RedScare

The technology was inefficient. 

Well, you said it. I didn't. GM didn't kill off streetcars. Inefficiency did. Be sure to tell that to Slick.

First of all, let me start off by saying that I am *not* against suburbs or suburban development.  I think suburbs are a great aspect to any city, the ability to own a house and a yard for cheap is something most people would love to have.  Personally, I prefer a more urban environment, but a well-done suburban community is certainly nice. 

 

However, there are government subsidies to the major highways that serve suburban communities. And then you have the mortgage incentives to move out into the suburbs that went on for many decades.  Tax breaks such as this are similar to the downtown residential tax incentive. 

 

I realize that townships locally fund many street improvements and utilities from their taxpayers, I was just saying that it would be less efficient than a denser community.  Mathematically to me it would seem that suburbs are less efficient in regards to resources such as roads, utilities etc.  It just seems like cramming people into small spaces would increase efficiency.  Much like cramming people onto a bus would increase the bus's efficiency as opposed to only a few people on a bus. 

 

I realize I need to do more research though.  But your comment about dense built up neighborhoods puzzles me because wouldn't the same thing you said about suburbs apply to densely populated areas?  Such as taxpayers and homeowners paying for everything? 

 

I wouldn't say suburbs are more subsidized than inner city areas, but I don't think that they are subsidized any less either. 

I agree completely about suburbs. In fact, I believe every person on this forum agrees...except for one person. I prefer living inside the loop also, but I do not begrudge those who like to sit on the patio and stare at their manicured patch of grass. However, if you consider mortgage deductions a government subsidy, then consider that the more expensive condos in the inner city are subsidized MORE than the cheaper suburban homes. And, as pointed out earlier, if everyone gets the subsidy you cannot say that it is a suburban one.

Now, the argument about highways is more complex. The highways are actually connecting two cities. They would be there even without the suburbs. However, they allow people to reach the suburbs quicker. But, consider that the highways are paid for with gasoline taxes or toll road fees. They are not really subsidized by government. They are paid for using the taxes on the gasoline used to drive on them. Slick's claim of government subsidy to the suburbs is really dishonest, as he ignores that those same subsidies go to inner city dwellers.

Do you know where the REAL government subsidies go? DOWNTOWN! Houston, Dallas and many other cities desperate to revive their downtowns and increase the number of residents are pumping millions of dollars into renovating old buildings or building new ones. Dallas has spent hundreds of millions. You don't hear Slick talking about these subsidies, only imaginary subsidies to suburbs. Don't buy it. It is not true.

If you actually went over there, you would see the grass is almost dead from foot traffic cutting a path on that side of the street. 

OMG! Oh the humanity!

So, your proposal to improve light rail service in Houston is to have even fewer stations in which to catch the train, making people walk further to catch it, in addition to making people walk down flights of stairs in order to get there? Do us a favor, never become a transit chief. You have more ways to screw the transit rider than METRO does.

BTW, I look forward to your analysis of the rate of acceleration of Siemens trains, the top speed attained before having to slow down, and how much deceleration can be safely achieved without throwing passengers forward.

If you read about the demise of Houston streetcars, you'd find that the reason they switched from streetcars to buses is because it got too expensive to build new streetcar lines. If streetcars were already losing money, what makes you think that they could afford to build tunnels and elevated tracks?

Now, let's talk about these "government subsidies" that you and Slick keep talking about, but never describe. There are none. Modern subdivisions are built by developers. They create Municipal Utility Districts to finance the building of water and sewer lines. Streets are built by the developer to county specifications and donated to the county. Do subsidies pay for the water and sewer districts? Nope. Homeowners within the MUD districts pay taxes and water bills to pay off the bonds. There are no subsidies. The homeowners pay for everything.

Rail stations should be underground downtown.  It would be very expensive to construct with our crappy soil, but it'd be far superior.  The only rail plan that had subway stations downtown was that old heavy rail plan. 

 

Trains would also be able to travel much faster. 

Not really. In downtown, the rail stations are spaced every 4 blocks. The blocks are 250 feet long. Therefore, the trains are stopping every 1000 feet. They could not go any faster than they currently go at street level. The only thing that putting rail underground would do is make all of the passengers go up and down flights of stairs in order to get to a train that is currently only a few feet away.

Why would you want to punish all rail riders like that? I thought you liked trains?

So do buses...

Building sprawling neighborhoods in the middle of nothing doesn't take enormous amounts of resources?

Actually, compared to midrises and highrises, no, it doesn't. You could do a tiny amount of research and come to that conclusion easily. Look at the price of midrise and highrise condos. They are priced at several hundred dollars per square foot. Some of that is land, but since they are multifloor buildings the land cost is divided several times. Houses in the burbs are often built at prices as low as $50 or $60 per square foot.

Why is that? Well, multifloor buildings must have thicker foundations. After a few floors, the frames must be constructed of steel or steel reinforced concrete. They must have parking garages constructed out of concrete. They must have elevators. Suburban homes do not need any of these things. Even oversized homes often cost less to build than small condos.

So, no, sprawling suburbs are not nearly as wasteful as dense highrise construction.

 It's possible with engineering not to have it fill like a sieve during rains (Editor once said something supporting this), and Main Street could go through successfully there.

Actually, even with engineering, it would be impossible to have anything "fill like a sieve", since a sieve is a sifter designed with mesh to allow liquid to flow through it.

Couple of things I think are interesting. First, the last couple of blocks of Yale prior to reaching I-10 are devoid of trees. That is a treeless stretch of several hundred feet. Second, according to HCAD, the strip of grass that has people in fits of rage is a grand total of 155.41 feet long. That is about the width of 3 Heights residential lots. Yes, people are outraged at walking on 155 feet of grass. If I walk from the street to the back of my lot, that is close to 155 feet of grass that I walked on. Of course, I have never actually SEEN any pedestrians on that grass. The people complaining (with the exception of the guy posting above me) have never actually walked on that grass. They simply drive by it, get outraged, go home, log onto HAIF or Swamplot, and post of the outrage they felt as they drove past the grass.

I'm impressed at the outrage.

Affordable? Suburbs are a huge drain on resources as has been stated before.

 

Sure, you say it, but that doesn't make it true. You say lots of things of dubious value.

 Then again, Germans defended Hitler as well, so people are capable of anything. Nothing surprises me. 

It looks like Slick has officially run out of arguments. He has stooped to invoking Hitler. I think there is a term for internet posters who invoke Hitler and Nazis.

Sounds as if you are upset that Bob was smart enough to buy that land cheap, and you got nuttin.

It doesn't appear that you care about the average joe, either. You'd rather people have no options for affordable housing just so your fantasy remains intact. I'm no huge fan of the suburbs either. However, I understand that people must live somewhere. Not everyone can afford inner city housing prices as I can. Others do not want inner city crowding like you do. But, rather than allow people the option of choosing where to live, you wish to force then into high density housing.

My United States has a Constitution that protects me from your United States.

Slick and his fellow new urbanist brothers are so enamored of and so convinced of the perfectness of their vision that they cannot comprehend that anyone ever willingly and knowingly moved from an inner city residence to a suburban one. Because of this, they create numerous conspiracies to make people move to the suburbs, ignoring the main conspiracy...that millions of Americans actually WANTED to move to the suburbs. 

I'm still failing to see the problem.

 

The nostalgia for the street cars seems to have materialized considerably after the fact.  I really haven't been able to find anything from the time that they were actually being removed complaining about the loss.

Far from it. People thought buses were actually an improvement in transportation. It is only people who enjoy looking at black and white photos who romanticize the streetcars.

Whenever someone asks me to define the term "faux outrage", I direct them to this thread.

I don't know why I think that.    

Main Street Square is probably the least active section of downtown. Glad to hear that you'd like the rest of Main Street to be just as active.

Like I said, be careful what you ask for. If you and your FB friends believe after careful consideration that expanding Main Street Square from I-10 to US 59 is a winner, then y'all know who to contact. Honestly, I don't think I'll be signing your iPetition.

I'll be there right about 6 pm. Just for you, I will wear my white A&M hat. I'll also have on a pair of olive drab cargo shorts. But, don't worry, it is easy to find everyone.

Corner of White Oak and Houston Avenue.

Well, since the very thoughtful reasons posted by others were unpersuasive, I thought I'd bring up the obvious point that cyclists who were not myopic were concerned that closing streets in cities can have extremely negative consequences. Since you claim to be a fan of downtown and cycling, I'd ask you and your FB friends to be careful what you ask for. Cycling is making great strides in Houston, and I'd hate for cyclists to be the cause of creating a downtown dead zone.

We've had this discussion regarding Critical Mass. It has become very popular, and is achieving its stated goal. However, a few dozen riders insist on ruining the goodwill earned by 1500 others by riding like A-holes. Actions have consequences. Consider them before acting.

By the way, using Latin phrases in internet forum posts is way cool. It makes you look like you know Latin. Two big thumbs up for that!

The fact that every cyclist posting on this thread except for you opposes closing the street to cars should give you a good idea of your odds of success. 

Yours is a solution in search of a problem.

They can and they do. People unfamiliar with the area come down Main not realizing what a bad idea it is. A few weeks ago one told me to "get out of the road or I'm going to run your ass over."

Well, I must concede that one angry motorist is a good reason for closing several miles of a street.

Actually, the City of Houston purchased Houston Electric's streetcar lines. GM was nowhere to be found.

While Houston’s population was increasing, streetcar ridership remained stagnant, as more and more people embraced the car. When businesses and other non-residential development began popping up in the suburbs it was clear that people were using the car for more than just their commutes. Houston was already well on its way to becoming the car-dependent city it is today.

 

The official abandonment of the streetcar system occurred in 1940 in a deal between the city and HE. The mayor of Houston had an interest in gaining ownership of the interurban route, most of which was operated by HE. His main motive was a project he had been championing, a proposed multi-lane highway to Galveston (which would eventually become the Gulf Freeway). In exchange for the right-of-way on the Houston-Galveston interurban corridor and $50,000 the city would take on the expensive task of dismantling all of the street rails, making HE’s transition to buses complete. “The death of Houston’s streetcar system was thus, in a very real sense, tied with the birth of Houston’s super-highway system” (Baron).

http://houstontransit.blogs.rice.edu/2011/04/16/who-killed-the-houston-streetcar-part-2/

Thanks for all the heads' up. Sucks to hear that the sound mashes up, but that's the breaks when your the poors. Social D is on Neptune Sunday at 9. I saw that stage while driving down Memorial this morning.

Really, we'll be the only big group up there. But, just in case, here is a photo of me at a Tea Party rally...

(Pardon the bandana. There may be IRS agents reading the forum.)