More Congestion On Interstate-10

[livincinco]

Sure, natural beauty and easy access to nature are a big part of "quality of life." 

 

Nevertheless, most of the cities mentioned have terrible freeway systems (Austin) or have actually starting removing existing freeways (Seattle).

 

Freeways are excellent at providing convenient connections between dispersed locations, but they are equally good at creating boundaries in the communities they cross. 

 

We're using quality of life in a generic sense which makes it something that is not definable.  However, many published surveys that provide quality of life rankings do not actually consider transportation as part of the criteria to determine quality of life.

 

To state that high quality of life scores are based on something that isn't considered as part of the ranking system is a highly questionable conclusion.

 

[IronTiger]

In the case of SF and Vancouver, people often get confused by "beautiful city" versus "average city surrounded by beautiful locations"

[Slick Vik]

You're evading the question. And please don't say "It's more urban" because you and I both know that's not a good answer. (Also, there's no shame in admitting in that you were wrong about something, just throwing that out there)

Well the fact that there aren't freeways makes for excellent street life because there are boulevards with pedestrians everywhere due to limited speeds and amounts of automobiles, as opposed to Seattle which has a freeway going through downtown next to the harbor, but even they've come to their senses and are taking it down.

In the case of SF and Vancouver, people often get confused by "beautiful city" versus "average city surrounded by beautiful locations"

They are beautiful but also dynamic cities too. Have you even been to either?

[Slick Vik]

Vancouver - as described on their tourism website

Oceanside location...mountains 20 minutes north of downtown...temperate climate, surrounding snow-covered slopes for winter sports and breathtaking views of the city below.

Vancouver is one of the few places in the world where it's possible to ski in the morning and sail in the afternoon.

Gee! Sounds just like Houston! Clearly based on the above description there is no question that any difference in quality of life ranking is due to differences between the transit systems of the two cities.

Seattle - from the New York Times "36 hours in Seattle" - This is one of the rare American cities where you can be outdoors year-round without either shivering or sweating... stunning natural beauty...

Well that certainly wouldn't have anything to do with quality of life rankings. I hear people talk about Houston's stunning natural beauty all the time. Seattle must have higher rankings because of its transit system.

Since all quality of life rankings are based entirely on transit, I bet that Dallas has a really high rankings on all those quality of life rankings and cities like Austin and San Diego must do really, really bad because they have no transit.

Wait...these rankings must be wrong. Austin and San Diego rank in the top 10 and Dallas doesn't. Don't these people realize how bad transit is in Austin and San Diego?????

Transit in Austin and San Diego is far better than in houston for the record.

[livincinco]

Transit in Austin and San Diego is far better than in houston for the record.

 

Austin light rail - 1 line - 9 stations - daily ridership - 3,500

Houston light rail - 2 lines - 24 stations - daily ridership - 38,300

 

Austin bus - 112,000 daily boardings

Houston bus - 221,000 daily boardings

 

Please explain why this is considered far better.

 

Regarding San Diego, you'll notice that the comparison was with Dallas not Houston.  Care to comment that perhaps there may be differences in natural surroundings that contribute to Seattle and Vancouver ranking highly in quality of life surveys?

[Ross]

They are beautiful but also dynamic cities too. Have you even been to either?

 

I've been to SF. moo. It's not that great. Too many hills, too many people jam packed one on top of the other. The scenery isn't that great, either. It's certainly not worth what it costs to live there.

 

[Slick Vik]

I've been to SF. moo. It's not that great. Too many hills, too many people jam packed one on top of the other. The scenery isn't that great, either. It's certainly not worth what it costs to live there.

 

 

Obviously many, many people think it's worth it because the price for housing is higher than New York. People are willing to pay for quality of life, you only live once.

[Slick Vik]

We're using quality of life in a generic sense which makes it something that is not definable.  However, many published surveys that provide quality of life rankings do not actually consider transportation as part of the criteria to determine quality of life.

 

To state that high quality of life scores are based on something that isn't considered as part of the ranking system is a highly questionable conclusion.

 

 

Actually public transportation is part of the score.

 

Important criteria in this survey are safety/crime, international connectivity, climate/sunshine, quality of architecture, public transportation, tolerance, environmental issues and access to nature, urban design, business conditions, pro-active policy developments and medical care.

[IronTiger]

Important criteria in this survey are safety/crime, international connectivity, climate/sunshine, quality of architecture, public transportation, tolerance, environmental issues and access to nature, urban design, business conditions, pro-active policy developments and medical care.

Several of those would tend to skew the balance toward liberal cities, and before you say something ignorant like "Because liberal cities are better, duh!" keep in mind that most of the publications that do these quality of life things are liberal, too.

Notice that the above statistics also ignore things like congestion and cost of living.

Well the fact that there aren't freeways makes for excellent street life because there are boulevards with pedestrians everywhere due to limited speeds and amounts of automobiles, as opposed to Seattle which has a freeway going through downtown next to the harbor, but even they've come to their senses and are taking it down.

How is not having freeways making for "excellent street life"? Are you saying that the only places with "excellent street life" are places that have no freeways?

Also, Seattle isn't removing their freeway because of petty, vague things like "street life". The primary reason is that the aging freeway is built in the same way as the double-deck highways in California that sandwiched in a 1989 earthquake and are considered unsafe for earthquake-prone areas on the West Coast.

[livincinco]

Several of those would tend to skew the balance toward liberal cities, and before you say something ignorant like "Because liberal cities are better, duh!" keep in mind that most of the publications that do these quality of life things are liberal, too.

Notice that the above statistics also ignore things like congestion and cost of living.

 

It skews the balance pretty heavily toward coastal cities without a question.  Let's be honest here, I don't think that there are a lot of people that will say that if money was no object, they wouldn't want to live along the beach on the West Coast instead of living in Houston.  Most of us though have to consider cost as a factor and choose the highest quality of life based on what we can afford.  That's kind of the equivalent of arguing that people will buy a Mercedes instead of a Toyota if cost is not a consideration.

 

Incidentally, there's a huge discussion going on in San Francisco about the continued gentrification of the city and the strong opposition that's starting to develop to that.  The increasing belief is that San Francisco is becoming very homogenous (young rich tech workers) and that it is fundamentally changing the nature of the city by driving out a lot of long time residents.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/san_franciscos_rightward_turn_why_it_may_no_longer_be_americas_iconic_liberal_city/

[Slick Vik]

Several of those would tend to skew the balance toward liberal cities, and before you say something ignorant like "Because liberal cities are better, duh!" keep in mind that most of the publications that do these quality of life things are liberal, too.

Notice that the above statistics also ignore things like congestion and cost of living.

How is not having freeways making for "excellent street life"? Are you saying that the only places with "excellent street life" are places that have no freeways?

Also, Seattle isn't removing their freeway because of petty, vague things like "street life". The primary reason is that the aging freeway is built in the same way as the double-deck highways in California that sandwiched in a 1989 earthquake and are considered unsafe for earthquake-prone areas on the West Coast.

I would say the places with excellent street life tend to not have freeways in those areas. Manhattan, San Francisco.

Seattle is removing it because it's in a horrible spot for a freeway where there shouldn't be one. It will make a huge difference.

[IronTiger]

I would say the places with excellent street life tend to not have freeways in those areas. Manhattan, San Francisco.

So, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Minneapolis, Houston, and scads of others don't count? Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

[IronTiger]

Seattle is removing it because it's in a horrible spot for a freeway where there shouldn't be one. It will make a huge difference.

It's not a "horrible spot for a freeway where there shouldn't be one" otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered boring the (extremely expensive) tunnel. Or built in the first place, for that matter. The area with the viaduct has traditionally been a very industrial area, which necessitates moving goods around.

[Ross]

Obviously many, many people think it's worth it because the price for housing is higher than New York. People are willing to pay for quality of life, you only live once.

 

Good for them, they made their choice and moved to a place that had the lifestyle they wanted. They did not try to push that lifestyle on place where it isn't going to happen, and isn't really wanted. Houston will never be SF, Portland, or Seattle, it will be...Houston, with all its warts, but that's why I love living here.

 

[Slick Vik]

Good for them, they made their choice and moved to a place that had the lifestyle they wanted. They did not try to push that lifestyle on place where it isn't going to happen, and isn't really wanted. Houston will never be SF, Portland, or Seattle, it will be...Houston, with all its warts, but that's why I love living here.

Houston is the last big city in America that resist proper mass transit, but it too will give in with time.

Good for them, they made their choice and moved to a place that had the lifestyle they wanted. They did not try to push that lifestyle on place where it isn't going to happen, and isn't really wanted. Houston will never be SF, Portland, or Seattle, it will be...Houston, with all its warts, but that's why I love living here.

Houston is the last big city in America that resist proper mass transit, but it too will give in with time.

[Slick Vik]

It's not a "horrible spot for a freeway where there shouldn't be one" otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered boring the (extremely expensive) tunnel. Or built in the first place, for that matter. The area with the viaduct has traditionally been a very industrial area, which necessitates moving goods around.

Have you been there? That area should be pedestrian friendly and a tunnel is an expensive compromise to satisfy the auto lobby / nuts. At least that ungodly sight will be gone now.

[Slick Vik]

So, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Minneapolis, Houston, and scads of others don't count? Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

New Orleans is probably going to do a major freeway teardown soon to rejuvenate neighborhoods that were gone. Las Vegas doesn't have a freeway going through the strip, but the freeway parallel to it is a tremendous barrier and the other sides lack of development is evidence of that. Minneapolis I can't comment I'll have to research.

[Slick Vik]

It skews the balance pretty heavily toward coastal cities without a question. Let's be honest here, I don't think that there are a lot of people that will say that if money was no object, they wouldn't want to live along the beach on the West Coast instead of living in Houston. Most of us though have to consider cost as a factor and choose the highest quality of life based on what we can afford. That's kind of the equivalent of arguing that people will buy a Mercedes instead of a Toyota if cost is not a consideration.

Incidentally, there's a huge discussion going on in San Francisco about the continued gentrification of the city and the strong opposition that's starting to develop to that. The increasing belief is that San Francisco is becoming very homogenous (young rich tech workers) and that it is fundamentally changing the nature of the city by driving out a lot of long time residents.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/san_franciscos_rightward_turn_why_it_may_no_longer_be_americas_iconic_liberal_city/

Interesting you ignored the fact that public transportation is part of the score.

[Slick Vik]

Austin light rail - 1 line - 9 stations - daily ridership - 3,500

Houston light rail - 2 lines - 24 stations - daily ridership - 38,300

Austin bus - 112,000 daily boardings

Houston bus - 221,000 daily boardings

Please explain why this is considered far better.

Regarding San Diego, you'll notice that the comparison was with Dallas not Houston. Care to comment that perhaps there may be differences in natural surroundings that contribute to Seattle and Vancouver ranking highly in quality of life surveys?

Austin's bus system is superior to Houston's in every way. It's frequent and is able to cover a city much smaller than houston much more effectively. I lived in Austin for 4 years without a car and relied on it and have no complaints.

Natural surroundings do contribute but even without them san Diego and Vancouver are not even in the same stratosphere as a city like houston. It's like comparing a freshman high school basketball player to Michael Jordan.

[livincinco]

Houston is the last big city in America that resist proper mass transit, but it too will give in with time.

 

Last time I checked, Houston just completed construction on one light rail line and is currently constructing two others.  That's the strangest form of resistance that I've ever encountered.

 

[IronTiger]

Have you been there? That area should be pedestrian friendly and a tunnel is an expensive compromise to satisfy the auto lobby / nuts.

That's not the reason and you know it. In whatever the case, what was voted, and what was discussed, it was clear that a major roadway was needed, not because of the "auto lobby". Don't sound like an idiot unless you are one.

[IronTiger]

New Orleans is probably going to do a major freeway teardown soon to rejuvenate neighborhoods that were gone. Las Vegas doesn't have a freeway going through the strip, but the freeway parallel to it is a tremendous barrier and the other sides lack of development is evidence of that. Minneapolis I can't comment I'll have to research.

You are evading the question. The question was if all other cities (cities that are not SF, Vancouver, and NYC) have great street life, which you seem to think is unachievable if there are freeways near downtown.

[livincinco]

Natural surroundings do contribute but even without them san Diego and Vancouver are not even in the same stratosphere as a city like houston. It's like comparing a freshman high school basketball player to Michael Jordan.

Another good analogy would be comparing this discussion to a rational conversation.

[Slick Vik]

Last time I checked, Houston just completed construction on one light rail line and is currently constructing two others.  That's the strangest form of resistance that I've ever encountered.

 

 

And blocking construction of the two most important lines of the system.

[Slick Vik]

That's not the reason and you know it. In whatever the case, what was voted, and what was discussed, it was clear that a major roadway was needed, not because of the "auto lobby". Don't sound like an idiot unless you are one.

 

It is the reason and I know it. The roadway wasn't needed, in fact I've read that when it was closed without a tunnel, it wasn't traffic armageddon as predicted. People find alternative routes.

 

Also, discounting the strength of the overall automobile lobby is very foolish.

[Slick Vik]

You are evading the question. The question was if all other cities (cities that are not SF, Vancouver, and NYC) have great street life, which you seem to think is unachievable if there are freeways near downtown.

 

I'm not evading the question. The areas where there are street life are usually away from freeways. Freeways create an ever present barrier. It's very obvious whether to choose to believe it or not. I would say good street life, not great. The less freeways, the more boulevards you can create, and there are positive consequences as a result.

[IronTiger]

And blocking construction of the two most important lines of the system.

The lines have gotten held up for a number of reasons, not just your pet hate sink, Culberson. The whole fiasco with the East End underpass started because originally residents didn't want an overpass. Wanna blame them? No?

It is the reason and I know it. The roadway wasn't needed, in fact I've read that when it was closed without a tunnel, it wasn't traffic armageddon as predicted. People find alternative routes.

Yeah right. The freeway is up for replacement (it's really old--like from the 1950s), is in disrepair (had to have emergency repairs after a 2001 earthquake--by the way, that's also the main reason the SF freeways were dismantled), is dangerous (earthquake-prone areas, again). This imaginary "blame the auto lobby" is because you can't accept the real reasons.

Furthermore, your "it wasn't traffic armageddon as predicted" is nonsense. Who was predicting a "traffic armageddon"? It's the same excuse you gave for your reasons why they should remove the Pierce Elevated. Your dismissal of the construction period was dismissive, and by all real accounts (newspapers, people who actually lived and drove through it), it sucked.

[Slick Vik]

The lines have gotten held up for a number of reasons, not just your pet hate sink, Culberson. The whole fiasco with the East End underpass started because originally residents didn't want an overpass. Wanna blame them? No?

Yeah right. The freeway is up for replacement (it's really old--like from the 1950s), is in disrepair (had to have emergency repairs after a 2001 earthquake--by the way, that's also the main reason the SF freeways were dismantled), is dangerous (earthquake-prone areas, again). This imaginary "blame the auto lobby" is because you can't accept the real reasons.

Furthermore, your "it wasn't traffic armageddon as predicted" is nonsense. Who was predicting a "traffic armageddon"? It's the same excuse you gave for your reasons why they should remove the Pierce Elevated. Your dismissal of the construction period was dismissive, and by all real accounts (newspapers, people who actually lived and drove through it), it sucked.

I lived in houston during the reconstruction of the pierce elevated, it wasn't that bad, people adapt. Ask subdude he was here too.

The main reason the lines have been held up are afton oaks and john culberson.

You comment a lot on houston for someone who doesn't live here and barely visits. That's the difference between me, kylejack, kdog and you August and cuatro. You guys are on the outside making comments. We live eat and breathe here and have a grasp of the reality of the situation.

[IronTiger]

The main reason the lines have been held up are afton oaks and john culberson.

See? I was right.

You comment a lot on houston for someone who doesn't live here and barely visits. That's the difference between me, kylejack, kdog and you August and cuatro. You guys are on the outside making comments. We live eat and breathe here and have a grasp of the reality of the situation.

Well, you have a good point. I don't live in Houston. And the frequency that I visit isn't very much. However, I at least have visited most of the major neighborhoods and other areas (Hempstead Road corridor, Downtown, Uptown, the Heights, Montrose, Rice Village, Midtown, TMC, Museum District, Port of Houston, 3rd Ward, Sharpstown/Chinatown, and a few others I'm inevitably leaving out) as well as a number of suburbs, so I feel that I have at least a good feeling of what the city is, compared to those who live in the "Inner Loop echo chamber" and almost never leave (i.e. you). And August and livincinco have made greater trips to Houston, far more constantly than me.

More importantly, I'm one of the supermajority here that recognizes and loves Houston, flaws, eccentricities, and all, without griping that it "should" be more like New York City or San Francisco.

[Texasota]

You can love something while also believing that it can improve. 

 

Everybody won't agree on exactly what needs to improve, but wanting to fix the problems you find in your city is just as much of an expression of love and pride as defending it is.