ADCS

I would like to present a challenge - would you please lay out the disadvantages to routing the HSR through that corridor that do not have to do with the following: 1. Property values 2. Perceived neighborhood character 3. Noise and visual blight 4. Traffic disruption

See, this is the sort of circular reasoning that NIMBYs use to justify what is primarily an irrational emotional response. Yes, it's agreed that the project is needed, but not anywhere near me - that's not a logical argument, that's emotional territoriality. It's based on an unjustified belief in the ownership of one's proximity, as opposed to the plat of land that one has title to. You see this all the time in infrastructure projects - usually landowners do not mind giving up rights of way or easements - that's either a lucrative one-time transaction, or a steady source of income over the years. Their neighbors, on the other hand, are usually the biggest opponents, and the opposition is couched in terms of territoriality. If there's a perception that the NIMBY mentality is directed at all things rail, that's probably because they're usually more successful there. There are too many strong countervailing interests in Houston to block a major road project (for example, the Grand Parkway F-2).

That's the very definition of "not in my backyard". I wish NIMBYs were more self-aware.

Well, inside the loop, things are about as good/bad as they're going to get. I think lower Westheimer serves its role perfectly fine, as do most of the arterials where the surrounding roads are in a grid pattern. It's when you get to the parts of the city that were originally developed as suburbs, and the surrounding roads are in a spine pattern, that you run into problems. In my current part of town, that's Dairy Ashford, Kirkwood and Wilcrest. Spines demand large arterials (3+ lanes in each direction), and we simply don't have the space to expand them. It's going to be expensive and politically challenging to get those roads expanded to where they need to be, but it can be done. Perhaps a penny tax on gas within the city limits could get moving in the right direction.

As long as we're treating suburban neighborhood collector streets as arterials, we don't have a comprehensive plan.

There's another huge difference - Southern California is largely incorporated, and land use zoning is widespread. That's not the case for much of the Houston area.

There are a couple of problems with this comparison - 1. The vast majority of development in Houston came after the development of the freeway system. Houston really didn't extend past the loop at that point, so the feeders would have come first, then the development. 2. In LA, where freeways were imposed on top of existing transit and natural corridors within a developed environment, denser development taking advantage of the previous infrastructure would have already been in place. Furthermore, LA has geographic constraints that Houston doesn't have.

Probably lives or has friends in the Rice Military/Wash Ave corridor. Those folks really don't like the idea, and rationality has not a whole lot to do with it.

Fair enough - your experiences may have been different from my own.

High-traffic commercial development is often noisier than a freeway with a sound barrier (easy to construct when the funds for feeders are freed up). Likewise, it's generally more pleasant to live next to a sound wall than it is to live next to the loading area of a strip center.

Not too dense, though, otherwise you'll impede sight lines and then have a bunch of auto dealers down your neck, if you're that division lead for TxDOT.

I've got no problem with that strategy. I also think we need to have a comprehensive arterial plan in Houston - this is something that we've put off for far too long. I think "hours" is a bit dramatic, wouldn't you say? Besides, with GPS, that's not nearly the issue that it would have been 20 years ago. That wasn't really it, though - it was more the influence of rural landowners, small-to-medium sized business owners and developers in highway planning. If it were simply about maintaining frontage for existing businesses, then you'd see feeders all across the US - but you don't. It was easier for the state highway department to get land donations (saving them the cost of takings via purchase or eminent domain) if they promised to put frontage roads next to the freeway. Given how powerful these interests have historically been in state politics, this became policy, rather than something done as one-offs where necessary. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the main motivation were simply bureaucratic inertia - since you're likely going to have to plan for them in many circumstances, why not all circumstances?

People don't vote in off-year elections, because most people don't like politics outside their own areas (such as church, business, etc). That's especially the case in a diverse city of 2.2 million, where many, if not most, people feel like they don't even know their neighbors, much less the people who live 20 miles away. You can blame nonvoters for their apathy, but really, why should they care when it doesn't affect them in more than an abstract way? Most people don't think abstractly - it's what pertains to the here and now that's important. That's a big reason the messaging for No won - because it's easy to visualize some creep marching into women's bathrooms. It's not easy to visualize "people who you don't know, in other cities, are going to look down on you for bigotry, and that'll really come back to bite you in the backside".

How? Reduction in the number of exits to begin with, along with the construction of higher-capacity interchanges like SPUIs and DDIs. Identification of areas that were isolated by freeway construction and using TxDOT funds (that would be spent on the feeders anyway) to create distributive routes to these areas. It may be advisable to keep the existing feeders in certain instances, but not as the preferred alternative in all circumstances. The congestion I'm concerned about isn't so much backing up from signals, but from the amount of conflicts that are created from the weaving that comes about when the only urban interchange design available to you is the diamond. Even the X design leads to weaving as it does not control for drivers' varied preferences in merging distance. This can be seen on the Katy Freeway in the Energy Corridor every morning.

First, the early 2000s proposal was for construction on a go-forth basis, and not for existing highways or plans. Second, that's the sort of thinking that's got us stuck with these things in the first place - it'll be difficult, so let's not do it. It's also a bit short-sighted in the way of prioritization - if so many residences or businesses are not accessible without the feeders, then why aren't we looking at fixing that? Why aren't we setting the groundwork to make such a thing feasible? At this point, it's not a lack of funding (especially if it's a 30-40 year project), it's a lack of vision.

Honestly, one of the best things we could do to our freeways is demolish every mile of feeder within the loop. It's a failed model that simply increases weaving and traffic friction leading to congestion. It may have been politically expedient in the '50s, but it's a shame that we weren't able to move on as was proposed in the early 2000s.

This is a good point, especially with Schlumberger moving out to SL. No doubt many of their vendors might see it as a good idea to head that way as well.

Pressure can include getting ordinance changes pushed through City Council.

What are the substantive differences between King and Turner? Their websites are fairly vague in their positions. Both seem fairly opposed to ReBuild Houston, so that's likely going out the window. Turner comes off as more of a machine politician, while King seems to be extremely pro-business. Will either of the candidates put pressure on the Planning and Engineering departments to relax things like parking and form requirements?

I thought Westbury was becoming a sort of gay enclave nowadays. That generally speaks well for neighborhood character and property values.

I'm not terribly concerned. This is just angry social conservatives lashing out, primarily because of Obergefell. It's an off-year election, which is their time to shine (because nothing motivates politically like bigoted hatred and rage). Houston will get some bad PR, you'll see the NFL threaten to pull the Super Bowl, and all of a sudden the city will have found a loophole that lets the ordinance go back into effect.

Do you think the administrators actually pay any attention to what's in the ballot box?

Not a fan. Why not honor the history of the area and call it "Klein Kohrville" or "Klein Louetta"?

Culberson is symptomatic of a pervasive attitude in Houston - that the government exists solely to serve one's own interests, and anything it does that either does not serve those interests, or run counter to them, must be opposed with all available resources. There's no sense of common good or sacrifice.

Amazing how rail always seems to derail these threads.