Using the Stimulus to Encourage Sprawl

[Subdude]

Stimulus Ideals in Conflict on the Texas Prairie

Michael Stravato for The New York Times

WALLER, Tex.

[ToryGattis]

While I think Robin is right that stimulus money should be prioritized inside the city where the congestion problems are, there are very few "shovel ready" projects available there. But I also agree with the West Houston Association: the growth and sprawl will happen anyway, we should plan for it and get ahead of it with infrastructure. I also think the GP, like all loop freeways, helps keep the growth closer to the core, instead of extending ever farther out the spoke freeways - i.e. the GP will absorb growth that otherwise might go to Brookshire and Sealy.

The right answer is to use the federal stimulus money to build GP SegE right now, because it's shovel-ready, but then take the toll revenue that will be generated from that segment to finance important congestion relief projects inside the city, like the Hempstead Tollway next to 290, which is not toll-viable on its own.

More in my post here.

[wernicke]

So, Tory, are you saying the GP SegE is viable on its own... as compared to the Hempstead Toll? Because that is hard to believe.

I'm with Robin Holzer on this issue.

[ToryGattis]

So, Tory, are you saying the GP SegE is viable on its own... as compared to the Hempstead Toll? Because that is hard to believe.

That is my understanding, and certainly so with the federal money to pay for most of it. The big difference is that there is no real alternative route to the GP-E, but you can take free 290 instead of the Hempstead Tollway. There will really only be demand for the HT at rush hours, which is why I'd propose that it be all reversible one-way lanes in the rush-hour direction. Unlike the the new I-10 middle lanes and the Energy Corridor, there are no major job centers outbound on 290, so the flow is vastly inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon. Who would pay a toll to travel a route where the free lanes are moving at good speed?

HCTRA discovered this problem with its first two projects: Hardy and BW8. The forecasts said Hardy would be big $ and BW8 might barely break even or even lose a bit, but it's been the complete opposite: BW8 makes big $ because it is the only good alternative for many trips at all times of the day, and Hardy has been an overall money loser because of nearby free alternatives 45 and 59.

[Houston19514]

So, Tory, are you saying the GP SegE is viable on its own... as compared to the Hempstead Toll? Because that is hard to believe.

I'm with Robin Holzer on this issue.

I think the main point is that it is "shovel ready" whereas the Hempstead Toll road is not. And using the "stimulus" money to build it now, and then collecting tolls on it, will, in effect, allow us to transfer the stimulus money over time to the Hempstead Toll road, serving the areas "where people live" in Robin Holzer's somewhat misleading words.

And Tory is absolutely right (and I've said it on this forum before too): Highways like the Grand Parkway do not contribute to sprawl, but actually reduce the amount of sprawl that would other occur along the spoke freeways.

All that being said, the "Stimulus" package and the rules that come with the money, are a big mess, especially if anyone's goal was truly to promote mass transit and in-fill projects. Exhibit A: Metro asked for $400 Million to build shovel-ready mass transit lines. They only got, what, $190 Million, and then were told they can't use it on their mass transit lines because the FTA has not yet approved the use of federal money on two lines (and I guess since Metro is not seeking FTA money for the other lines, no stimulus funds are allowed on those lines either.)

Edited March 23, 2009 by Houston19514

[Montrose1100]

HCTRA discovered this problem with its first two projects: Hardy and BW8. The forecasts said Hardy would be big $ and BW8 might barely break even or even lose a bit, but it's been the complete opposite: BW8 makes big $ because it is the only good alternative for many trips at all times of the day, and Hardy has been an overall money loser because of nearby free alternatives 45 and 59.

Hardy is too far east to even bother using it (from Spring). When 45 is congested during rush hour is only when there is an accident. Which is why using HOV is perfect. The only reason I've ever used Hardy was to go to IAH. Which is useful when going into town from IAH as well.

[ig2ba]

That is my understanding, and certainly so with the federal money to pay for most of it. The big difference is that there is no real alternative route to the GP-E, but you can take free 290 instead of the Hempstead Tollway. There will really only be demand for the HT at rush hours, which is why I'd propose that it be all reversible one-way lanes in the rush-hour direction. Unlike the the new I-10 middle lanes and the Energy Corridor, there are no major job centers outbound on 290, so the flow is vastly inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon. Who would pay a toll to travel a route where the free lanes are moving at good speed?

HCTRA discovered this problem with its first two projects: Hardy and BW8. The forecasts said Hardy would be big $ and BW8 might barely break even or even lose a bit, but it's been the complete opposite: BW8 makes big $ because it is the only good alternative for many trips at all times of the day, and Hardy has been an overall money loser because of nearby free alternatives 45 and 59.

Tory, isn't Hardy now a money maker? I thought that it became self-sufficient by about 2001 or 2002. I know that when I drive from The Woodlands to downtown, I take Hardy almost any time of the day instead of I-45. There are fewer trucks, fewer trailers with bags full of grass, fewer unsecured loads, and many fewer drunk drivers. It's worth a few bucks.

The only time I would prefer to take I-45 would be Thanksgiving morning or something like that.

[20thStDad]

And Tory is absolutely right (and I've said it on this forum before too): Highways like the Grand Parkway do not contribute to sprawl, but actually reduce the amount of sprawl that would other occur along the spoke freeways.

Doesn't this make a huge assumption that people who will move on that stretch of GP would have otherwise moved further out on one of the spokes? It's equally likely they would have moved further in, so I'm not buying that this reduces sprawl. Also, I don't think densification of areas way the hell out there are the same thing as reducing sprawl. I think it IS sprawl. It's just sprawl with slightly less mileage from the city.

[memebag]

Doesn't this make a huge assumption that people who will move on that stretch of GP would have otherwise moved further out on one of the spokes? It's equally likely they would have moved further in, so I'm not buying that this reduces sprawl.

It is? I thought cities sprawled because, overall, people prefer sprawl. That's the bit ignored by so many urban planners. A whole bunch of people really like big cheap houses with big yards and long drives.

Sprawl will continue as long as the economy can support it. This stimulus money should be sprawl-neutral.

[infinite_jim]

TXDOT should be required to publish their financing. The lack of transparency in Texas stinks to high heaven and in what good sense does it make that real time traffic problems are brushed over in the city and allowed to metastasize by building more peripheral highways and basicly subsidizes crap developers at taxpayer expense?

Frankly, I'm appalled that anyone could support this by parroting the corrupt excuse of "shovel ready." Worthy projects have long been pushed aside while their licking their chops over a twenty year old plan. TXDOT priorities need to a paradigm overhaul.

The stimulus bill specifically says that funds are to be allocated to infrastructure projects that help "economically distressed areas." This project is defiantly not in the spirit of the stimulus.

[Houston19514]

Doesn't this make a huge assumption that people who will move on that stretch of GP would have otherwise moved further out on one of the spokes? It's equally likely they would have moved further in, so I'm not buying that this reduces sprawl. Also, I don't think densification of areas way the hell out there are the same thing as reducing sprawl. I think it IS sprawl. It's just sprawl with slightly less mileage from the city.

Wow, speaking of making huge, unsupported assumptions. ;-) What would possibly lead one to believe that a person who has chosen to live along this stretch of the GP would otherwise "equally likely" move closer in? That strikes me as an extremely illogical assumption. People moving to a location such as Bridgelands are moving there because of the greater space, the newer developments, the schools... It is hard to imagine the person for whom the next-best alternative would be something inside Beltway 8.

Regarding whether densification of areas "way the hell out there" is reducing sprawl, well, I am trying to view the world as it is and view this area of development in comparison with the most-likely alternative. Yes, in both cases it is sprawl, I suppose, but I suppose it would be just as fair to call anything outside the loop "sprawl". You even admit it is just "sprawl with slightly less mileage from the city" (i.e., less sprawl; i.e., a reduction of sprawl compared to what otherwise would be.)

[20thStDad]

It is?

Yes. There are more places to live further in, why would you assume that every time someone moves, it is further away from the center of the city? Building things like GP farther out can only encourage people to move farther out. Thus, this encourages sprawl, whether you are for or against sprawl doesn't matter.

EDIT: just keep saying "sprawl" to yourself over and over. It gets hard, that is a strange, funny word.

Edited March 23, 2009 by 20thStDad

[memebag]

Yes. There are more places to live further in, why would you assume that every time someone moves, it is further away from the center of the city? Building things like GP farther out can only encourage people to move farther out. Thus, this encourages sprawl, whether you are for or against sprawl doesn't matter.

I'm not saying everyone moves farther out, just that lots of people want to move farther out. If they didn't we wouldn't have sprawl. Roads can enable sprawl, but people have proven they will sprawl without them.

Roads don't make sprawl. People do.

EDIT: just keep saying "sprawl" to yourself over and over. It gets hard, that is a strange, funny word.

I must be saying it wrong. Nothing got hard.

[20thStDad]

I'm not saying everyone moves farther out, just that lots of people want to move farther out. If they didn't we wouldn't have sprawl. Roads can enable sprawl, but people have proven they will sprawl without them.

Roads don't make sprawl. People do.

That's fine, but I was simply countering other posters points that this development doesn't encourage sprawl. Regardless of whether people were going to move farther out if this isn't developed, people will move out there because it is developed. Therefore it IS sprawl, certainly not the opposite.

[TheNiche]

TXDOT should be required to publish their financing. The lack of transparency in Texas stinks to high heaven and in what good sense does it make that real time traffic problems are brushed over in the city and allowed to metastasize by building more peripheral highways and basicly subsidizes crap developers at taxpayer expense?

I agree that they ought to be made more transparent. HCTRA would serve as a good model. It isn't as though their financial reports aren't available, however, just that you have to request them. This is actually true of a lot of TXDOT's information. Their website is just inadequate is the problem, is all. Don't get me wrong--they have lots of other administrative problems. But that's basically the one you're complaining about here.

Worthy projects have long been pushed aside while their licking their chops over a twenty year old plan.

What is worthy? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Have you bothered to initiate your own cost-benefit studies or are you basically just claiming that their opinion is wrong, yours is right, and not bothering to back it up with substance?

The stimulus bill specifically says that funds are to be allocated to infrastructure projects that help "economically distressed areas." This project is defiantly not in the spirit of the stimulus.

Cypress isn't distressed by a commute down 290? The failed developments and ridiculously high rates of foreclosure in North Katy aren't indicators of distress? Houston as a region is not distressed as a result of plummeting commodity prices?

[Houston19514]

That's fine, but I was simply countering other posters points that this development doesn't encourage sprawl. Regardless of whether people were going to move farther out if this isn't developed, people will move out there because it is developed. Therefore it IS sprawl, certainly not the opposite.

You seem to have overlooked Post #11. I'll just repeat part of its sentiment here.

You seem to be missing the actual argument being made by me and Tory:

Yes, the developments along the Grand Parkway will be sprawl to the same extent that one could call everything outside the loop "sprawl".

If the areas along the new Grand Parkway are not opened up for development by building roads to them, that development will most likely occur even further out along the spoke freeways. Thus the development along the Grand Parkway indeed reduces the amount of sprawl that would otherwise be occurring.

We have seen examples of this occurring before in the Houston area. As the northeastern leg of the Beltway and then Lake Houston Parkway have been developed, residential developments have popped up in the area; areas that were previously passed by as development went further north along Hwy 59. Thousands of families now live in Summerwood and other developments in that area. It is highly unlikely that those families would have otherwise settled inside the Loop or closer in inside the Beltway. They most likely otherwise would have gone in to developments that further north along Hwy 59.

[TheNiche]

That's fine, but I was simply countering other posters points that this development doesn't encourage sprawl. Regardless of whether people were going to move farther out if this isn't developed, people will move out there because it is developed. Therefore it IS sprawl, certainly not the opposite.

If you're willing to accept meme's statement that "Roads don't make sprawl, people do," then you've acknowledged that building a new road doesn't encourage sprawl because the sprawl would've happened anyway in one form or another. Rather than encouraging sprawl, the Grand Parkway merely accommodates it.

Sprawl w/good infrastructure > Sprawl w/bad infrastructure

[20thStDad]

You seem to have overlooked Post #11. I'll just repeat part of its sentiment here.

You seem to be missing the actual argument being made by me and Tory:

Yes, the developments along the Grand Parkway will be sprawl to the same extent that one could call everything outside the loop "sprawl".

If the areas along the new Grand Parkway are not opened up for development by building roads to them, that development will most likely occur even further out along the spoke freeways. Thus the development along the Grand Parkway indeed reduces the amount of sprawl that would otherwise be occurring.

We have seen examples of this occurring before in the Houston area. As the northeastern leg of the Beltway and then Lake Houston Parkway have been developed, residential developments have popped up in the area; areas that were previously passed by as development went further north along Hwy 59. Thousands of families now live in Summerwood and other developments in that area. It is highly unlikely that those families would have otherwise settled inside the Loop or closer in inside the Beltway. They most likely otherwise would have gone in to developments that further north along Hwy 59.

I understand, the point you make is about degrees of sprawl. I just agree with the original post that if the administration is anti-sprawl, and this development is most certainly sprawl encouraging, maybe they should refocus the money on things to bring more people inward. Don't know what that would be, but the answer isn't that nothing would bring more people inward.

[20thStDad]

If you're willing to accept meme's statement that "Roads don't make sprawl, people do," then you've acknowledged that building a new road doesn't encourage sprawl because the sprawl would've happened anyway in one form or another. Rather than encouraging sprawl, the Grand Parkway merely accommodates it.

Sprawl w/good infrastructure > Sprawl w/bad infrastructure

accommodate = enable = building this does encourage sprawl, that's all I'm saying

I'm just agreeing with the article, basically. I'd rather see the funds used closer to the city (selfish, since that's where I live - I'll never get near this road except when on my way to Austin/SA). I really am not concerned about projects that improve sprawl efficiency.

[ToryGattis]

Tory, isn't Hardy now a money maker? I thought that it became self-sufficient by about 2001 or 2002.

Oh, I think it certainly more than covers its current operating expenses. But, I think, if you took the cash flow from it and discounted it back at a reasonable interest rate to the years it was built ('84 to '88), it would not be enough money to have constructed it in the first place. Or, put another way, if HCTRA had only built Hardy and nothing else, financed it with bonds, and had no other revenue sources than the tolls, it would have defaulted on the bonds long ago and gone bankrupt.

Responding to some of the other debate here: when you look at other cities that have spoke freeways but few or no loop freeways, you will see the starfish shape I describe as the land between the spokes is less desirable than just moving further out the spoke freeway. For example, look at the development pattern once you get outside loop 285 around Atlanta. Try to imagine what Houston would look like if we had not built Beltway 8, or even loop 610.

[TheNiche]

accommodate = enable = building this does encourage sprawl, that's all I'm saying

I'm just agreeing with the article, basically. I'd rather see the funds used closer to the city (selfish, since that's where I live - I'll never get near this road except when on my way to Austin/SA). I really am not concerned about projects that improve sprawl efficiency.

Oh, I see. So people who don't share your lifestyle preferences should be deprived of infrastructure, the funds then reallocated to projects nearer where you live so that people more like yourself can benefit instead.

Yeah, that makes total and complete sense.

[memebag]

Oh, I see. So people who don't share your lifestyle preferences should be deprived of infrastructure, the funds then reallocated to projects nearer where you live so that people more like yourself can benefit instead.

Yeah, that makes total and complete sense.

Yeah, but at least he's being honest about it.

[N Judah]

It is? I thought cities sprawled because, overall, people prefer sprawl. That's the bit ignored by so many urban planners. A whole bunch of people really like big cheap houses with big yards and long drives.

Probably true, but some point the commute time becomes a restraint. They like long drives -but not TOO long- or we'd see a whole lot more people commute from way out in the country as opposed to just living "just far enough" out to have their cake and eat it too.

Sprawl will continue as long as the economy can support it. This stimulus money should be sprawl-neutral.

True...but at some point the economy will decide to stop supporting it and the sprawlers will have to pay their own way. At some point the mass production of the "country lifestyle" (or our sweatshop-equivalent crap-tastic implementation) will cease -- probably when enough people realize that they are not really royalty and they do not get to live in wannabe-english-manor-estate on the backs of everyone else

I agree with your sprawl-neutral comment. I can think of some potholes for our stimulus money...and eventually the Rice Military area will need storm sewers. But if they were sincere about "shovel ready" projects they should have at least taken a long hard look at our LRT proposals.

Edited March 23, 2009 by N Judah

[20thStDad]

Oh, I see. So people who don't share your lifestyle preferences should be deprived of infrastructure, the funds then reallocated to projects nearer where you live so that people more like yourself can benefit instead.

Yeah, that makes total and complete sense.

There are already a ton more people where I am compared to where this is getting done. So, why do this to spite the majority in hopes that a few people will move farther out? Not sure if you even read the article, but this sums up my point, whether it directly benefits me or not:

[N Judah]

easier to make money if you're a developer

[TheNiche]

Probably true, but some point the commute time becomes a restraint. They like long drives -but not TOO long- or we'd see a whole lot more people commute from way out in the country as opposed to just living "just far enough" out to have their cake and eat it too.

I don't think anybody likes the long drives. The longer drive is a sacrifice, and its just that so many people place such a high priority of other aspects that come with sprawl that they are willing to tolerate the drive. And there actually are an increasing number of people who do make extreme commutes from out in the country. I used to work with someone who would commute from about 15 miles north of Brenham all the way to 610. They just liked it up there, and that was reason enough.

True...but at some point the economy will decide to stop supporting it and the sprawlers will have to pay their own way. At some point the mass production of the "country lifestyle" (or our sweatshop-equivalent crap-tastic implementation) will cease -- probably when enough people realize that they are not really royalty and they do not get to live in wannabe-Versailles on the backs of everyone else

The economy is not an entity. It doesn't have a brain or a collective mind. It cannot make decisions, only reflect those of individuals.

And based on history, I don't ever forsee a day when people will be so satisfied with their life that they aren't driven to one-up their neighbors, regardless of their place of residence. Myself, for instance, I have no desire to live in sprawl...but I have every intention of living in a better urban residence than >99.9% of my urbanite neighbors (not for its own sake, mind you, but for mine and mine alone). I'm sure that they'll decry me for building out of scale with the neighborhood, too, or for casting a shadow on their houses. ____'em, I'm going to do it anyway. This is Houston, after all, the last bastion of unzoned hope for independent-minded people who refuse their civic association's Kool Aide.

If you want to live in a place where people aren't allowed to build showy homes of their own design, you should really consider the urban portion of a master planned community like The Woodlands You'd probably like it there, since nobody is allowed to either be too showy or not showy enough.

[memebag]

easier to make money if you're a developer

... because so many people want to sprawl!

[TheNiche]

easier to make money if you're a developer

What's wrong with that? The profit motive encourages economic activity. It doesn't matter what profession it is, when somebody can make more money, that's great! It should be celebrated.

There are already a ton more people where I am compared to where this is getting done. So, why do this to spite the majority in hopes that a few people will move farther out? Not sure if you even read the article, but this sums up my point, whether it directly benefits me or not:

[N Judah]

What's wrong with that? The profit motive encourages economic activity. It doesn't matter what profession it is, when somebody can make more money, that's great! It should be celebrated.

Why so defensive? i didn't say there was anything wrong with that...if you can get government $$ to fund your projects, I say go for it.

[TheNiche]

Why so defensive? i didn't say there was anything wrong with that...if you can get government $$ to fund your projects, I say go for it.

Criticism was strongly implied by your statement.