por favor gracias

According to the link from the Brooking Institute, Chicago (and Philadelphia) is more highly decentralized in terms of jobs than Houston...and Houston is centralizing and decentralizing. I agree that a 100 or so mile train/subway network couldn't physically serve everyone, but if we expand that network and focus on smarter growth...we could get there over time.

Given today's political climate, you're sadly correct...but it is true that roads and automobiles are bad for the economy in a variety of ways. It's not just that they're expensive...they're also dirty and detrimental to our health and our environment...they are more dangerous than mass transit as long as it's built correctly...they take up more of our time and space than we give credit for as we have to routinely service them and put gas in them, and then there are drive around crowded parking lots, etc. We have to go through the state to get/renew our licenses and buy/sell our vehicles. There are quite a few routine unexpected inconveniences that we all have to put up with from our automobiles. The accidents, the construction, the poor signage, the vehicle in front of you that you can't see or get around...we sometimes have to waste the better part of a day or longer (and possibly have to get a "rental" car) waiting for repairs. They take up a lot of room, too. Think about how much smaller (and how much less of a "need" there would be to build out so far) Houston would be if we didn't have the car dealerships, gas stations, auto parts/repair shops, parking lots/garages, etc. This city may not extend past the Beltway. It's sad, but true...and we need to do something about it soon. If it was up to me, I wouldn't "get rid of roads and automobiles" at this point. I would start building trains and subways all over town and base any future growth down those corridors. Perhaps when low-density or poorly positioned homes deteriorate in older neighborhoods over time, we could demolish them and restore these areas back to their natural habitats as much as possible...perhaps converting a few to parks, but primarily focus on building smarter and learning the lessons from inefficient development when and where applicable over time. I'm not sure we should eliminate roads altogether, though. There will always be a need for emergency vehicles that are going to need to go "off-schedule" when need be. All that said, the smartest growth would be no growth IMO. The developers might get their biggest bang for their buck in urban areas (especially "hot" ones or gentrification areas), but there is a lot of undeveloped land all around Houston that is being converted to low-density homes, and the developers are doing very well for themselves there too. One thing's for sure, there's no cheap way to move 300 million Americans.

The only city on that list other than Chicago I would say has a "far" superior transit system to Houston is Philadelphia, and (according to the Brooking Institute link) they, like Chicago have a higher degree of "job sprawl" than Houston well outside the central business district. Dallas, Atlanta and LA are heavily automobile-oriented cities...but they all have better mass transit options than Houston for sure. Every city has a different layout, and some mass transit-oriented cities (and some automobile-oriented cities, too) fare better than others and for a variety of reasons. Some have better planning than others. I don't think it's a "strike" against mass transit because of poor planning. There's just not enough of it at this point. I'd be willing to bet that if Chicago's rail map looked anything like their road map, they'd fare much better with accessibility. I think livincinco's point (and mine too, for that matter) is a better barometer as to how we've been planning and building our cities than anything else.

Another thing to consider is that the overall cost of using automobiles includes MUCH more than just building the roads that service them. Car payments, insurance, gas, repairs/maintenance, parking/tolls, law violations, the 270 "major" accidents (plus 2 to 3 times as many "minor" ones) every day in the Houston metro area alone...and then there are other issues like dealing with hundreds and thousands of other drivers who may or may not be paying attention for a variety of reasons, driving on good or poor roads in good or poor conditions, pollution...I can go on and on. The point is that we are spending somewhere around (I think more than) 2 trillion dollars every year in this country on roads, automobiles and all of their baggage. Just because we're used to something (or THIS wrapped up in it perhaps) doesn't mean it's what's best for us or that it's not time for radical change as to how we accommodate future growth from here on.

That study doesn't find that the "typical job is accessible by 22.8% of the population." It finds that 22.8% of all of the jobs in the Chicago metro area are accessible to the average Chicagoan via mass transit in under 90 minutes. It reflects where jobs lie within the Chicago metro area more than the extent of transit coverage. NYC and Washington D.C. fair much better than Chicago (and everyone else, including Houston) using this measure. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/5/12%20jobs%20and%20transit/0512_jobs_transit.pdf

It says in the link 302,000 sq ft...but I agree that it's nothing spectacular.

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

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

I wasn't really referring to your use of "future expansion"...I just made a point about how we've been doing things. I'm glad you mentioned Bellaire Blvd. You'll "never guess"...STILL under construction. They actually JUST NOW got us on the new concrete on the south side of the thoroughfare. So I'm thinking (I'm 35 now) by the time I retire, they might actually have the job complete...IF we're "lucky." Sheesh... At some point, we are going to have to consider population control. The way I see it, it's much easier asking 7 billion of us to "cooperate" than 10, 20 or 50 billion of us. Regarding my "most people" comment, you're right...but there are reasons for that. I think it's obvious that LA is just a more desirable place than Houston for most people who have been to both places. People are generally more into beautiful scenery, great weather, great beaches and Hollywood than the petrochemical industry. Do you disagree with what I'm saying?

Some people who prefer rail development to automobile development would actually prefer not to have any new development at all...but rail is more efficient and leaves less of a footprint than automobiles. A lot of people care very deeply about that, including myself. I'm personally not a fan at all of the kind of light rail we have here, the way it interferes with our current infrastructure and probably causes as much traffic as it "alleviates." I would like to see Houston invest in a mid to high speed subway/commuter rail system.

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

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

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

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

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

I got the sarcasm with the "freeway construction is always corrupt" and "rail projects are always squeaky clean" quotes. That's why I responded the way I did. Houston has expanded very fast, and it could have worked well if planned better. It makes no sense to me to build freeways "and leave room for future expansion." Why not build the final product right off the bat? It would have been MUCH cheaper and more efficient to do it that way. It's a lot like how we do "patch" jobs with potholes. We block off sections of roads for weeks or months at a time, just to pour that sand/gravel BS all over it (and creating a rough bump in the process), leave it like that for a few more weeks or months, and THEN patch up the final product that more often than not isn't in much, if any better shape than the original pothole was in the first place. It's beyond "ridiculous," and I have a hard time believing the "experts" who are making these decisions are this incompetent...especially since it's all modeled on similar patterns of inefficiency whether it's what we build, where we build or how we build it. I'm certainly not calling "corruption" on all, or even many of those involved, but it doesn't take "many" to get results like these. Things "work" both ways..."dirty" and more often than not, "not dirty." That said, the system can be rigged so much (by "conspiracy" or not) that even the "not dirty" parties can get stuck in the mud. Thanks for the feedback!

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

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

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

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

That's funny, because I was "hoping" that you would actually respond to the substance of my comment. You should know by now there's "no hope" for me and my paranoia...

It would only "cost more" up front...not over time. There are cities all over the world that have high speed mass transit, and paid much less than we did for our light rail line.

IronTiger, my quote: "No one is saying that freeway construction is always corrupt, or that rail projects are always squeaky clean. Look in the mirror, man." That was in response to ig2ba's quote: "Proof? ____ that! Freeway construction is always corrupt. How can it not be? Rail projects are always squeaky clean. Whenever the most logical explanation for unfavorable (to you) results is incompetence or on people having different preferences, you are usually wrong. It is corruption and evil intent!" Not sure what's "unclear" about what I wrote there. *** Regarding your quote: "They're funded by two different agencies: TxDOT versus City of Houston. I hope I can put your paranoia to rest." That's true, but it doesn't address several issues I have with both of them. Back when they were constructing "the new" West Loop back in February 2006, and 610 northbound was backed up from I-10 all the way to Bissonnet for 8 - 12 hours per day, and more often than not during the daytime, further than that. At the time, I noticed what was causing this was the fact that the ramp from 610 northbound to I-10 (both ways) was down to one lane. I looked at it very closely, and...since I almost always had a good 3 to 5 minutes to "get a good look at it," I noticed that there was enough room on that actual ramp for another lane through the duration of the "design"...but a concrete wall had been placed just far enough to "provide" for one lane. Mind you this setup was scheduled to last through December 31 that year. So I contacted Clifford Halveson (spelling?), the project manager from TxDot and informed him of that situation, and that IF they were to move the barrier, motorists would actually have more room from the barrier than they did on, say, the left lane of the North Freeway. To say he wasn't very receptive to my suggestion would be an understatement (he even maintained that there wasn't enough room for another lane), and he eventually ended up hanging up the phone. Anyways, I then took it upon myself to go to the scene of the crime (and yes, this degree of negligence is a crime somewhere down the line) and I took pictures of the entire area that showed exactly what I was trying to explain to Mr. Halveson. I then contacted Rad Sallee from the Chronicle and told him (and showed him the pictures of) everything. I still have that email from Feb. 17, 2006. I got a little better feedback from him, even though he initially said that "it looks like there probably isn't room for a second lane." I then replied back and broke down every picture I took, illustrating undeniable evidence that what I was saying was true...and about a week later, I read in Mr. Sallee's column that TxDot was going through with their "final design" on that part of the construction area...and they did it in less than a week. I still have that article, too. My thing is...1) if TxDot already knew they could do that in less than a week, why were they "scheduled" to finish that area almost a year later, knowingly leaving thousands of Houstonians sitting in THAT traffic for THAT long...and 2) why were the people who can do something about a situation that was clearly causing some of the biggest routine backups in this city's history so dismissive of a civilian's suggestion (even going as far to say "there wasn't enough room") until the moment they became aware that that civilian had pictures with undeniable evidence? This kind of construction practice isn't the exception in this town either, it's the norm...and it takes more than "jumping through hoops" to get something done about it just about every time, whether it's through the city or TxDot. I can probably give you hundreds of examples of this same crap with the COH's construction practices (not that I should have to do that). They have a long list of this exact same kind of stalling, inefficient, and often counterproductive BS all over the place...and it shouldn't take an MIT grad to see who benefits from it. I mentioned Richmond Avenue earlier...other than Westheimer outside the loop, there aren't many other roads that don't need serious work somewhere, and most of them either stay neglected or get "fixed" by either making it worse or creating another pothole/bump in the process. I haven't even got into the joke the 311 "help" line has become over the years. Just about every person I speak to these days from 311 gets basic requests wrong on a routine basis. It didn't use to be that way when they first started out. I'll even clarify with them over the phone (and have them read it back to me) what I requested...and then a few weeks later when I check on the conformation number, my previously-read-back-to-me-request has turned into something completely different, and much less of a job just about every time. It was almost always less, even when I requested a small stretch of road. Maybe one in 20 or 30 calls I've requested work on have been taken care of somewhat efficiently. For example, I've called in requests to repair stretches of (and the entire stretch of at first) Richmond Avenue from the 3900 block all the way to the 13000 block for about 10 years now. I know I've made over 100 calls on this request alone. Every time I check on it, I either get "the 3900 block of Richmond has been completed" or something like "this is a major project that we don't have funding for at this time" (while they've repaved all of Westheimer twice in that time span). So my next "move" is to request from the 3900 block to the 5900 block (from near Weslayan to near Fountainview), but I often get the same "the 3900 block has been completed" BS. I'll even tell them that this happens all the time, and it seems like only when I talk to a supervisor, I'll get some positive results (University Blvd between Greenbriar and Main comes to mind here...even though I was calling that in for years until then too). If you want to think this is the result of "incompetence," feel free...but I don't appreciate it when people try to patronize me or marginalize my point with the tiresome "paranoid, conspiracy" BS. Like I said earlier, two pigeons blowing each other is technically a "conspiracy." If you don't think there are conspiracies going on all the time when it comes to business and making money, then I have some oceanfront property in Tomball I'd like to sell you. I don't buy the notion that these people truly believe that the best or most efficient way to go about repairing roads is to go about it the way they do. Do I think that Mr. Halveson (or someone he's affiliated with) has gotten a kickback or two? Based on the two experiences I had with him (one on "the new" West Loop and one on the Milam Street entrance ramp to Spur 527), I'd be willing to bet at least indirectly, but I certainly couldn't "prove" it either way. Mr. Sallee? I don't think so. Do I think that the 311 operators are "paid off?" Of course not, but there are absolutely a lot of other ways people can interfere with service. In 311's case, they have clearly taken a step back from when they first started out (and projects were getting done MUCH better and more efficiently) in terms of the quality of people they hire to take these calls and the services they "provide." I can think of so many other things in this town that are designed for inefficiency and consumption. Could it all be "incompetence?" I'm sure at least some of it is, but like I said earlier...the 35 years I've spent on this Earth leads me to believe some people are being paid off in this town. Maybe you're right, though...maybe it's all "paranoia." If that's the worst thing that comes out of this, then at least I'm observant and persistent enough to have been largely responsible for getting the West Loop moving 10 months before TxDot originally planned on "getting around to it." That alone is worth it's weight in your (or anyone's) assumption of "paranoia" for me, brotha!

That's interesting. I wonder if they bought the land in other parts of town to explore for oil...and then develop it if oil production is low or non-existent. Well there's certainly no "lack of understanding" that Exxon set up Friendswood Development to develop that land into "master-planned communities." It doesn't matter when or why they bought that land...they set up their own "development company" to make a lot of money. Why would you "doubt" that oil companies would be at least interested in generating increased gas consumption? Why do they "feel the need" to lobby politicians or hire "scientists" who "conclude" that the Earth has actually cooled over the last several decades?

They don't have to "fund a particular project"...just pay off certain people in high places to do what they can to serve their interests. What makes you so sure they aren't lobbying someone in Minneapolis also? Why do you keep insisting that Slick Vik and I should "have the specifics?"