Jump to content

Widening Highways Doesn’t Fix Traffic. So Why Do We Keep Doing It?


editor

Recommended Posts

Highway construction, at this point, is just a jobs program for the massive construction industry. Local firms and contractors don't have the expertise to build transit, so they will always push for highway construction, lest Texas dollars leave the state. Auto dealers back them up, because their bottom line depends on car dependency.

Developers don't care (they'll build whatever's profitable for the form factor around them), insurers would likely prefer fewer cars on the roads, and energy companies would love to have amenities like fix mass transit to attract high-end talent. It doesn't matter, though, because the local guys who actually have to build the infrastructure don't know how to do high-quality transit, and don't want to spend the time and money to figure out how to do high-quality transit.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, editor said:

I'm not clear what you are trying to say here.  Are you suggesting that developers should be required to have more parking in order to bring more people into dense areas, or just the opposite?

Every developer I've worked with tries to minimize parking in their buildings because it's basically non-revenue space.  In Chicago, developers flock to areas near train stations because they are allowed to have less parking, which means more revenue-generating office and residential space.  It's even codified in city ordinance as "Transit-oriented development."

Get rid of parking minimums.  Was trying to make a snarky comment referencing how everyone talks about Houston lack of zoning but we still have parking minimums. 

Edited by BeerNut
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Well, in fairness, a couple of things:

(1) Under the current system, freeways are largely "self-funding" through the gas tax.  Transit and commuter rail are not anywhere near directly so, at least not in a way that is easily digestible for voters to understand.  Ergo it's not a real leap or illogical to consider it expensive for what it is.

(2) There are cities like LA and Dallas that have built commuter rail systems (and I think these serve as the best example of what would happen if Houston built similar--note LA and Dallas are as known for traffic as we are), and they aren't exactly the most useful.  With few exceptions, Metra in Chicago isn't even all that great.

(3) METRO rail isn't exactly the greatest advertisement against the "great unwashed poor population" bias.

 

The gas tax, especially in Texas, barely covers maintenance of existing roads, so new roads have to be funded by other means. At the Federal level, I would bet the same thing occurs.

Much of the Dallas rail system doesn't go anywhere useful because it was built on existing rail lines. Houston's light rail is far better, even though total mileage is less. for 2021, Dallas light rail, all 93 miles of it, had 15.5 million riders. Houston Metro light rail, with 23 miles of track, had almost 9 million riders.

Not sure what you mean by great unwashed on the rail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, editor said:

As someone who used Metra regularly for ten years, I can say that Metra actually is pretty great. 

Depends on the line.  If you consider hourly headways outside of rush hour as "pretty great," well, then, I guess good for you?  Now go sell that in the suburbs for what it'll cost.

3 hours ago, editor said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Are you pointing out that all classes of people use Metro?  So, no different than the highways or sidewalks or any other public transportation amenity.  If you're trying to say that there are a lot of undesirable people on Metro, then you have to do to things: Define the sort of person you think should be disallowed from using Metro and why, even though they are Houston citizens with the same rights and voting power as you; and ride the Metro red line during rush hours when it's packed with Medical Center workers. 

I'm not begrudging anyone from riding anything--it's a choice.  I ride it frequently enough.  If you want to keep your head in the sand and think that it's OK to expect people to choose the light rail (and transit, by extension) when it's not an infrequent occurrence to come across someone who is high, soaked in urine, otherwise smelling not so clean, or verbally threatening, well then, again, good for you.  It's generally not how you attract people to change behavior.  

The light rail goes plenty of places that are not the Medical Center, and, if your prescription is for me just to ride it around there during rush hour so I see middle class people, well, I don't know what to say.  Absolutely bizarre logic.

3 hours ago, editor said:

I think this requires a citation, as all of the urban planners I've spoken with have said the opposite.  A quick Google came up with this document, which supports that.

 "All of the urban planners."  Well, quelle surprise.  It's like asking economists from the University of Chicago in 1940 what they think of the New Deal.  Urban planners are who got us into this mess to begin with.

Your link is to a publication by an advocacy group.  It refers to costs not directly borne by users (i.e., externalities).  Let me put it this way: Joe Q Public says every time I put gas in my car, the State of Texas gets $0.20.  The more I drive, the more they get--there is some connection between my use and what I pay, and I have complete freedom in going anywhere I want to.  The few times I ride METRO (if any, let's be honest), I have to pay a fare on top of the property taxes I have been paying for something I rarely use because it doesn't go everywhere I want to.  If transit is expanded, I'm still likely not to use it and I'll have to pay even more in property taxes.  If you don't see the clear distinction between the two, well, then . . . I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

3 hours ago, editor said:

Parks aren't self-funding.  Street sweepers aren't self-funding.  Homeless shelters aren't self-funding.  Lots of government services are not self-funding.  Why do we expect that transit should?

I don't know, why don't you go do a nice poll and ask Houstonians if they'd be OK with, say, a $10 billion investment in a commuter rail transit network.  Tell them the associated service levels, the fares, the time it will take them to get from their house to their work, how much they'll have to pay for the privilege, and ask them "Yay or nay"?  (After all, they're the ones who are going to pay for it, and you did say earlier you were concerned about the voters.)  Now ask them to pay $200 million for bayou parks.  I have an idea as to how this will work out.  You act like people universally want transit.  Some do, but most are happy suffering in their personal vehicles.  I don't know why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

(Regardless, comparing the level of investment in transit with investment in parks (BTW I suggest you check out the City's park budget so you can see how much money we're really talking about here), street sweepers, and homeless shelters is absolutely ludicrous.  Your sense of perspective and relevance is nonexistent.)

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ross said:

The gas tax, especially in Texas, barely covers maintenance of existing roads, so new roads have to be funded by other means. At the Federal level, I would bet the same thing occurs.

Well, if you're concerned about transportation modes barely being able to pay for operations and maintenance, I'm not sure why you would look at rosy eyes with transit.  Are Texans' property taxes, gas taxes, or sales taxes set to increase if NHHIP proceeds?  Nope.  And that's all that matters in the minds of voters.

1 hour ago, Ross said:

Much of the Dallas rail system doesn't go anywhere useful because it was built on existing rail lines. Houston's light rail is far better, even though total mileage is less. for 2021, Dallas light rail, all 93 miles of it, had 15.5 million riders. Houston Metro light rail, with 23 miles of track, had almost 9 million riders.

The majority of the mileage literally parallels the Central Expressway and the Stemmons Freeway, which must go "somewhere useful," considering the volume.  If you want to commute via rail, you literally have the "option" to do so . . . I thought that was what this was all about?

1 hour ago, Ross said:

Not sure what you mean by great unwashed on the rail.

Well from a literal sense I mean the riders soaked in their own urine sitting (well, let's be honest) lying on communal seats.  

But it doesn't matter what I think--I have come to expect it--it matters what all the people you are trying to get out of their cars think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BeerNut said:
8 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Well, on this subject, all that matters is what the general population prefers. 

 

Well, since the red line has been among the country's most popular LRT lines since its inception, I'd say that the evidence of a market for solid-good transit lines is there.

Also, given the usage of the 25 and especially the 82, I'd say that even the demand for bad-okay transit is there.

And anecdotally, I've ridden the 25 bus, the red line, and the green line thousands of times. In that time, I can recall a few tweakers and two individuals who partially met your description (never the lying down, though - they get yelled at real quick when they do that), but by and large it's just regular people going to and from work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Well, since the red line has been among the country's most popular LRT lines since its inception, I'd say that the evidence of a market for solid-good transit lines is there.

Also, given the usage of the 25 and especially the 82, I'd say that even the demand for bad-okay transit is there.

And anecdotally, I've ridden the 25 bus, the red line, and the green line thousands of times. In that time, I can recall a few tweakers and two individuals who partially met your description (never the lying down, though - they get yelled at real quick when they do that), but by and large it's just regular people going to and from work.

"Anecdotally"

90 to 130 major incidents a month

Houston METRO launches special homeless team to tackle potential issues along routes amid rise in public transportation crime - ABC13 Houston

Houston METRORail violence: Police chiefs vow more officers on patrol after 6th violent incident on or near transit in 2 months - ABC13 Houston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The security at stops - especially bus stops - definitely needs improvement. That is also true of every city that has both crime and transit. The vehicles themselves are comparatively safe.

Of course, all of the dangers related to public transit pale in comparison to the dangers of cars, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2023 at 6:59 PM, editor said:

In a New York Times article this past Sunday, the Katy Freeway is one of three poster children for why you can't build your way out of traffic.

The other ones highlighted are the Long Beach Freeway in Los Angeles, and the Jersey Turnpike Extension.

OMG.  This whole thread is based on a lie.  Did anyone read the article? Did anyone look at the source of their claim that "within five years, peak hour travel times on the freeway were longer than before the expansion."  That (yes, the very premise of their anti-freeway-widening article) is a lie.  

One wonders if the NYT author even read his/her own source material; if so did he/she not understand it?  Either way... the both the City Observatory article and the NYT article are deeply dishonest.

The linked "study" is one I believe we have discussed here before and it compares peak travel times on Katy Freeway for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.  In a city adding 100,000 - 150,000 people every year, it should come as no surprise that traffic is increasing. The expansion of the Katy Freeway made it possible to handle that additional traffic. But the noteworthy part is the earliest year they compared is 2011, three years after the completion of the Katy Freeway widening.  No comparison whatsoever to the freeway's performance before the widening project commenced.  

For everyone's convenience, here is a link to the NYT's source  https://cityobservatory.org/reducing-congestion-katy-didnt/

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

The security at stops - especially bus stops - definitely needs improvement. That is also true of every city that has both crime and transit. The vehicles themselves are comparatively safe.

Of course, all of the dangers related to public transit pale in comparison to the dangers of cars, but...

All of that may be true, but what matters is perception.  That is, assuming you want to get more people to ride transit.  Maybe you don't.  Maybe you're in the camp, "They shouldn't have decided to live 30 miles out of the city" so it's either "who cares what they think," "tough flurf," or "let's punish them by not expanding their freeways.

Knocking on people's doors and pointing out transit versus car safety statistics and expecting people to go, "Oh, I see it now, gonna take the bus from now on" is just ridiculous.  Similarly, having politicians tell voters that they just don't know what's good for them doesn't have a great track record, either.

Seriously, there is so much back-and-forth on this forum about transit and highways, I have yet to see anyone propose anything comprehensive as to change the situation, other than "just build it," or "make them suffer."  I'm not surprised, as the problem itself is intractable and multidimensionally so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

OMG.  Did anyone read the article? Did anyone look at the source of their claim that "within five years, peak hour travel times on the freeway were longer than before the expansion."  That, yes the very premise of their anti-freeway-widening article, is a lie.  The linked "study" is one I believe we have discussed here before and it compares peak travel times on Katy Freeway for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.  In a city adding 100,000 - 150,000 people every year, it should come as no surprise that traffic is increasing. The expansion of the Katy Freeway made it possible to handle that additional traffic. But the noteworthy part is the earliest year they compared is 2011, three years after the completion of the Katy Freeway widening.  No comparison whatsoever to the freeway's performance before the widening project commenced.  Deeply dishonest.  For everyone's convenience, here is a link to the NYT's source  https://cityobservatory.org/reducing-congestion-katy-didnt/

Disingenuousness aside, there is no "control" group, there never is and never will be.  We'll never know what would've happened if I-10 weren't expanded or weren't expanded as much.  I submit that it's just as likely that not expanding it would lead to even more sprawl over the long run.  (Would it have led to sprawl if it weren't built in the first place?  Of course not.  But that's not where we are.)

The heart of a big city depends on transportation to survive.  In Houston and most American cities, the mode of choice is personal automobile, and the city and surrounding area have developed as such.  You ignore this for ideological reasons, well, you inevitably do not get the outcome that you're hoping for.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it is hard to shake the perception that “public transit = unsafe”, no matter how much you point to the stats, etc. you are just not gonna be able to convince some people. Like it or not, perception is extremely important. I think people feel safer in personal vehicles because you can control several variables that you can’t on, say, a bus or train. Statistically, you’re more likely to die in a personal vehicle (often times because of a mistake you made), but people are willing to roll those dice because they would rather be in control of their own situation than put it in the hands of someone else. I’m admittedly like that with stuff like Uber- I flat-out will not take an Uber or Lyft by myself- maybe it’s irrational, but I will drive or take a bus before you could get me alone in one.

I think it’s also why a lot of people are afraid of flying, even though flying is super safe. Maybe it’s a strong cultural thing here where we have a very “fend for yourself because nobody else will” mentality? 

Non-transit example… I’ve always been fine with Downtown and recognize that it’s incredibly safe and an incident isn’t likely. (It’s safer IIRC than almost any part of inner loop Houston) But still, South Downtown at night still gives me the creeps, even though I rationally understand that it’s not likely to be an issue. It’s dark and poorly trafficked, so even though the reality is that it’s fine, your brain might be sending you warning signals that it wouldn’t in those more well-lit and traveled areas, so I end up taking more precautions. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend whose company relocated right before COVID from The Woodlands to downtown, and he said when the announcement the atmosphere was like being at a wake.  Sure, commute times were going to significantly going to increase for the vast majority of people, which is certainly reason to cry enough, but he said he couldn't believe the number of people who brought up how scared they were from a public safety perspective (lots of talk of muggings and homeless).  Many of these people are recent transplants as the company consolidated offices here and essentially don't leave The Woodlands.  You turn on the news at night and it's all focused on crime, you have the candidate of one of the major political parties for the county executive essentially airing ads telling people how unsafe it is in the city (basically if you go to an Astros game or take a walk on the Bayou, you're putting your life at risk), it's totally understandable, whether it is true or not.

My cousin came and visited for some soccer tourney for her kid in 2021 . . . she lives in North Richland Hills.  She literally asked me if my house was burned or sustained major damage in 2020 during "all the riots" (the riots referring to the George Floyd protests).  I'm not sure she believed me when I said that I didn't have any damage (or come close to having any damage) and there weren't any buildings that were burned.  Several instances of broken glass, sure, not denying there wasn't property damage, but this perception is what you're up against.  Give them an opportunity or any excuse to stay in the suburbs because their commute now takes 75 minutes instead of 45, trust me, they will.  And downtown, as has been the case my entire life, seems at times to be barely hanging on as it is.  Certainly way better than it was before, but it's still nowhere near where many of us want it to be.

So as much as you have anecdotes about spic and span rides on METRO, and how dangerous it is to drive in a car, I'd say these perceptions are way more powerful.  They won't have personal anecdotes, perhaps, but they'll be happy to tell you how many home invasions they saw on Eyewitness News last week and how it "could've easily been them." 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

OMG.  This whole thread is based on a lie.  Did anyone read the article? Did anyone look at the source of their claim that "within five years, peak hour travel times on the freeway were longer than before the expansion."  That (yes, the very premise of their anti-freeway-widening article) is a lie.  

One wonders if the NYT author even read his/her own source material; if so did he/she not understand it?  Either way... the both the City Observatory article and the NYT article are deeply dishonest.

The linked "study" is one I believe we have discussed here before and it compares peak travel times on Katy Freeway for the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.  In a city adding 100,000 - 150,000 people every year, it should come as no surprise that traffic is increasing. The expansion of the Katy Freeway made it possible to handle that additional traffic. But the noteworthy part is the earliest year they compared is 2011, three years after the completion of the Katy Freeway widening.  No comparison whatsoever to the freeway's performance before the widening project commenced.  

For everyone's convenience, here is a link to the NYT's source  https://cityobservatory.org/reducing-congestion-katy-didnt/

The linked piece also ignored how many more cars were carried by the Katy expansion, which has to be a large part of any discussion. I also question the facile conclusion that the expansion induced demand. Does the author think that all of the new homes out past Highway 6 would not have been built if there was no expansion? That's a stretch. And, if no expansion had occurred, and the far West MPCs weren't built, where does the author think all of those people would have lived? It's not like you can easily add 10,000 single family homes inside the Loop or inside Beltway 8. The people who buy in greater Katy will not live in HISD or similar school districts, nor will they live in what they consider cramped midrise buildings cheek to jowl with neighbors they don't want to see or talk to or hear through the walls.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2023 at 10:15 AM, BeerNut said:

We should get rid of the zoning through parking minimums inside the loop to allow denser housing to be built.  Maybe with some affordability component that would allow more people to live closer in and we wouldn't need to keep increasing lanes.

but this is happening!

not to long ago Houston passed some reduced parking requirements within specific distances of mass transit.

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/docs_pdfs/User's Guide for WP and TOD report_2020-10-01.pdf

even before that happened, the amount of density created around the red line is inspiring. the other lines are getting similar treatment. there's density creeping into the east end along the green line. right now it really extends out to Scott street. it's no coincidence that this is right on a rail stop.

now that these restrictions have been lifted, we're going to see more and faster.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, samagon said:

but this is happening!

not to long ago Houston passed some reduced parking requirements within specific distances of mass transit.

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/docs_pdfs/User's Guide for WP and TOD report_2020-10-01.pdf

even before that happened, the amount of density created around the red line is inspiring. the other lines are getting similar treatment. there's density creeping into the east end along the green line. right now it really extends out to Scott street. it's no coincidence that this is right on a rail stop.

now that these restrictions have been lifted, we're going to see more and faster.

Not to drag this too off-topic, but do the TOD ordinances apply to our BRT lines as well? Could people along the current silver line be exempt from minimums because of it? 

I’m also curious to know if these will apply to BOOST routes. 
(I figure this is addressed in the PDF, but my internet is being a butt right now and struggling to load. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BEES?! said:

Not to drag this too off-topic, but do the TOD ordinances apply to our BRT lines as well? Could people along the current silver line be exempt from minimums because of it? 

I’m also curious to know if these will apply to BOOST routes. 
(I figure this is addressed in the PDF, but my internet is being a butt right now and struggling to load. )

I believe the BRT is included, but I don't think the BOOST is. so yeah, get ready for more density in the Galleria area, and also once the University BRT is built, that will spur density too.

and sure it's not the specific topic of highways don't fix traffic, but the only way to continue to grow population in a region is to increase ways for increased population to move around, so if you aren't creating more roads for more pollution, you need to create alternatives, and then change the rules near those alternatives.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BEES?! said:

Not to drag this too off-topic, but do the TOD ordinances apply to our BRT lines as well? Could people along the current silver line be exempt from minimums because of it? 

I’m also curious to know if these will apply to BOOST routes. 
(I figure this is addressed in the PDF, but my internet is being a butt right now and struggling to load. ) 

Yes it does the BRT lines in the galleria area are included you have to go to the walkable places page on the city of Houston's website and they'll have a map there I'll see if I can find a link.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 004n063 said:

never the lying down, though - they get yelled at real quick when they do that

I can't speak for the Green and Purple lines, but on the Red lines, more than half of the time I've ridden it, there is some kind of police presence.  Whether it's MetroCops, or HPD, or fare checkers.  The people running the trains don't put up with shenanigans.

Last week, a train driver refused to leave the station until a bag lady got off the train because shopping carts aren't allowed.  The bag lady wouldn't budge, and then all of the other passengers started barking at her to get off so they could go on their way.  She left right quick.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2023 at 6:59 PM, editor said:

Immediately after Katy’s last expansion, in 2008, the project was hailed as a success. But within five years, peak hour travel times on the freeway were longer than before the expansion.

Back to the topic, I want to be 100% clear that the above quote posted by Editor from the New York Times  is not supported by the source they reference and appears to be completely false.   If their theories of freeway expansion were true, one would think they wouldn’t have to resort to lies to “prove” them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Back to the topic, I want to be 100% clear that the above quote posted by Editor from the New York Times  is not supported by the source they reference and appears to be completely false.   If their theories of freeway expansion were true, one would think they wouldn’t have to resort to lies to “prove” them.

It looks right to me.  The Times cites City Observatory, which cites Transtar's Historical Freeway Travel Times statistics.  I put them into a spreadsheet, and here's what it looks like:

I-10 from Beltway 8 to Downtown - Percent of time the freeway is "congested," by Transtar's definition:

Screenshot 2023-01-13 at 12.10.10 PM.png

Sure looks like the numbers got worse, not better.

 

And here's the congestion expressed in amount of time, again according to Transtar:

Screenshot 2023-01-13 at 12.11.13 PM.png

 

Which part of Transtar's numbers do you think are "lies?"  Do you have any theories about why Transtar might put false numbers into its statistics?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, editor said:

It looks right to me.  The Times cites City Observatory, which cites Transtar's Historical Freeway Travel Times statistics.  I put them into a spreadsheet, and here's what it looks like:

I-10 from Beltway 8 to Downtown - Percent of time the freeway is "congested," by Transtar's definition:

Screenshot 2023-01-13 at 12.10.10 PM.png

Sure looks like the numbers got worse, not better.

 

And here's the congestion expressed in amount of time, again according to Transtar:

Screenshot 2023-01-13 at 12.11.13 PM.png

 

Which part of Transtar's numbers do you think are "lies?"  Do you have any theories about why Transtar might put false numbers into its statistics?

Nowhere did I suggest that Transtar's numbers were lies or in any way false or misleading.  The lie is in City Observatory's, The New York Times' and your narratives that the number tell us that "within five years, peak hour travel times on the freeway were longer than before the expansion."  The Transtar numbers do not tell us that.  In fact, it would be impossible for these Transfer numbers to tell us that, because they don't include any pre-expansion numbers.  The earliest numbers shown were 4 years after the completion of the expansion.  The only thing these Transtar numbers tell us is the rather obvious fact that, in a metro area adding 100,000 - 150,000 people every year, traffic volumes increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

The only thing these Transtar numbers tell us is the rather obvious fact that, in a metro area adding 100,000 - 150,000 people every year, traffic volumes increase.

you forgot the rest of this statement.

....traffic volumes increase when no other reliable transit options exist.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, samagon said:

you forgot the rest of this statement.

....traffic volumes increase when no other reliable transit options exist.

Oh boy, the logic there.

Yes if you're adding 150,000 people to a metro area year after year after year, regardless of "reliable transit options," one should expect traffic volume to increase.  Why?  Because it's the primary driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Only in a fantasy world do other reliable transit options prevent traffic from increasing in a metro area growing as fast as Houston.

It is a fact that the cities with the best mass transit systems (London, NYC, Chicago, etc.) also have the WORST traffic congestion.  I am not saying to not add mass transit.  Just dont expect it to alleviate traffic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, steve1363 said:

It is a fact that the cities with the best mass transit systems (London, NYC, Chicago, etc.) also have the WORST traffic congestion.  I am not saying to not add mass transit.  Just dont expect it to alleviate traffic.

Also very true--it would be helpful for me at least for people to express what they want rather than what they don't want.  It's reducing congestion on one hand, but maybe it's more of congestion is OK as long as the freeway is not as wide.  Or maybe it's congestion is great because people will be forced to move.  It's transit on one hand, but maybe it's not commuter rail as much as it is frequent transit inside the Loop and the suburbs can pound sound.  Like the Stop IH-45 Now stuff, I really just don't understand what they want.  I think if they thought about it hard, maybe they'd come up with a different approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...