Slick Vik

I'm not shutting down debate I'm asking for intelligent debate regarding the findings instead of ignoring them altogether.

Ah, no. You went to college, right? Did you take a statistics class? If not (or if you slept through it), you should know about Confounding variables.

Lol get out of here. If you're not going to admit that freeways barreled through minority neighborhoods and have created havoc in many ways as a result, exit stage left.

Higher speed arterials literally exist everywhere in cities, even in cities with less reliance on freeways. Nowhere in that article does it suggest that.

Actually, it does say that, but it's not a "consequence" that higher speed arterials run near freeways, they're everywhere, even in better neighborhoods.

But if they're always near freeways that's a consequence of freeways.

OK, I read it instead of glancing over it.

• It actually doesn't claim to be an "exhaustive report", those were your words. So I was right, but it wasn't the magazine's fault.

• Quote: "“Practically every day,” says a clerk at the Victory Foodmart across the street, “you hear horns beeping and tires screeching.”": that indicates that people actually are paying attention and trying to stop, but it's hard to stop when someone steps out right in front of you. This seems to indicate that the roads have a problem with jaywalking.

• "On top of that, Miami’s large immigrant population includes many newer arrivals who may not be accustomed to the norms of walking or driving the streets of a large American city." - another one that indicates that pedestrians need to be more careful, lack of some sort of education

• "Historically, many could not fend off construction of highways and major arterial roadways the way wealthier communities did. “Low-income neighborhoods either do not have the political clout or are not galvanized to do it,” says Joshua Schank, who heads the Eno Center for Transportation. “You don’t see highways running through the Upper East Side of Manhattan.” Consequently, heavily trafficked arterial roadways with higher speed limits may run right through these poorer neighborhoods. It is along those routes where many pedestrians are hit, with slightly more than half (52 percent) of deaths occurring on arterial streets for the five years reviewed."

See, here's where it gets to be irrelevant and they're dragging the anti-freeway argument here again. Most of the incidents involve surface streets which they're talking about, but freeways don't actually provide a way to get hit as they tend to elevated or depressed.

• "In high-income areas, 89 percent of streets had sidewalks, while only 49 percent did in low-income areas. Marked crosswalks were found in 13 percent of high-income areas, compared to just 7 percent of streets in low-income communities. The study found similar disparities for street lighting and traffic calming devices."

I would like to say that I don't think it's necessarily poorer areas, it's older areas. You see, older areas tend to be poorer, and in older areas, there's simply less pedestrian accommodations. Back when I went to Blinn College, I drove through areas that didn't have the hand/walk symbols, just a simple button to turn the light red (they were on a simple timer, and that led to abrupt stops and bad traffic jams). The curbs had a sharp drop-off which were not at all friendly to bicyclists and those with disabilities. The sidewalks were narrow. The City of Bryan has made efforts to fix it, but cities, especially larger ones, cannot fix all these problems instantly.

• "Brookhaven Police Chief Gary Yandura says much of the area’s problems stem from intoxicated drivers and pedestrians leaving bars and liquor stores lining the corridor. In late June, a Hispanic man was killed and another suffered injuries in an accident after police say they left a nearby nightclub."

Yup. See? It's not a "foolish counterpoint", the article actually says so!

The freeways created high speed arterial roadways.

I think one solution could be lower all roads to 35 mph except freeways.

If the drivers are drinking too the blame has to be shared equally. But it's not equal because a car can kill a pedestrian rarely do pedestrians kill drivers.

I did. And pointing out another correlation isn't a "lowbrow tactic", and in no way did I "essentially blame them for getting mowed down", so don't put words in my mouth.

What is a "hilarious but expected response" is how all this links back to your "evil freeways" schtick, because the only time you post articles is about how bad freeways are and/or how good rail is, and when someone points out a flaw in the article's reasoning you immediately switch to the moral high ground and try to shame them into agreeing with you.

Furthermore, it's no an "exhaustive report" when a magazine simply points out correlations.

It actually is an exhaustive report. I would suggest you read. Making foolish counterpoints does nothing to help your argument. Neither does missing one point completely.

What about other factors? For example, poverty and alcoholism are linked--and both of those (drunk pedestrians + drunk drivers) of course cause death. Poverty and lack of education are linked as well--what if people weren't properly trained to look both ways before crossing the street? Finally, as much as your anti-freeway shtick wants to say so, freeways are designed to keep people off of them (hence why they're sunken or elevated), and thus pedestrian deaths and freeways aren't linked.

Read the article about lack of lighting, crosswalks, and signage, and the part about freeways leading to higher speed arterial roadways.

And not surprised to see you link poverty with alcoholism, essentially blaming them for getting mowed down, typical lowbrow tactic.

Hilarious but expected response.

Although pedestrians are frequently found at fault in accidents, it’s the poor suburban street design that’s often conducive to dangerous behavior, says David Goldberg with Transportation for America, which advocates infrastructure investments. Crossings in suburbs are often far apart, leading some people to put themselves at risk and walk across unmarked areas between intersections.

 

Faster-moving cars along suburban streets are another crucial factor. About nine out of 10 pedestrians survive crashes with vehicles traveling at 20 mph, while nearly all suffer fatal injuries when hit by cars traveling 40 mph.

An exhaustive report in Governing Magazine is making the rounds because it identifies, in chilling detail, what a lot of people have long believed to be the case: the poorer the neighborhood, the more likely residents are to be hit and killed by an automobile.

 

Poverty does not cause pedestrian deaths, of course. But many aspects of low-income neighborhoods make those streets particularly prone to pedestrian accidents. Most notably, their residents are at greater risk since they are more likely to be out walking. Census data showed greater shares of commuters walk or take public transportation to work in lower-income tracts. Poorer communities also develop differently. Historically, many could not fend off construction of highways and major arterial roadways the way wealthier communities did.

 

“Low-income neighborhoods either do not have the political clout or are not galvanized to do it,” says Joshua Schank, who heads the Eno Center for Transportation. “You don’t see highways running through the Upper East Side of Manhattan.”

 

Consequently, heavily trafficked arterial roadways with higher speed limits may run right through these poorer neighborhoods. It is along those routes where many pedestrians are hit, with slightly more than half (52 percent) of deaths occurring on arterial streets for the five years reviewed.

 

During the first decade of Interstate highway construction, 335,000 homes were razed, forcing families to look elsewhere for housing…  In many cases, the ‘urban blight’ targeted by the new road construction simply meant African-American communities—often thriving ones. A great body of work shows that urban freeways destroyed the hearts of African-American communities in the South Bronx, Nashville, Austin, Los Angeles, Durham, and nearly every medium to large American city.

 

 

http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-pedestrian-deaths-analysis.html

A lot of the east end is coming up. The train will only help. I think this poster probably hasn't been in the area in years if ever.

I've been to Istanbul and eaten under the bridge.

It makes a huge difference that it's on the water. I makes a huge difference that cars aren't driving 70+ miles per hour above you (noise, etc).

Tip: Instead of eating under the bridge, get a fish sandwich from a street vendor on the south side of the Golden Horn between the bridge and ferry stop. They're cheap and really good.

I agree the mackerel sandwiches are amazing for 5 liras.

Also under the bridge are restaurants not really areas to walk around

How about the Galata Bridge in Istanbul? I thought you said elsewhere you've been to Istanbul...

I remember that. Being surrounded by water makes a huge difference.

I would like an example of a nice area under a freeway bridge anywhere.

Those 13 alleged prime lots are probably worth about $300 million, going by the HCAD values of downtown land, and subtracting some for being further South. Doesn't really offset the 2-3 billion dollars to do the reroute and upgrades to other freeways, plus you probably have less capacity overall.

The thought of running interstate freeway traffic on East-West surface streets is not rational, and is possibly the worst thing I've heard in years for traffic. Talk about killing pedestrian, train, and other North/South traffic. You cannot take interstate traffic and put it on signal controlled surface streets for any length of time.

And those lots have unlimited potential.

Downtown is the easiest place to get out of because of one way grid streets. It's worth putting people in traffic if it makes downtown a better place. You would've preferred freeways to plow through NYC also

Some of the things I was proposing earlier, without saying anything against rails.

I don't think anyone wants to call the entire concept of rail an "obsession with living in the 1800s" nor was the intent. With one HAIFer in particular taking an absolute hard-line against the Pierce and believes himself to be a visionary, the "obsession" was just rhetoric mocking the world he idealizes with no freeways and a heavy reliance on mass transit.

That's not saying that was called for (despite the idea of tearing down the Pierce with no adequate replacement), but it's a problem. One of the biggest issues we can work with is a metro-wide solution. Houston is more than the Inner Loop, the metropolitan area extends beyond Harris County, and the entire region includes even more detached locales.

I would say the hard line is for keeping the pierce. Proposing that it get torn down gets people up in arms around here.

Very good. You hit the nail on the head...Houston is "a place that makes it easier for most to get around".

False. Houston is centered around drivers and nobody else.

I cna't believe you want ot make it hard for my elderly Dad to get around, since riding in a car is the only way he can get anywhere. I don't really go anywhere close enough to walk, so forget the pedestrian stuff, cycling is not feasible for most of us, rail is too expensive and has no where to run, so that leaves buses and cars. Basically, Houston is fine as it is.

A place that makes it easier for most to get around.

Run mass transit on a portion of the widened and stacked freeways. This obsession with living in the 1800's needs to end.

Too bad the people on charge won't agree to that either. And evidently you're unaware of rail investment being made worldwide.

Why would we build mass transit that has you as the only rider? I don't see any compelling reason to remove the Pierce. It's a pretty good looking freeway, doesn't interfere with pedestrians, and it goes in directions lots of people want to travel.

If mass transit is built on the right corridors there would be hundreds of thousands of riders.

I'm afraid your ideal world that returns us to the 1800's with everyone walking, riding a horse, or taking a train just isn't feasible.

Not really just a world where cities are built for pedestrians, bicyclists, rail, buses, and cars, in that order.

NP...remove the Pierce and widen 610 and 59 to Katy freeway standards...minimum 10 lanes each way. Rebuild the connectors to allow smooth transition from one to the other and we're good to go.

Or, destroy pierce and build better mass transit. 610 borders on neighborhoods no way it gets expanded. This obsession with widening and god forbid stacking needs to end.

So, you want to tear down the Pierce Elevated solely for aesthetic reasons and don't want to see new freeways built or expanded, but you don't want a far-reaching commuter rail system? Gee, I thought you liked rail.

A rail to Beaumont exists it's called amtrak. Something to college station would have to be intercity rail. But again the question is is there sufficient ridership to justify that?

And thus it's more important for them that we expand and improve the highway system until they can be reached by some sort of rail solution.

No, the highway system has expanded enough as it is.

Houston is a big city where people want to work, with driving for hours to work there. Therefore, commuter rail isn't just for the Outer Belt and Galveston, it's for the entire region.

There are priorities and those people are last on the totem pole.

Why would you want to make 100,000+ people per day cross downtown on surface streets?

Those 100,000 could take 610 or 59. Most of them would avoid the surface street.

And the reason is I want the city to be a better place aesthetically not just a place that's convenient for cars.