing each other is technically a "conspiracy." If you don't think there are conspiracies going on all the time when it comes to business and making money, then I have some oceanfront property in Tomball I'd like to sell you.

I wasn't trying to marginalize you, but cities aren't made out of money or else we would have all-new roads and sidewalks everywhere. Houston expanded fast, and they created relatively cheap wide concrete roads (designed for further expansion) down major corridors. Unfortunately, years of heavy traffic have taken their toll, creating rough, pot-holed roads. When money's available, they tend to allocate it to newer things and newer developments because that's where the money is. Now if you want to call "Corruption" and "Conspiracy", then that's fine, but it just tends to be the way things work...

[por favor gracias]

Whom are you quoting? The only one that I saw who used those words is you.

Who said I was "quoting" anyone? Why don't you just answer the question?

[por favor gracias]

Even car-dependent cities spend more on housing than on transportation. In denser, more compact cities, the cost of housing increase is not offset by a drop in transportation expenses.

The cost of housing isn't solely dependent on how compact a city is. NYC, SF, WAS, CHI, LA, etc. are "more expensive than Houston" for a variety of reasons...location, quality of life, etc. Los Angeles is spread out also, but the average home prices there are also double Houston's.

[IronTiger]

The cost of housing isn't solely dependent on how compact a city is. NYC, SF, WAS, CHI, LA, etc. are "more expensive than Houston" for a variety of reasons...location, quality of life, etc. Los Angeles is spread out also, but the average home prices there are also double Houston's.

Does LA really have better "location" and "quality of life" than Houston? That's subjective, but if we were justifying price of living, it's not "worth" twice the cost.

[ig2ba]

Who said I was "quoting" anyone? Why don't you just answer the question?

 

I still don't understand your question. If the quotation marks aren't quoting someone, are they irony or something? I would like to cooperate but don't know...

[por favor gracias]

I created a thread responding to the allegations that corruption exists everywhere and that while not denying that Culberson worked with developers on Interstate 10, suggested that the light rail line had some "palms greased" on it. This was replied with sarcasm about "freeway construction is always corrupt" and "rail projects are always squeaky clean" which you tended to miss.

I wasn't trying to marginalize you, but cities aren't made out of money or else we would have all-new roads and sidewalks everywhere. Houston expanded fast, and they created relatively cheap wide concrete roads (designed for further expansion) down major corridors. Unfortunately, years of heavy traffic have taken their toll, creating rough, pot-holed roads. When money's available, they tend to allocate it to newer things and newer developments because that's where the money is. Now if you want to call "Corruption" and "Conspiracy", then that's fine, but it just tends to be the way things work...

I got the sarcasm with the "freeway construction is always corrupt" and "rail projects are always squeaky clean" quotes. That's why I responded the way I did.

 

Houston has expanded very fast, and it could have worked well if planned better. It makes no sense to me to build freeways "and leave room for future expansion." Why not build the final product right off the bat? It would have been MUCH cheaper and more efficient to do it that way. It's a lot like how we do "patch" jobs with potholes. We block off sections of roads for weeks or months at a time, just to pour that sand/gravel BS all over it (and creating a rough bump in the process), leave it like that for a few more weeks or months, and THEN patch up the final product that more often than not isn't in much, if any better shape than the original pothole was in the first place. It's beyond "ridiculous," and I have a hard time believing the "experts" who are making these decisions are this incompetent...especially since it's all modeled on similar patterns of inefficiency whether it's what we build, where we build or how we build it.

 

I'm certainly not calling "corruption" on all, or even many of those involved, but it doesn't take "many" to get results like these. Things "work" both ways..."dirty" and more often than not, "not dirty." That said, the system can be rigged so much (by "conspiracy" or not) that even the "not dirty" parties can get stuck in the mud.

 

Thanks for the feedback!

[por favor gracias]

Does LA really have better "location" and "quality of life" than Houston? That's subjective, but if we were justifying price of living, it's not "worth" twice the cost.

I think the vast majority of people would agree that LA has both a better location and quality of life than Houston. It's certainly more of a destination. Of course, they could use a real mass transit system too. We're going to end up like that if we don't get smart about our growth from here on. 

[por favor gracias]

I still don't understand your question. If the quotation marks aren't quoting someone, are they irony or something? I would like to cooperate but don't know...

That's cool, we all have our ways of writing this stuff. I wasn't directly quoting anyone...I guess I have a Bennett Brauer fetish.

[por favor gracias]

I still don't understand your question. If the quotation marks aren't quoting someone, are they irony or something? I would like to cooperate but don't know...

Oh...my question was why do you think the oil companies (amongst others) lobby politicians?

[IronTiger]

Houston has expanded very fast, and it could have worked well if planned better. It makes no sense to me to build freeways "and leave room for future expansion." Why not build the final product right off the bat? It would have been MUCH cheaper and more efficient to do it that way. It's a lot like how we do "patch" jobs with potholes. We block off sections of roads for weeks or months at a time, just to pour that sand/gravel BS all over it (and creating a rough bump in the process), leave it like that for a few more weeks or months, and THEN patch up the final product that more often than not isn't in much, if any better shape than the original pothole was in the first place. It's beyond "ridiculous," and I have a hard time believing the "experts" who are making these decisions are this incompetent...especially since it's all modeled on similar patterns of inefficiency whether it's what we build, where we build or how we build it.

The "room for future expansion" referred to the roads predominantly between 610 and Beltway 8: including Bellaire, Westheimer, Richmond, and others. Westheimer is eight lanes wide, Bellaire was built with six but reduced to a four (with no left hand turn lanes of any type) and was going through a major expansion on my last two trips to Houston (early March + late August).

Besides, "future expansion" is usually standard procedure. No matter how great something when it is when it's built, it's going to need to be renovated or expanded. Buildings get expanded and renovated. Any structure, as a rule, should last at least 30 years without major renovation or expansion.

I think the vast majority of people would agree that LA has both a better location and quality of life than Houston. It's certainly more of a destination. Of course, they could use a real mass transit system too. We're going to end up like that if we don't get smart about our growth from here on.

Who is "most people"? "Most people" have never lived in LA, only seen it on TV. They probably don't know what Houston is even really like, even.

[ig2ba]

That's cool, we all have our ways of writing this stuff. I wasn't directly quoting anyone...I guess I have a Bennett Brauer fetish.

Exactly. I was going to link to a video of that but decided against it.

 

Oh...my question was why do you think the oil companies (amongst others) lobby politicians?

They lobby about legislation and regulation related to their particular industry, just like industry in general.

 

More specifically, they might lobby to open up more lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

They currently lobby on pending regulation on hydraulic fracturing and reinjection. They lobby on greenhouse gas rules. They lobbied and reshaped the upstream oil and gas rules published last year.

 

Also, they lobby in Washington regularly just in case there was some outlandish idea to target their industry with an industry-specific tax or worse(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW_FXjbt6wY); with the oil industry being such a big target/deep pocket, and viewed as a tempting source of "revenue" by politicians, that not lobbying or contributing to advocacy efforts would be like not buying an alarm system, locks, or even doors for a $10 million mansion.

 

Lobbying is not only legal, but necessary for crafting better legislation. Even if you have an equal amount of money spent on lobbying for a particular issue, and no side makes significant headway against the other, you still will end up with better regulations at the end; the combined knowledge and experience of industry and stakeholders mean that they understand the reality of the situation better than any government agency could ever hope to, so their input is necessary for good regulation. Petitioning the government is open to anyone, as it should be. And by law, if you make public comments on pending regulations, you comments must be addressed by the agency.

[por favor gracias]

Guys, I'm gonna have to get back with you later this evening. Thanks for saving me any further explanation with Bennett Brauer reference ig2ba!

[IronTiger]

It's a bit of strange hypocrisy that some people have:

New Development on widened Interstates: "Grr! Clearly the politician behind this was in cahoots with the developers of these developments! This is SICK and WRONG and we should never do this again. Widened highways, that is."

New Development on light rail corridors: "Sound the trumpets and beat the drum! Rail was built and new things have come! This is PURE and GOOD and we should do more of this. Light rail, that is."

[august948]

They were doing a good job until the conservative base who were scared the country was becoming too liberal poured billions into making the country more conservative. It worked over time.

 

You need to study history a little more.  The US has always been a conservative nation.  It's part and parcel of that whole pilgrim thing you should have studied in school.  Or has history been completely replaced by "social studies" in ths schools now?.  If anything we've become more liberal (in the modern sense of the word) over time.

 

[Houston19514]

The cost of housing isn't solely dependent on how compact a city is. NYC, SF, WAS, CHI, LA, etc. are "more expensive than Houston" for a variety of reasons...location, quality of life, etc. Los Angeles is spread out also, but the average home prices there are also double Houston's.

 

The urbanized area of Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim is the most densely populated urban area in the United States.

 

[Houston19514]

In connection with some of the comments in this thread, I think it's relevant to note that in the years 2007-2010, Harris County had net positive migration from the central county/counties of all of the top 15 metro areas in the country except Washington DC (and even that one is positive for Harris County if you reasonably consider the central counties to be DC/Arlington & Fairfax, VA/Prince George's & Montgomery County, MD).

 

(1) The combination of New York/Bronx/Kings and Queens Counties (New York City)

(2) Los Angeles County

(3) Cook County, Illinois (Chicago)

(4) Dallas County, TX

(5) [Harris County]

(6) Philadelphia County, PA

(7)

(8) Miami-Dade County FL

(9) Fulton County, GA (Atlanta)

(10) Suffolk County, MA (Boston)

(11) San Francisco County, CA

(12) Riverside/San Bernadino Counties, CA

(13) Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix)

(14) Wayne County, MI (Detroit)

(15) King County, WA ( Seattle)

 

 

http://flowsmapper.geo.census.gov/flowsmapper/map.html

 

 

 

 

 

Denver County

 

 

[por favor gracias]

The urbanized area of Los Angeles/Long Beach/Anaheim is the most densely populated urban area in the United States.

I would have thought some of the cities in the Northeast (and maybe SF also) would be more dense, but you're absolutely right. I guess LA was a bad example, so I'll go with Seattle. Their metro population density is slightly less than ours, but their home prices are more than double ours. My point is that home prices are based on a number of factors.

 

Thanks though, for the clarification...I just learned something.

[por favor gracias]

It's a bit of strange hypocrisy that some people have:

New Development on widened Interstates: "Grr! Clearly the politician behind this was in cahoots with the developers of these developments! This is SICK and WRONG and we should never do this again. Widened highways, that is."

New Development on light rail corridors: "Sound the trumpets and beat the drum! Rail was built and new things have come! This is PURE and GOOD and we should do more of this. Light rail, that is."

 

Some people who prefer rail development to automobile development would actually prefer not to have any new development at all...but rail is more efficient and leaves less of a footprint than automobiles. A lot of people care very deeply about that, including myself.

 

I'm personally not a fan at all of the kind of light rail we have here, the way it interferes with our current infrastructure and probably causes as much traffic as it "alleviates." I would like to see Houston invest in a mid to high speed subway/commuter rail system.

[por favor gracias]

The "room for future expansion" referred to the roads predominantly between 610 and Beltway 8: including Bellaire, Westheimer, Richmond, and others. Westheimer is eight lanes wide, Bellaire was built with six but reduced to a four (with no left hand turn lanes of any type) and was going through a major expansion on my last two trips to Houston (early March + late August).

Besides, "future expansion" is usually standard procedure. No matter how great something when it is when it's built, it's going to need to be renovated or expanded. Buildings get expanded and renovated. Any structure, as a rule, should last at least 30 years without major renovation or expansion.

Who is "most people"? "Most people" have never lived in LA, only seen it on TV. They probably don't know what Houston is even really like, even.

I wasn't really referring to your use of "future expansion"...I just made a point about how we've been doing things. I'm glad you mentioned Bellaire Blvd. You'll "never guess"...STILL under construction. They actually JUST NOW got us on the new concrete on the south side of the thoroughfare. So I'm thinking (I'm 35 now) by the time I retire, they might actually have the job complete...IF we're "lucky."

 

Sheesh...

 

At some point, we are going to have to consider population control. The way I see it, it's much easier asking 7 billion of us to "cooperate" than 10, 20 or 50 billion of us.

 

Regarding my "most people" comment, you're right...but there are reasons for that. I think it's obvious that LA is just a more desirable place than Houston for most people who have been to both places. People are generally more into beautiful scenery, great weather, great beaches and Hollywood than the petrochemical industry. Do you disagree with what I'm saying?

[Ross]

 

Regarding my "most people" comment, you're right...but there are reasons for that. I think it's obvious that LA is just a more desirable place than Houston for most people who have been to both places. People are generally more into beautiful scenery, great weather, great beaches and Hollywood than the petrochemical industry. Do you disagree with what I'm saying?

 

Almost everyone I know who moved to California, including me, has moved back here. Lower taxes, more affordable housing, better beaches, better weather, all of those contributed to a real desire to get out of California and back to Texas. I'm sort of joking about the beaches, but I like the weather here better than in California.

 

[por favor gracias]

Exactly. I was going to link to a video of that but decided against it.

 

They lobby about legislation and regulation related to their particular industry, just like industry in general.

 

More specifically, they might lobby to open up more lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

They currently lobby on pending regulation on hydraulic fracturing and reinjection. They lobby on greenhouse gas rules. They lobbied and reshaped the upstream oil and gas rules published last year.

 

Also, they lobby in Washington regularly just in case there was some outlandish idea to target their industry with an industry-specific tax or worse(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW_FXjbt6wY); with the oil industry being such a big target/deep pocket, and viewed as a tempting source of "revenue" by politicians, that not lobbying or contributing to advocacy efforts would be like not buying an alarm system, locks, or even doors for a $10 million mansion.

 

Lobbying is not only legal, but necessary for crafting better legislation. Even if you have an equal amount of money spent on lobbying for a particular issue, and no side makes significant headway against the other, you still will end up with better regulations at the end; the combined knowledge and experience of industry and stakeholders mean that they understand the reality of the situation better than any government agency could ever hope to, so their input is necessary for good regulation. Petitioning the government is open to anyone, as it should be. And by law, if you make public comments on pending regulations, you comments must be addressed by the agency.

 

You're making my point...they are bribing politicians to get what they want. You mentioned "crafting better legislation"...what's "better" for them isn't necessarily better for us, or any other inhabitants of this planet for that matter. Just because lobbying is legal doesn't make it right. I don't know about you, but I have a BIG problem with the notion that people can basically buy policy. I'm certainly not impressed with the results. I have no problem at all with people petitioning the government...at least they're doing so with their free will as opposed to money.

[por favor gracias]

Almost everyone I know who moved to California, including me, has moved back here. Lower taxes, more affordable housing, better beaches, better weather, all of those contributed to a real desire to get out of California and back to Texas. I'm sort of joking about the beaches, but I like the weather here better than in California.

 

 

I'll go in with you on "lower taxes and more affordable housing," and I'll add "more jobs"...as the primary reasons why so many people are moving here have to do with economics. If everything else was equal (or perhaps even just a little less of a gap between cost of living here and there), I feel very confident in saying that more people would consider California a more desirable place than Texas.

[names]

Never been stuck in traffic on 10 using the Katy Tollway, I use it even on late nights to avoid the drunks.. 

 

Money is what makes the world go round and time is money. I consider myself lucky to have lived in both a sleepy suburb and in the left ventricle of this town. There is a psychological limit to commuter driving, around 30 to 45 minutes; anything longer is considered a super-commute (something I did for work on occasion). In terms of the 10 expansion and Culberson's role in it, I think he did well in est'n a bread & butter legacy for the shape of his district. Politicians are only as good as their constituents, in the sense that sprawling development is a defacto form of segregation with implicit symptoms of racism. So I can see how divisive the personal motive issue can be for some but the reality is and without regard to his rail line politics, the 10 redevelopment was a form of socialism that really works as a rising economic tide for west Houston and thereby all of Houston. I also understand that to be a politician you have to take some pretty unpopular positions (now, but not 13 years ago) like he has; when you get to know people, and I mean really get to know People, on a personal level you realize that we all suffer in some way or ways. It's why I live downtown now and am contemplating selling my car for a car subscription; the socialism downtown is just healthier, walking and all that parklife. Plus the big secret was that suburbs are where the Haves traditionally wanted to live, now we got "diversified housing stock" and "multiple bids on the first day." I sure hope we overbuild cause my rent needs a relief valve. Praise no zoning!

 

A greenbelt park would be really cool for the entire metro region. Sprawl can be fixed with good architecture; even old sprawl heading southwest from Montrose to Sharpstown to Sugar Land has a great history of examples where thoughtful place making washed ashore in time. Oh yeah and that greenbelt park saves your little nature too, know we call that?

 

-Win-Win

 

 

[livincinco]

It's a bit of strange hypocrisy that some people have:

New Development on widened Interstates: "Grr! Clearly the politician behind this was in cahoots with the developers of these developments! This is SICK and WRONG and we should never do this again. Widened highways, that is."

New Development on light rail corridors: "Sound the trumpets and beat the drum! Rail was built and new things have come! This is PURE and GOOD and we should do more of this. Light rail, that is."

 

To that point, a study by the Brooking Institute found that in the Chicago metro area the typical job is accessible by 22.8% of the population in less than 90 minutes via mass transit. 

 

This is in a metro area with a strong downtown center, a well developed rail system, and a metro area approx. the same size as Houston.

 

Hardly a ringing endorsement for mass transit as the primary means of moving people

[mfastx]

It's a bit of strange hypocrisy that some people have:

New Development on widened Interstates: "Grr! Clearly the politician behind this was in cahoots with the developers of these developments! This is SICK and WRONG and we should never do this again. Widened highways, that is."

New Development on light rail corridors: "Sound the trumpets and beat the drum! Rail was built and new things have come! This is PURE and GOOD and we should do more of this. Light rail, that is."

 

I think it is sick and wrong for politicians to act in the interest of developers rather than the citizens of the city and the will of the voters. 

 

You see more lobbying for highways than rail because highways lead to cheap, undeveloped land where developers make more money. 

 

Rail is generally (and especially in the University Line's case) built on already developed/expensive land where developers make less money and see less potential, which is why you don't see any lobby for rail here.  Of course, you'll have the renegade politician who lobbies for rail because people in his district will benefit from it (oh the horror) but this is a rarity. 

 

Although rail is much cheaper in the long term (over a period of centuries) and has a more permanent effect, it's not where the money is short term. 

 

It's just the political system we live in unfortunately.

[IronTiger]

I think it is sick and wrong for politicians act in the interest of developers rather than the citizens of the city.

You see more lobbying for highways than rail because highways lead to cheap, undeveloped land where developers make more money.

Rail is built on already developed/expensive land where developers make less money, which is why you don't see any lobby for rail here. Of course, you'll have the renegade politician who lobbies for rail because people in his district will benefit from it (oh the horror) but this is a rarity.

Although rail is much cheaper in the long term (over a period of centuries) and has a more permanent effect, it's not where the money is short term.

It's just the political system we live in unfortunately.

Well, considering that the Interstate 10 widening did help people in Culberson's district (and interstates do service more people and industry than light rails do) I wouldn't write off Interstates for that. And while land in the Loop is expensive, I don't know if the developers "make less money": otherwise you would see less teardowns and rebuilds into townhomes or denser. I don't even know if rail being cheaper is true. At least in the case of Union Pacific, I've seen them do rather extensive projects on the rail, and the tracks and ties are both newer than even two decades ago since all of them have been replaced. Every last of the nasty, graffiti covered cars in the New York Subway was withdrawn and replaced with newer models in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And back to freight rails again, an Interstate that hasn't been touched since the 1960s will be a rough ride (and they do exist), a freight line that hasn't been touched since the 1960s will be horrifying with the train going dead slow so that it doesn't tip over. CRINGE! as cars gently rise up and down. WINCE! as the engine wobbles side to side. GASP! as what appears to be a train rolling in what appears to be untouched land.

tl;dr, it's not necessarily "cheaper". As was mentioned earlier, you could even use the ancient Roman roads as an "example" of how highways will last centuries, but it doesn't work that way for roads or rails.

[democide]

We just have too many freaking people in this city.  

 

Anyways, all the freeways need to be widen like the Katy Freeway, because most people use them, and this city is too spread out.  You need a car to get you everywhere the most convenient way, and more likely than not the quickest way too.

 

Rail could perhaps service some business centers, like downtown and the Medical Center (which are big), but places like the Energy Corridor are too spread out.  So you get there by train, for example, and then I suppose you can rent a bike (if possible) or walk (if you're fit and have time to kill) or get on a bus or take a taxi to get to your exact destination.

 

We have a problem, it will get worse, and no easy solution, or any solution at all.  I think that's why people like places like Austin, not that many people in it like Houston.  Just my opinion.