More Congestion On Interstate-10

[IronTiger]

False

How do you figure? I've actually spent time in classes, looking at population pyramids, and assuming that we'll probably hit a world population around 10 billion in 2100, which will be when the line actually plateaus. As nations develop and get more educated, the birth rate declines so that population growth crawls to a dead halt. (a link to play around with)

Of course, when you make clownish comments like this:

There's no conspiracy just truth. Suburbs were created because of collision of developers, the federal government, and GM, and government acts of FDR. Also this mantra of the American dream which has filled the brains of gullible joes. And to a large extent racism and segregation.

basically restating a conspiracy theory and repackaging it as "truth" (common tactic of conspiracy theorists, there's a reason 9/11 CTs called themselves "truthers"), then I'm afraid I can do nothing for you.

P.S., the word you were looking for was "collusion", not "collision".

HTH

[livincinco]

Have you ever noticed how so many people resort to putting words in other people's mouths, mocking them and making bad jokes when they are simply presented with an alternate point of view?

 

I "suggest" you stop acting like you know me well enough to make a comment like that if you care at all about the accuracy of your posts.

 

I made a generic comment that you have chosen to take personal offense to.  That was not my intent and I apologize if it was taken that way.

 

BTW, my comment is not meant to be mockery.  It's completely serious.  Why is voluntary population reduction such a horrible suggestion?  I can't think of a better way for an individual to express a serious commitment to that issue if they feel that it is the most pressing issue humanity.

[livincinco]

por favor gracias, you're waging a lonely vigil. I will come away from the internet rabbit hole that is epoxy versus cementitious grout (and within that sanded v. unsanded, and additive or not, and Mapei or Laticrete, help me, legendary tile forum guy bill v ...) to join you off-topic.

 

One of the few pundits still interested in population once observed that while people feign indignation at China's population policy, at the very idea of a population policy, America has one too.

He pointed out that in the seventies, in poll after poll, Americans expressed concern about population and a desire that population growth should stabilize.

More signally, Americans made their overwhelming reproductive preferences clear as well, by limiting family size.

So in support of the will of the people,&etc. the U.S. government took steps to carefully limit immigration. Our population has thus scarcely increased since that time.

Wait a second, rewind. That's not what happened!

The exact opposite.

And that, friends, is our population policy, brought to you by the people who knew better, than you did, what you wanted.

Some of you will thank them, some of you will not, but it's a shame that there's not more recognition of their achievement, as it was quite fundamental.

Unfortunately, population policy of one of those things that regardless of best intentions, actually implementing an effective policy is extremely difficult.  Regardless of whether people feign indignation at China's population, it's fair to question the effectiveness of that policy.  China was able to reduce population growth with their one child population, but they now face a generational imbalance that will potentially be crippling to their economy over the next 20 years.

 

[por favor gracias]

Sitting in traffic for hours every day? I don't do that. I do like that better than being jammed into a stinking train for 40 minutes with the unwashed masses, holding on for dear life, though.

 

Expensive? Who are you kidding? We live in one of the most affordable economies in the world.

 

Pollution? I like what I breathe now better than what I breathed 40 years ago.

 

Destroying natural habitats? Depends on what lives in said habitat.

 

Bureaucracy? You get that wherever more than three people are gathered.

 

Privacy? Unclear what you're asking with this one. I don't have curtains on my bedroom window, so take that however you like.

 

Oh, I get that you're super-emo-concerned about the teeming masses. And you're fine with telling people how many kids they can have. I'm not.

 

And this is now WAYYYYYY off-topic.

 

1) You may not personally sit in traffic for hours every day, but we all know a lot of us do. Were you not JUST trying to marginalize my last point by being "personally affected?" How do like sitting in long lines at stop lights? Why would you have to "hold on for dear life" on a train? I've never done that on any train I've been on. Are "unwashed masses" only on trains, and not on streets/freeways?

 

2) Who are you kidding? What makes you think I'm limiting this issue to Houston? I'm talking about the U.S. and the rest of the world. Of course, we all know what home prices are doing in Houston with this ongoing influx of people, but it shouldn't take an MIT grad to know that more people = more consumption of resources and less quality of service over time. Funny side note...as I was typing this, there was a glitch in my power supply (and probably some of my neighbors, too). Look at prices for food, water, gas, utilities, etc. over the last 10 to 20 years and tell me I'm pulling this out of my a__.

 

3) Again, this topic isn't limited to Houston...and the reasons why our air quality has improved have nothing to do with the fact that more of us live here now. Fail.

 

4) So "some" habitats and species matter, but others don't? Fail.

 

5) You get a lot more bureaucracy when there are 300 million of us.

 

6) To each his own...a lot of people enjoy their privacy though. Remember the "personally affected" thing?

 

7) Wow...something we can finally agree on. Touche.

[Slick Vik]

How do you figure? I've actually spent time in classes, looking at population pyramids, and assuming that we'll probably hit a world population around 10 billion in 2100, which will be when the line actually plateaus. As nations develop and get more educated, the birth rate declines so that population growth crawls to a dead halt. (a link to play around with)

Of course, when you make clownish comments like this:

basically restating a conspiracy theory and repackaging it as "truth" (common tactic of conspiracy theorists, there's a reason 9/11 CTs called themselves "truthers"), then I'm afraid I can do nothing for you.

P.S., the word you were looking for was "collusion", not "collision".

HTH

1. Keep dreaming. The assumption countries will develop is just that, an assumption. Corruption will never allow many countries to reach that level.

2. The reality of creation of suburbs is exactly what I said it is. You can call me a clown or whatever you want but that's just a defense mechanism.

[Slick Vik]

I'm not really arguing that there's more going on as far as office space is concerned in the suburbs than in town right now. I'm just saying that there's a lot going on in town as well (and I'm including the Galleria area as "in town"). Again, I don't really mind the office development out there at this point. I just don't us to continue building further out than we already have.

7% of Houston may live inside the loop, but like Slick Vik was saying...a lot more than that work inside the loop. I don't think you're considering that the 96 square miles that make up our inner loop only accounts for .954% of the metro area's land area. So even if it's "only 20% or 25%" of the metro area that travels through there every day...when you consider the activity/density, it paints a different picture.

Nobody has suggested moving everyone outside the loop to the inside.

4 major job centers are in the loop.

[IronTiger]

1) You may not personally sit in traffic for hours every day, but we all know a lot of us do. Were you not JUST trying to marginalize my last point by being "personally affected?" How do like sitting in long lines at stop lights? Why would you have to "hold on for dear life" on a train? I've never done that on any train I've been on. Are "unwashed masses" only on trains, and not on streets/freeways?

A lot of people on this thread (and others) think we should all live like urban dwellers and all ride trains, but hey, highways run both ways.

2) Who are you kidding? What makes you think I'm limiting this issue to Houston? I'm talking about the U.S. and the rest of the world. Of course, we all know what home prices are doing in Houston with this ongoing influx of people, but it shouldn't take an MIT grad to know that more people = more consumption of resources and less quality of service over time. Funny side note...as I was typing this, there was a glitch in my power supply (and probably some of my neighbors, too). Look at prices for food, water, gas, utilities, etc. over the last 10 to 20 years and tell me I'm pulling this out of my a__.

Prices for food/water/gas/utilities isn't directly related to amount of people most of the time. It has to do with the weather, government policies, and a myriad of other reasons. And that power glitch? Even in homes with decent wiring, a flicker can be seen if the dishwasher, washing machine, AC system, or some other system launches.

4) So "some" habitats and species matter, but others don't? Fail.

Well, I'm not belittling your point, but species DO matter. Do you shed a tear when people destroy a mosquito's breeding grounds (standing water) and take other measures to eliminate them?

[por favor gracias]

Actually there are a number of people in this forum that do argue that very point.  I'm not minimizing the importance of the area inside the loop, however I also believe that it's importance is frequently overstated.  Let's remember what triggered this discussion - the access to job centers via transit in Chicago, specifically related to the question of more rail and the original topic of this thread, the widening of the Katy Freeway.  Arguing about whether the investment in the Katy Freeway was a better investment than rail is a false equivalency.  Whether the full original rail plan got built as projected or not, you still have to expand the Katy Freeway because of the number of businesses and people that are choosing to locate in that area.  Light rail does nothing to alleviate that need.  Even commuter rail doesn't do a lot because it doesn't address the last mile.

 

Look at the example of Chicago (or for that matter Dallas), both have built extensive rail systems, but the development patterns have not conformed to the rail routes in any significant way.  The same is true with Houston.  There's really no evidence that office construction is consolidating back to the urban core and no evidence to support that would change if rail development was significantly more advanced.

 

I have no problem with rail where ridership justifies the costs incurred. I benefit in no way from rail, but I recognize that there is a segment of the population that might.  Just don't expect it to drive a wave of 'urbanization' or impact the growth rates of the suburbs.

 

 

Again, Chicago's and other cities' "job center accessibility via mass transit" says more about how our cities (even Chicago) have been planned and built more around automobile use than rail. It's all about planning. If Chicago's or Dallas' or Houston's rail maps looked anything like their road maps, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

There are several high speed subways/trains around the world that have been built for a fraction of what our light rail costed us. What would you think of a roughly 100 mile subway network connecting Hobby Airport, U of H on Wheeler, downtown, the med center, Hermann Park/Rice U, Rice Village, GWP, Upper Kirby, the Galleria area, Westchase, Enclave Pkwy/Energy Corridor areas, City Centre/Memorial City area, Memorial Park, Greenspoint, IAH and The Woodlands for about the same price as 3 or 4 Katy Freeways? What do you think of covered moving walkways to help pedestrian traffic in certain parts of town (along Post Oak and parts of Westheimer come to mind)?

 

I don't even like the design of our light rail line (and I think most people would agree), but Main Street is getting more and more activity in the immediate vicinity. It took a while, but development of all sorts does seem to be coming to fruition there. If we do one day get a real mass transit system here, I agree with you at least initially that it wouldn't in itself "drive a wave of urbanization"...but over time, that would most likely become inevitable as long as we continue to grow. If we build it and build it right, people will use it like they do in "world class" cities.

 

If not, we may end up like Los Angeles (which is absolutely a world class city, and I think we're well on our way...certainly America's "next up"). But LA's traffic SUCKS.

[por favor gracias]

I made a generic comment that you have chosen to take personal offense to.  That was not my intent and I apologize if it was taken that way.

 

BTW, my comment is not meant to be mockery.  It's completely serious.  Why is voluntary population reduction such a horrible suggestion?  I can't think of a better way for an individual to express a serious commitment to that issue if they feel that it is the most pressing issue humanity.

 

If anyone is thinking along those lines, why wouldn't they just commit suicide however they see fit? Why would they need the assistance of a "population reduction center?"

[por favor gracias]

Unfortunately, population policy of one of those things that regardless of best intentions, actually implementing an effective policy is extremely difficult.  Regardless of whether people feign indignation at China's population, it's fair to question the effectiveness of that policy.  China was able to reduce population growth with their one child population, but they now face a generational imbalance that will potentially be crippling to their economy over the next 20 years.

 

 

China's policy has prevented about 300 million people from being born over the last three decades or so, and their population growth has declined sharply. There are certainly some trickle-down effects from that policy (generational and gender) as not many countries have had to deal with this or implemented such a comprehensive policy. What they and the rest of the world should take from it, like any other painful, sweeping policy...learn from our mistakes. America should learn to not even get close to that point in the first place. Like I said the other day, it's easier to ask 7 billion people to "cooperate" than 10, 20, 50 or 100 billion of us. There's not a "good" solution any way you slice it, but think of what China's situation (and other parts of the world that would be impacted) would be like if there were another 300 million people living there. These are the kinds of decisions we have to make when we're asleep at the wheel over time. The flip side of the economical damage you're referring to is that at least future generations will have a much smaller job to take on than their forefathers.

[IronTiger]

1. Keep dreaming. The assumption countries will develop is just that, an assumption. Corruption will never allow many countries to reach that level.

I'm noticing a pattern that everything you say is TRUTH (which includes your suburban conspiracies), while everything is else is just "assumption". And yet you never questioned your assumptions that the Earth's population will grow indefinitely until we run out of resources and die?

2. The reality of creation of suburbs is exactly what I said it is. You can call me a clown or whatever you want but that's just a defense mechanism.

Here's a snippet from Urban Geography: A Global Perspective, Third Edition, which itself was adapted from a 1996 journal article by L. Bourne (published in Progress in Planning), entitled "Reinventing the suburbs: Old myths and new realities". You could check a college library to see if they subscribe to the journal. The snippet from the textbook is as follows.

The suburban wave was driven by the following factors:

1. The rapid growth of urban population and rising disposable incomes enabled people to meet both the cost of new housing and the associated transport costs.

2. Widespread diffusion of the automobile enhanced individual mobility. The number of US automobiles rose from under 1 million in 1910 to 27 million by 1930, the latter amounting to one for every five persons.

3. New suburbs started to resist annexation by central cities through legal incorporation, which enabled them (and their residents) to shield themselves from the problems of the central city (such as low-quality housing, rising taxes, congestion, racial tension, and crime), and to provide the particular living environment they desired and could pay for.

4. There was a huge pent-up demand for housing.

5. There was a need to generate employment after fifteen years of low investment during the Depression of the 1930s followed by the war years.

And, to be fair to you, the sixth reason:

6. These goals were promoted by public policies that favoured new house-building over rehabilitation and highway construction over mass transit.

It turns out that there was a grain of truth in your statement after all! Congratulations! Unfortunately, despite that fact, they were not "created because of/by a conspiracy". There's some other stuff about suburbs, too, and share them with you if you'd like.

(P.S.: Did you get my PM? I didn't see any comments...)

[por favor gracias]

IronTiger, in response to:

 

"A lot of people on this thread (and others) think we should all live like urban dwellers and all ride trains, but hey, highways run both ways."

 

I can only speak for myself, and I wouldn't say we should all live like urban dwellers (I loved life in the suburbs too), but would you agree that we should all try to live responsibly?

 

***

 

In response to:

 

"Prices for food/water/gas/utilities isn't directly related to amount of people most of the time. It has to do with the weather, government policies, and a myriad of other reasons. And that power glitch? Even in homes with decent wiring, a flicker can be seen if the dishwasher, washing machine, AC system, or some other system launches."

 

It all depends on a myriad of "direct" and "indirect" factors for sure, but the one underlying factor here is "we've got this giant work load to handle."

 

***

 

In response to:

 

"Well, I'm not belittling your point, but species DO matter. Do you shed a tear when people destroy a mosquito's breeding grounds (standing water) and take other measures to eliminate them?"

 

I have a kind of underlying rule...any individual of any species that messes with me, I'll mess with back. That said, I don't want to exterminate mosquitoes for no other reason than them being a serious problem or a threat...and I'd be willing to bet that the rest of the inhabitants of this Earth would be just fine with that.

 

That said, I absolutely have shed a tear or two over huge chunks of land that once belonged to nature, but have since been destroyed so we can put up thousands of square miles of subdivisions and Bed, Bath & Beyonds.

[IronTiger]

I can only speak for myself, and I wouldn't say we should all live like urban dwellers (I loved life in the suburbs too), but would you agree that we should all try to live responsibly?

We should all do something to live less wasteful lives. Turn off the lights when you're not in a room, don't keep running the water when you're brushing your teeth, and try to recycle. Unfortunately, there's a ton of differences when people try to encourage others to live responsibility: there's a difference between "not wasting plastic bags" and "not using plastic bags". And because my lifestyle allows it, I compost. It's a great thing for the environment, but composting is not economical for apartment dwellers, for instance.

It all depends on a myriad of "direct" and "indirect" factors for sure, but the one underlying factor here is "we've got this giant work load to handle."

We should try to make what we have work. Better technology goes a long way in handling cost of living (power, food, etc.)

That said, I absolutely have shed a tear or two over huge chunks of land that once belonged to nature, but have since been destroyed so we can put up thousands of square miles of subdivisions and Bed, Bath & Beyonds.

We've all been there. I went up to Knoxville a few years ago, and even in a drought that continued to damage the beauty of our great state, in the outskirts of Dallas, the gray (color-wise) subdivisions being set up in the countryside. Given that a lot of the new residents are from other states, it would be better if they FIXED the problems in their state instead of messing up Texas.

[luciaphile]

In my stamp collection there's one showing a happy nuclear family. It says "Family Planning."

It's an 8-cent stamp.

The view espoused by pfg was once mainstream, and, may I respectfully suggest, it is, even at this date, not really something he should have to apologize for. History may yet judge indifference to limitless growth, to have been the radical view.

I read one of those "that used to be us" pieces the other day, only it wasn't about American manufacturing, it was about Africa, and written by a noted Kenyan economist. It boiled down to, please, leave us the hell alone.

There is nothing any more "natural" about Africa's rampant population growth in the 20th century, than China's reduction in its birth rate.

In a way, it was the final thing the West did to, or "for," Africa. Unfortunately, it probably means we can never leave them alone now. Which is a shame, because we put a certain value on life in Africa, and that economist believes, heartbreakingly, that it was too low.

But then, maybe human life everywhere will be worth a little less when the population is ten billion.

Nature will deal with us, perhaps harshly. To me this is really a twofold discussion: one, about the preservation of certain values related to conservation, and how best to defend them, and if they're worth defending. I admit I am no humanist. But plainly one may fret over population for humanitarian reasons.
Interesting, then, that it is the supposed proponent of the value of human life, who has suggested that others should kill themselves.
Telling, even.

Committing demographic suicide hasn't really proven to be the best way to advance our cause, but come one, por favor gracias: 'Romeo and Juliet, are together in eternity, we can be like they are, baby take my hand ...'

[por favor gracias]

We should all do something to live less wasteful lives. Turn off the lights when you're not in a room, don't keep running the water when you're brushing your teeth, and try to recycle. Unfortunately, there's a ton of differences when people try to encourage others to live responsibility: there's a difference between "not wasting plastic bags" and "not using plastic bags". And because my lifestyle allows it, I compost. It's a great thing for the environment, but composting is not economical for apartment dwellers, for instance.

We should try to make what we have work. Better technology goes a long way in handling cost of living (power, food, etc.)

We've all been there. I went up to Knoxville a few years ago, and even in a drought that continued to damage the beauty of our great state, in the outskirts of Dallas, the gray (color-wise) subdivisions being set up in the countryside. Given that a lot of the new residents are from other states, it would be better if they FIXED the problems in their state instead of messing up Texas.

 

I here you. On your point regarding responsibility, I may consider "not wasting plastic bags" and "not using plastic bags" both to be "responsible" acts. It all depends on where people are coming from...context...and in that particular case, I could see them both as "the same thing" even though they are technically two different things. Sometimes, we want to change the way we do things, but it's not always easy to do so when we get into a routine...and sometimes we have to go about it incrementally. Hopefully, "not wasting plastic bags" will soon turn into "not using" them.

 

People are funny.

[cloud713]

What if they imposed a tax on people that lived so far away from their work, and taxed higher percentages the further away from work you lived outside of that zone..? (Unless you telecommute) sort of a way to reduce the amount of people commuting long distances. Of course it would have a much greater effect on the poor, since the rich would just pay the taxes, but it's an idea.

[IronTiger]

What if they imposed a tax on people that lived so far away from their work, and taxed higher percentages the further away from work you lived outside of that zone..? (Unless you telecommute) sort of a way to reduce the amount of people commuting long distances. Of course it would have a much greater effect on the poor, since the rich would just pay the taxes, but it's an idea.

Yeah, it's called gasoline tax.

[por favor gracias]

 

In my stamp collection there's one showing a happy nuclear family. It says "Family Planning."

It's an 8-cent stamp.

The view espoused by pfg was once mainstream, and, may I respectfully suggest, it is, even at this date, not really something he should have to apologize for. History may yet judge indifference to limitless growth, to have been the radical view.

I read one of those "that used to be us" pieces the other day, only it wasn't about American manufacturing, it was about Africa, and written by a noted Kenyan economist. It boiled down to, please, leave us the hell alone.

There is nothing any more "natural" about Africa's rampant population growth in the 20th century, than China's reduction in its birth rate.

In a way, it was the final thing the West did to, or "for," Africa. Unfortunately, it probably means we can never leave them alone now. Which is a shame, because we put a certain value on life in Africa, and that economist believes, heartbreakingly, that it was too low.

But then, maybe human life everywhere will be worth a little less when the population is ten billion.

Nature will deal with us, perhaps harshly. To me this is really a twofold discussion: one, about the preservation of certain values related to conservation, and how best to defend them, and if they're worth defending. I admit I am no humanist. But plainly one may fret over population for humanitarian reasons.

Interesting, then, that it is the supposed proponent of the value of human life, who has suggested that others should kill themselves.

Telling, even.

Committing demographic suicide hasn't really proven to be the best way to advance our cause, but come one, por favor gracias: 'Romeo and Juliet, are together in eternity, we can be like they are, baby take my hand ...'

 

 

Yikes!

 

You know what, I'd do it in a heartbeat if I knew without a doubt that my cause would be reasonably fulfilled...I wouldn't be able to live that down if I didn't. Just make it quick!

 

Hopefully, I'd see you in a cool place some time...

[por favor gracias]

Yeah, it's called gasoline tax.

 

We all pay the gasoline tax. I think cloud713 was suggesting adding that additional tax because it would be based on decisions that individuals make that affect all of us. Maybe give some leeway towards people whose businesses move to another part of town or something until they can move if they choose to do so. I like the idea, and maybe combine it with a tax based on MPG, also.

[IronTiger]

I don't think we should burden people who live farther away from work or drive older cars. Suppose if there was a way that we could give tax credits to businesses who encourage telecommuting.

[por favor gracias]

I don't think we should burden people who live farther away from work or drive older cars. Suppose if there was a way that we could give tax credits to businesses who encourage telecommuting.

 

Yeah...not necessarily older vehicles, but tax ones that get poor gas mileage higher than ones that get better gas mileage. And that money could go specifically towards more efficient automobiles, road repairs and mass transit.

 

I love the idea of incentives for businesses who engage their employees with telecommuting. 

[livincinco]

Again, Chicago's and other cities' "job center accessibility via mass transit" says more about how our cities (even Chicago) have been planned and built more around automobile use than rail. It's all about planning. If Chicago's or Dallas' or Houston's rail maps looked anything like their road maps, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

There are several high speed subways/trains around the world that have been built for a fraction of what our light rail costed us. What would you think of a roughly 100 mile subway network connecting Hobby Airport, U of H on Wheeler, downtown, the med center, Hermann Park/Rice U, Rice Village, GWP, Upper Kirby, the Galleria area, Westchase, Enclave Pkwy/Energy Corridor areas, City Centre/Memorial City area, Memorial Park, Greenspoint, IAH and The Woodlands for about the same price as 3 or 4 Katy Freeways? What do you think of covered moving walkways to help pedestrian traffic in certain parts of town (along Post Oak and parts of Westheimer come to mind)?

 

I don't even like the design of our light rail line (and I think most people would agree), but Main Street is getting more and more activity in the immediate vicinity. It took a while, but development of all sorts does seem to be coming to fruition there. If we do one day get a real mass transit system here, I agree with you at least initially that it wouldn't in itself "drive a wave of urbanization"...but over time, that would most likely become inevitable as long as we continue to grow. If we build it and build it right, people will use it like they do in "world class" cities.

 

If not, we may end up like Los Angeles (which is absolutely a world class city, and I think we're well on our way...certainly America's "next up"). But LA's traffic SUCKS.

 

Not sure that I buy the argument that Chicago was planned around automobile use and really don't buy you're grouping the city planning of Chicago with the city planning of Houston and Dallas.  Houston and Dallas are both post-war cities that were clearly built around the automobile, but Chicago has had local rail for more than 100 years and had an extensive rail system well before the rise of the automobile in the 1950's.  Unlike other cities, that rail system was never removed and has operated continuously for that time.  Additionally, it has a well-established and vibrant downtown.

 

In short, Chicago illustrates everything that rail/urban advocates wish Houston had historically, yet it doesn't seem to have materially impacted the way that the city and the job base has developed.

 

The problem is that most rail systems just don't work particularly well in a decentralized job environment.  The places where rail works best in the US is where there is a highly centralized job core (New York, San Francisco, DC, Boston), a dense central population, and quite honestly, where traffic and parking costs are so bad that transit becomes a viable option.

 

I have no doubt that there are some corridors that make sense for rail in Houston in the next 15-20 years, but I don't see an extensive network working any better here than it has in Dallas.

 

Full disclosure - I'm just not a fan of light rail in pretty much any form.  BRT is much more functional for Houston in my opinion with potentially heavy rail in certain locations if increased density occurs.

 

[cloud713]

Not sure that I buy the argument that Chicago was planned around automobile use and really don't buy you're grouping the city planning of Chicago with the city planning of Houston and Dallas.  Houston and Dallas are both post-war cities that were clearly built around the automobile, but Chicago has had local rail for more than 100 years and had an extensive rail system well before the rise of the automobile in the 1950's.  Unlike other cities, that rail system was never removed and has operated continuously for that time.  Additionally, it has a well-established and vibrant downtown.

 

In short, Chicago illustrates everything that rail/urban advocates wish Houston had historically, yet it doesn't seem to have materially impacted the way that the city and the job base has developed.

 

The problem is that most rail systems just don't work particularly well in a decentralized job environment.  The places where rail works best in the US is where there is a highly centralized job core (New York, San Francisco, DC, Boston), a dense central population, and quite honestly, where traffic and parking costs are so bad that transit becomes a viable option.

 

I have no doubt that there are some corridors that make sense for rail in Houston in the next 15-20 years, but I don't see an extensive network working any better here than it has in Dallas.

 

Full disclosure - I'm just not a fan of light rail in pretty much any form.  BRT is much more functional for Houston in my opinion with potentially heavy rail in certain locations if increased density occurs.

 

agreed. 

though i think the way Chicagos city and job base have developed has been "materially impacted" by rail. they dont have commercial districts 30 miles out in the suburbs like Houston does. all of their towers and corporations are centrally located, and that area has developed a large residential presence as well. 

i agree commuter rail wont work nearly as well in decentralized regions, but thats why we have multiple modes of transit to reach all of the urban districts and destinations, like light rail, and soon to be BRT, and maybe one day streetcars again.

i think we can most all agree that at least one, maybe more west side corridors eventually need rail, wether it be Westpark, i10, and/or 290. they all have the potential for rail lines to stop at both uptown (or the uptown BRT/LRT at least) and downtown, and the westpark line could even stop at greenway plaza, serving 3 of the largest districts in Houston.

why dont you think it will work any better here than in Dallas? wasnt much of their rail plan built on speculation of where people/things would hopefully develop? Houston seems to develop where the people are more so than where they hope they will eventually be, which is part of why we have a much higher ridership per mile than Dallas.

i agree Houstons light rail kind of sucks and i wish we could of developed it along grade separate corridors like Dallas was able to do with all of their left over rail ROW, but it is what it is, and it serves a decent job of moving large numbers of people around while maintaining a fairly strict schedule, unlike busses. hopefully we will eventually get some grade separate rail in Houston, wether it be commuter or heavy. otherwise with the layout of everything in our city, and the number of people projected to be moving here over the next few decades, were liable to choke on our own traffic.

[Slick Vik]

Not sure that I buy the argument that Chicago was planned around automobile use and really don't buy you're grouping the city planning of Chicago with the city planning of Houston and Dallas.  Houston and Dallas are both post-war cities that were clearly built around the automobile, but Chicago has had local rail for more than 100 years and had an extensive rail system well before the rise of the automobile in the 1950's.  Unlike other cities, that rail system was never removed and has operated continuously for that time.  Additionally, it has a well-established and vibrant downtown.

 

In short, Chicago illustrates everything that rail/urban advocates wish Houston had historically, yet it doesn't seem to have materially impacted the way that the city and the job base has developed.

 

The problem is that most rail systems just don't work particularly well in a decentralized job environment.  The places where rail works best in the US is where there is a highly centralized job core (New York, San Francisco, DC, Boston), a dense central population, and quite honestly, where traffic and parking costs are so bad that transit becomes a viable option.

 

I have no doubt that there are some corridors that make sense for rail in Houston in the next 15-20 years, but I don't see an extensive network working any better here than it has in Dallas.

 

Full disclosure - I'm just not a fan of light rail in pretty much any form.  BRT is much more functional for Houston in my opinion with potentially heavy rail in certain locations if increased density occurs.

 

 

Only you could paint a daily ridership of 729,400 as a failure (which doesn't include 316,800 that ride commuter rail).

[livincinco]

Only you could paint a daily ridership of 729,400 as a failure (which doesn't include 316,800 that ride commuter rail).

 

Only you could consistently and fundamentally fail to comprehend anything that doesn't match your worldview.  Next time, try actually reading my post before you start telling me what I said.

 

[Slick Vik]

Only you could consistently and fundamentally fail to comprehend anything that doesn't match your worldview.  Next time, try actually reading my post before you start telling me what I said.

 

 

Please tell me that if I-10 and beltway 8 is the center of Houston, why the 4 major sports franchises choose to play in the loop, and 3 in downtown? These are probably the 150 most well known employees in the city.

[IronTiger]

Daily ridership is very confusing and misleading. If I ride a bus (or a train) from the suburbs to the city, it counts just as much as a man who hops on a bus (with a ticket), and hops off a mile later.

[IronTiger]

Please tell me that if I-10 and beltway 8 is the center of Houston, why the 4 major sports franchises choose to play in the loop, and 3 in downtown? These are probably the 150 most well known employees in the city.

 

Most sports teams typically play in the downtown areas because that's just where sports teams tend to go, especially because of proximity to lots of bars and restaurants, and, more importantly, highway access (which some people on this forum feel is a scourge to the downtown area).

 

Note that the individual sports stadiums aren't used much of the year.

[Slick Vik]

Daily ridership is very confusing and misleading. If I ride a bus (or a train) from the suburbs to the city, it counts just as much as a man who hops on a bus (with a ticket), and hops off a mile later.

Not really because commuter systems are counted separately.

[por favor gracias]

Not sure that I buy the argument that Chicago was planned around automobile use and really don't buy you're grouping the city planning of Chicago with the city planning of Houston and Dallas.  Houston and Dallas are both post-war cities that were clearly built around the automobile, but Chicago has had local rail for more than 100 years and had an extensive rail system well before the rise of the automobile in the 1950's.  Unlike other cities, that rail system was never removed and has operated continuously for that time.  Additionally, it has a well-established and vibrant downtown.

 

In short, Chicago illustrates everything that rail/urban advocates wish Houston had historically, yet it doesn't seem to have materially impacted the way that the city and the job base has developed.

 

The problem is that most rail systems just don't work particularly well in a decentralized job environment.  The places where rail works best in the US is where there is a highly centralized job core (New York, San Francisco, DC, Boston), a dense central population, and quite honestly, where traffic and parking costs are so bad that transit becomes a viable option.

 

I have no doubt that there are some corridors that make sense for rail in Houston in the next 15-20 years, but I don't see an extensive network working any better here than it has in Dallas.

 

Full disclosure - I'm just not a fan of light rail in pretty much any form.  BRT is much more functional for Houston in my opinion with potentially heavy rail in certain locations if increased density occurs.

 

 

Chicago was certainly planned more around rail than Dallas or Houston, but I'm just saying that their road map still has a lot more ink on it than their rail map. Even back in the early 1900s, that was the case.

 

We can agree to disagree on some of this stuff...I would say that there isn't enough rail there (and many other places) to justify valid judgment for a city of almost 10 million people. It's like blaming JJ Watt for the Texans not making the playoffs. It's all about planning.

 

Just about every time I hear about rail or subways in our media, it always seems to come with (as if the 2 to 3 trillion dollars we spend every year on roads and automobiles is "frugal") financial concerns. We act like they're too expensive...well okay, maybe the kind of light rail we have here and the way we built it is (at least directly...indirectly is a probably a different story, as wasteful as our current rail line is). That's not the case in other parts of the world, though. Barcelona and Seoul have recently built underground subways that cost less than a fifth of what our light rail line costed us per mile...and that's exactly what we need here IMO. Just imagine if we had a similar subway system to what I laid out earlier in this thread (100 miles or so) under construction and/or in place by now for about the same price as (or maybe cheaper than) our current light rail system with the new extensions. I'd volunteer to help the same people who built those systems build one here for free for, say, 12 hours a month. Decades of lackluster planning (and that's putting it mildly) has lead to lackluster results. Build something spectacular instead, and I'll wager that people will eventually come on board if not just for the convenience.

 

I agree with you that unless we really start building an extensive (and truly effective) mass transit system here, it won't work well. We've built out low density development for thousands of square miles.

 

Which areas do you like the most for "rail" (or subway, or whatever)?