por favor gracias

You could say the same regarding freeway expansions, also. The Eastex Freeway expansion hasn't really led to any new development over there...and other places like Pearland and League City have grown by leaps and bounds with little to no freeway expansion. A lot of development has to do with a number of factors ranging from location to feasibility to economics and where developers/businesses want to build. I mentioned earlier that I'm pretty sure I've heard the rail line on Main Street being a factor with some of this new development...but it's most likely not the "end all-be all" of reasoning for it. I don't think that most people think they're "too good" for the bus...maybe some (and some of those people may consider it more of a safety issue, right or wrong), but rail is generally cleaner and more efficient, and it doesn't have to interfere and/or be a part of our street traffic situation. I wish our "only choice" was by train when we starting building our cities...that way we may not be in this position in the first place. Now everything is much more of a challenge and millions of people are "comfortable" with their ways of life (not that there's anything "wrong" with that in itself). Think of how much smaller and differently Houston would be laid out without roads, parking lots, parking garages, driveways, auto dealerships, parts stores, repair shops, gas stations, etc.

LRT is a more efficient and cleaner source of transportation than buses. I just wish we would have built our current line without the interference with street traffic. I largely agree. What do you think about having a subway network servicing those areas?

A network like the one I just "proposed" would connect all of the main business centers not only with each other, but also the main shopping, dining and entertainment districts around town...as well as the TMC, Memorial/Hermann/Terry Hershey Parks, Rice U, U of H and both airports. I'm not suggesting subways to Pearland...at least not for the time being. It would be nothing at all like Bryan/College Station.

I'm pretty sure I've read some quotes from the developers mentioning the rail line down Main Street in regards to their choice for location. I wish it wouldn't interfere with the streets like it does, but that corridor was a great choice for light rail IMO.

I agree on connecting the business and arts/entertainment centers (and universities and airports), but I would go with faster trains/subways...and considering the growth we're seeing north and west of town, I would connect with those areas too. We need to fix our streets, too. I need alignments, balances, suspension work, etc. every year in this town. I like the idea, but it wouldn't reduce the congestion inside the EC. And of course, I would prefer train... I really like the idea of the "last mile" bus.

That may be true, but they're being idiots if they "complain" about being able move faster. Can't let that get in the way of decision making of this magnitude.

I don't think it'll happen, either. I just want to connect the city to the suburbs with more options than driving. Like we were talking about earlier, a lot of people seem to care more about their community or their personal space than what's best for the masses, and "harsh" or not, that (and having 6 million of us) has largely brought us to this point. We can't keep going like this forever, and like I said the other day...it's a hell of a lot easier to manage this issue now while there are "only" 6 million, 300 million and 7 billion of us than when there are 10-20 million, 500-700 million and 20-50 billion of us. Future generations are being left with a bigger "load" (so to speak) every day we continue to look the other way.

I'd rather be "overbuilt" if it means we're moving than "under built" if it means we're sitting in traffic. You're right, though that even some of the best mass transit systems we have are "massively crowded" during rush hour, too. That demonstrates their demand if they're planned and built right. I'm not saying or advocating moving people from the suburbs closer in. I just want us to stop building any further out than we already have and build smarter in all phases of our transportation system.

If it was up to me, we would have subways all over this town and lots of covered moving walkways in the busier districts. A 100 mile network could make Houston the world-class city we aspire to be. We could have subway lines connecting areas such as: - Hobby Airport, U of H, Downtown, Greenspoint, IAH and The Woodlands - Reliant Park, TMC, Rice U/Hermann Park, Midtown, Downtown - TMC, Rice Village, GWP, Galleria area - Midtown, Montrose, Upper Kirby/River Oaks, Galleria area, Westchase, Terry Hershey Park, Energy Corridor - Energy Corridor, City Centre/Memorial City, Memorial Park, Allen Pkwy/Regent Square/Eleanor Tinsley Park, Downtown I think that would be a great start to a new era in Houston. Add in a bullet train to D/FW and/or ATX/SA and we've got even more sustainable growth management over time. *** I agree that the I-10 expansion helped the growth we are seeing out there today, but I'm not sure that the same kind of growth wouldn't have happened elsewhere in town if we didn't do I-10 the way we did. I wonder if it came down to "the Energy Corridor, or OKC/SA" for some of these companies. That's a very interesting take.

Rush hour both starts and finishes early on Fridays. The Katy Freeway is still in the red (according to Houston Transtar) both inbound and outbound during hour, and "not in the green" for a large chunk of the average day. The population density of the Heights is listed at 5,722 per square mile. I know "Katy" technically only applies to the city limits...but I'm inclined to think that Katy's "official" density of 1,248 per square mile isn't more than two or three times that when you factor in "the entire Katy area." I agree that we need to come up with an "optimum growth pattern" for sure. There's no doubt that the "inner loop" would be much more crowded if people didn't move to the suburbs...but traffic wouldn't necessarily be worse. In fact, it may be better because if we would be more likely to have a real mass transit system (and one that wouldn't "require" going 25 or 30 miles outside the city).

Agree 100% on your first point. I'd like to see more organization as a whole...but the more of us there are, the more difficult that becomes. Over 6 million in Houston, 300 million in America and 7 billion worldwide. This is why there is so little accountability out there. If the University/Richmond rail line was not designed to interfere with street traffic like all of our other rail is (and perhaps if it ran underground and/or down Westheimer until the GWP area instead), I don't think it would be this big of an issue. I agree that conspiracies and corruption are completely different things. "Conspiracies" happen any time there are two or more beings (and not just humans) who get together to plot a scheme in regard to at least one other party or issue. This is rampant in business and in local, state and federal governments. You could say that the Founding Fathers "conspired" to form our country and our Constitution. Packs of wild dogs in Africa "conspire" to kill unlucky gazelles. "Corruption" is basically acts of immorality. Corruption is often accompanied with conspiracy. That's what I consider "logical." In regard to some of the common, high profile "conspiracy theories" that have been labeled as such in our media, I tend to think that the facts are more aligned with the "conspiracy theories" themselves than the "official stories." Actually, it's not even a matter of opinion, they just do. I'm unfamiliar with the specific "streetcar conspiracy" you're referring to, but I generally agree with your notion that quite often, "conspiracies" are created to explain what's "wrong" with logic itself. It's obvious that a lot of our government and business "leaders" spend a lot of their time doing just that while "at work."

That's a good point, and you're probably right in this case with Culberson. That said, I would say that uniformed voters/voters who prioritize personal preferences and gerrymandering have been the biggest reasons why so many incumbents get re-elected. It's a shame that some people value "their neighborhood" more than the aggregate. I agree that corruption doesn't discriminate, but I'd be willing to take the Pepsi challenge that the oil/gas/auto/insurance/etc. industries have multitudes of more pull both locally and nationally than the "rail/subway" lobby. That's certainly not close to "equal." I really don't know how you can make a statement like that and be as dismissive of "conspiracies"as you've been.

I don't blame you...the scope of that project changed so much since then. I think it took about 6 years...it started in 2003 and finished in 2009. I remember the feds funding something like 80% of it. It's funny how it took less time to do the Katy Freeway than a 3 mile stretch of San Felipe (and of course saving the worst parts for last). One thing I don't understand is the notion that money is saved by taking more time to perform jobs like these (road or rail). I mean, I understand the politics of it...but I don't understand how we condition ourselves to believe/accept that it's better to do it that way and/or put up with it. Either way, the same amount of work has to be done. If the Katy Freeway had taken 10 years instead of 6, we would have been the ones (like we always are) paying for that with both our gas and our time. It's extremely counterproductive to say the least.

Re-election has little to do with what people really want. Our Congress has had an approval rating between 8% and 18% for years now, yet the incumbents have been re-elected over 90% of the time. Just because Culberson "only" has a quarter-mil net worth, that doesn't mean he was or wasn't bribed (or "accepted contributions") for some of it. Of course, that wouldn't make him unique as an American congressman. Considering how much wealth corporate America has, our politicians are quite often bought and sold for next to nothing.

Trains and/or subways don't have to cost more to build than roads and buses...and they would certainly cost less over time. And speaking of "cost," this is exactly what we should be spending our money on IMO. We waste so much money elsewhere...we shouldn't even be having this discussion. It's quite embarrassing at this point, actually. Anyways, trains/subways can easily be faster than buses, and if we chose to run them less often than buses...that would likely be because they can carry a lot more people than buses. We could also design them to drop people off right inside our buildings. No need for parking garages for sure...or cities that expand 30 to 50 miles in every direction either, for that matter. Funny how "all the sudden," the moment the toll roads came into play...construction went from 10 years to 6. If that doesn't tell you this isn't about politics (money), I don't know what else to say. You can "laugh" the "conspiracy" rhetoric (which is you guys' words in the first place) all you want on the way to your next traffic jam...which will probably be tomorrow...but you'll never convince me that additional work takes 4 years "less time to build." Why was it 10 years in the first place?

It doesn't matter what kind of transportation gets built, development will eventually follow if it's well built and/or placed. Look at what's happening on Main Street. It took a while, but it's happening in a big way. And that's just a low-speed rail line that was poorly built, costed way too much and is situated with very little interaction with other sources of alternative transportation. Do you agree that if we had railways rather than highways, we would still have development down the major corridors? I don't know anyone who has suggested that rail would "force jobs/people back into the urban core." I can only speak for myself, but I think most people who want mid to high speed trains/subways largely want more efficient/safer/cleaner/cheaper/less stressful ways of getting from point A to point B...or at least an alternative to roads and automobiles. There's no way we can sustain this growth without addressing this issue and doing so wisely.

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)?

Great pics rechlin...thank you!

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.

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.

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...

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.

I really like that 2nd pic...lots of activity.

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.

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.