Jump to content

004n063

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,007

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 004n063

  1. 004n063
    Sorry for the nighttime picture, but we've got contiguity at the bikefluence of White Oak & MKT
  2. 004n063
    "The remaining city investments include a $19.5 million Hispanic History Research Center on Navigation, a $17.4 million capital improvement project with trails on Lockwood Drive, and $10 million for affordable housing." Wow, that might be my favorite part of the whole thing. Trails on Lockwood?!?!
  3. 004n063
    I agree with pretty much all of this. And as someone who primarily bikes, I'm certainly optimistic enough on a personal (i.e. selfish) level, because I can very easily combine bike and rail to get anywhere I actually want to go besides my job (which requires a long bus trip in the morning and an extremely circuitous bike route in the afternoon), and I'm comfortable enough to ride in mixed traffic on non-stroads. But I do think the conflict between car-centricity and walkability is more fundamental than the "middle ground" approach acknowledges. The reality is that parking lots, highways, and wide stroads take up a lot of space, and the effect of that is to make walking often an impractical mode of transport. As to the theoretical/execution side, while I get where you are coming from, I think the NHHIP thread is kind of exactly the place for discourse about long-term mobility and connectivity challenges of the city. That said, I would love to talk implementation details too. In the case of NHHIP, I think the most consequential as-yet-unanswered question is what to do with the land and structure of the Pierce Elevated. What are your thoughts? "Sky-park"? Demolish + greenway? Demolish + develop? Personally, I think (a small part of) the section between the Sabine exit and White Oak Bayou could be pretty cool, but I am not sure the Pierce section itself is best reimagined as a park. What do you think?
  4. 004n063
    I think my comment about collapse may have been unclear. Traffic will continue to increase, almost no matter how much new land we devote to it. One more lane won't fix it, and five more lanes won't fix it for long. The only thing that fixes traffic problems long-term is fewer drivers. You can get to fewer drivers either by creating more viable options besides driving, or by losing population. The latter would presumably spell economic collapse. How to invest in transit? Literally invest in it. Build it. Westheimer, Washington, Shepherd, Leeland/Telephone, Crawford/Almeda. Regional rail lines through downtown from Sugarland to The Woodlands, to downtown from Katy, and a beltway line. The city is the only entity that can do this. Bike network? Ditto, but more densely. If there is a place people need to go, build the infrastructure that allows them to get there safely. Same for pedestrian infrastructure, but I would add the caveat that the current policy of "up to 1500 ft, by request" for sidewalks is ridiculous and needs to be replaced with an "obviously every street will have an adequate sidewalk" policy. Investing in "density" is harder. I really do believe that the development of businesses and non-public housing should be market-driven, and overprescription is a bad move. But if you do the rest of it (transit & ped/bike infrastructure), the market will come. We're already seeing this with all three current rail lines, and that's without a true network. For the impermeable superblocks, it's case-by-case. In many of those cases, it's literally just a locked gate that forces a bicyclist to turn around. Or there is a fence between two apartment block driveways. It's true that the mistakes have already been made, but that doesn't mean there are no solutions. It could just mean building protected bike lanes on Richmond and San Felipe. But we need something there. The political question is a real one, to be sure. But - and I base this on literally nothing - I do believe the voting appetite is there for a politics of building, which is what I'm advocating for.
  5. 004n063
    Am I absolutely insane for wanting a gondola?
  6. 004n063
    I don't know what it was you thought you were responding to there. As to "my" plan, I'll repeat myself: 1) Eliminate mandatory parking minimums and setback requirements. Let the market decide that. 2) Invest in transit, dense housing & multiuse developments, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure beyond current observable demand. A bridge's value isn't determined by the number of swimmers; neither should a quality rail network be judged by the number of bus riders, nor a protected bike lane by the number of people currently riding in mixed traffic. This may not be financially feasivle beyond a certain radius, or outside of selected corridors. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't build up that radius and/or those corridors. 3) Don't increase the highway footprint, and decrease it wherever and whenever possible, especially within a couple of miles of downtown. 4) Use modal filters to keep auto through-traffic on side streets to a minimum, but don't do the Uptown thing of building endless impermeable superblocks that force everyone onto the stroads. Where possible, pedestrian/bicycle alleyways there. 5) Close redundant parking lot entrances/exits along bike lanes. 6) Plant a thousand dollarston of trees.
  7. 004n063
    This started with my joking incredulity at the idea that a booming car-centric city could possibly have anything but world-class driving conditions, when in reality the former all but assures the impossibility of the latter. But I think your argument about culture is misguided. I've spent a lot of time with a lot of Dutch people, and I've spent a lot of time with a lot of Houstonians, and I'll sat this: the proportions of Houstonians and Dutch folks who are really into biking is about the same (probably somewhere around 0.5%). The same is true for walking and transit (are your NYC friends/family really into the walking or subway "scene"? Of course not). You are right to note that habits don't change overnight, even on an individual level, regardless of infrastructure. But after spending time in a lot of different parts of the world, I am now absolutely convinced that urban layout and infrastructure are far and away the most significant factors in transportation behavior. Is it true that Amsterdam and Houston are wildly different cities? Yes, of course. But for the first two decades of post-WWII rebuilding and expansion, Amsterdam was very much following the Sprawlbelt playbook: big highways, wide US-style streets, slum-clearance for highway expansion, the works. Then, in the early 1970s, a small group of people protested, brought attention to the high rates of children being killed by cars, and pushed the government to design its way out of that mess. 50 years later, the Netherlands is the "cycling" capital of the world, despite the fact that the averate Dutchie doesn't give a hoot about bikes. It's just the most convenient way for them to get around the city. Dutchies aren't "bike people," New Yorkers aren't "train people" or cultural perambulists, Houstonians aren't "car people". People just do whatever is practical. If you build a city for walking, people will walk. If you build it for bikes, people will bike. If you build it for transit, people will take transit. And if you build it for cars, people will drive. But only one of those approaches ruins it for all the others.
  8. 004n063
    Without a doubt, setbacks and especially parking minimums are the policy problem here. But solving the policy problem now won't fix the reality problem (at least, not for a long time). What we need is rapid densification along transit/walkability corridors.
  9. 004n063
    But Amsterdam's metro consists of a central city that's much denser than any part of Houston and then several suburbs that are denser than basically any part of Houston, spread out between large swathes of farmland. Virtually nobody in Amsterdam lives more than a few hundred feet from a grocery store or transit stop. And nobody there lives more than a few dozen feet from the bicycle infrastructure network. This is only possible because endless tracts of single family detached homes with front, back, and side yards - the majority of the Houston metro area - literally does not exist. If you are suggesting that Amsterdam's sprawl is anywhere close to Houston's, you're delusional. I say population size does not matter because even a small village can be walkable, and a megacity like Tokyo can be easily navigated via walking, biking, or transit. This is not the case in Houston. Our sprawl and insane modeshare for private vehicles chase each other in a perpetual doom loop. If we want to solve Houston's traffic problems, we need to invest heavily in both transit and transit-oriented development, or the city's economy needs to collapse.
  10. 004n063
    Biking on the sidewalk and biking unprotected in the street are both perfectly fine...except when they aren't.
  11. 004n063
    Definitely more protected. Cars go 35mph or more on Richmond, and there are a lot of them. It can be pretty terrifying to bike there in the afternoon (which is why I go 6 miles out of my way to avoid it).
  12. 004n063
    Population size isn't really a factor. It's land use patterns. We sprawly as hell, so cars are a necessity for most people. Because of this, we need wide roads and lots of parking. Which makes us sprawlier. Which necessitates more cars. Which necessitates more wide roads and parking lots. Which makes us sprawlier, which-
  13. 004n063
    They also give several $25,000 awards to teachers around the city every year.
  14. 004n063
    Both would be worthwhile, but Richmond more so. I work on Westpark, so I'd be very happy with either, but a Richmond lane would serve more destinations than Westpark, with a lot more shade.
  15. 004n063
    Or maybe a place that figured out how to move away from car-centric design? E.g. the Netherlands, where biking, walking, transit, and driving are all world-class. The solution is and always has been viable alternatives to driving.
  16. 004n063
    Biked by there today. Really loving the project and the way it enhances the urbanism of the little pocket that's already there, but...man them streets (specifically Sterrett and Nance) are in rough shape. Any chance they get repaved with this project?
  17. 004n063
    You are a wizard, man.
  18. 004n063
    The problems with the layout in the Galleria are the real issue. The only solution is sturdily built protected lanes, because there are literally zero side streets that run all the way through east-west. And I don't see Uptown drivers giving up their dominion easily. It's a huge pain for me. I bike from work on Dunvale/Westpark to my home in Midtown. Should be ten straight miles on Richmond, but instead it's sixteen miles that take me through Memorial Park and Rice Military, and not because I want it that way.
  19. 004n063
    Woah I missed this. That fantastic news!
  20. 004n063
    Is there any discussion of doing something about the pedestrian realm in this area? There is so much new density but it still feels pretty hostile to get around the area if you're not in a car. Would be really cool to see Winter St. get a "woonerf"-style redesign like this: https://youtube.com/shorts/q4p6beBmBbo?feature=share
  21. 004n063
    East side streetfront de-scaffolded on Main.
  22. 004n063
    Do you mean to tell me that living in a car-centric city doesn't equate to world-class driving conditions?? How could this be???
  23. 004n063
    Oh I know. It was just the fact that there was activity on the thread. Which, dammit, now I am contributing to. Sorry! So is the cap park now a for sure thing then?
  24. 004n063
    Man, don't be torturing us with hope like this.
  25. 004n063
    That's a good point about the young trees. If they're live oaks, they'll get big enough to cover most of the area. And again, it's just a rendering. I just hope that rather than having shady areas you can go to, it's generally shady, with a couple of sunny spots you can go to.
×
×
  • Create New...