More Congestion On Interstate-10

[Slick Vik]

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.

Agreed

[Slick Vik]

See? I was right.

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.

I've been to those and others you wouldn't dare to step in like fifth ward, third ward, sunny side, and gulfton. But I made a conscious choice to move in town and make that my base.

[IronTiger]

I've been to those and others you wouldn't dare to step in like fifth ward, third ward, sunny side, and gulfton. But I made a conscious choice to move in town and make that my base.

I listed the Third Ward, and I mentioned "others I inevitably missed".

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion on the way Houston should be (see this link)

I am debating on the importance of freeways (and why they are not the destroyers of cities you purport them to be), the reasons they are removed, and why I feel it's okay for me to talk about Houston.

[Slick Vik]

I listed the Third Ward, and I mentioned "others I inevitably missed".

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion on the way Houston should be (see this link)

I am debating on the importance of freeways (and why they are not the destroyers of cities you purport them to be), the reasons they are removed, and why I feel it's okay for me to talk about Houston.

I understand the necessity of freeways I just don't think they should go through city centers.

[gmac]

I think it's great that people who love Houston are willing to step up and engage in rational discussion, whether they live here or not.

 

I'm a suburbanite, Vik, and I will wager that I have covered more of Houston than you even know exists. You know, since you want to get in pissing contests and all

[kdog08]

LRT is a more efficient and cleaner source of transportation than buses. I just wish we would have built our current line without the interference with street traffic.

 

I largely agree. What do you think about having a subway network servicing those areas?

 

Money is the deciding factor. If we could just spend the extra money and submerge it at 2-3 key intersections per line then our design would be a lot better.

 

I don't think subway would be appropriate for Houston for many decades. 

[kdog08]

What city has the highest rail ridership in the US?  New York.

What city has the longest commute in the US?  New York.

 

This is not a coincidence.

 

 

NYC has ~20 million people in it's metro and even with the most used rail network, it is need of massive expansion and maintenance. There is little doubt NYC moves people much more efficiently than a city like Houston. However, megacities will have mega traffic but there is a difference between NYC/Tokyo and Jakarta/Lagos in terms of transit. 

[kdog08]

I understand the necessity of freeways I just don't think they should go through city centers.

 

I disagree. Houston, with just the slightest planning, could have made our inner core freeway system aesthetically pleasing either submerging it like 59 or getting rid of frontage lanes or planting a wall of trees alongside the freeways decades ago or all of those things or combination of them, We need the mobility of our freeways connecting to downtown, but the way we did it destroyed many neighborhoods. 

[por favor gracias]

Pretty much without exception in the US, a transit system becomes "massively crowded" when the functional "cost" (in either time or money), becomes so high that users find transit to be preferable.  Systems that are located in cities that don't have those constraints rarely generate large amounts of ridership, Dallas being a perfect case in point.

 

The other problem is that the idea that transit improves commute times is really not accurate.  Commute times generally highest in cities with extensive transit systems, not the other way around and that's due to the logistics of following a fixed network.  One of the big problem that I've personally experienced with rail networks is the hub and spoke design that most follow is not particularly suited to Houston.  Take the example of running commuter rail from Katy to downtown.  Nice in concept to run rail directly to downtown and then connect to a fully built out light rail network, however the actual logistics get pretty problematic.  If you live in Katy and work in Greenway Plaza would you take rail to downtown, transfer to the Main Street line and then transfer again to the University line in order to get to Greenway Plaza?  Probably not and that's the problem with rail in a decentralized city.  The network looks great on paper until you start to consider the transit times involved in getting from point to point if you're not moving to the hub.

 

Regarding I-10, I tend to disagree with you that businesses would have focused closer in.  A couple of assumptions here, first is that we've clearly seen that increased demand inside the loop has a dramatic impact on prices.  The appreciation of the last couple of years has clearly shown that.  The second is that the office market in Houston is price sensitive.  The last couple of years have shown that as well as a high percentage of businesses have chosen to locate in the periphery rather than centralize which I think can pretty directly be attributed to the difference in prices between those areas.

 

So let's assume for a moment that I-10 doesn't get widened and overall demand in the Houston market stays consistent.  Per your theory, more development gets concentrated in central areas which per our assumption will increase prices even more significantly than current trend.  Failure to built I-10 decreases the attractiveness of suburban areas because of the higher commute times associated with getting to jobs (both because they're concentrated in the urban core and because of decreased capacity), which drives the prices in the urban area another level higher.  In the meantime, competing markets do not suffer the price pressure that Houston does and are able to offer significantly lower prices for both office and residential. 

 

The question then becomes whether the companies that we're talking about are willing to absorb these additional costs to be in Houston.  I would argue that most of them wouldn't.  I don't think that Houston has the appeal to demand the kind of increased costs that San Francisco or New York does. 

 

I'm sure that different transit systems have different results in different cities, but there's no doubt that more ridership = more cars off the road...and considering how many more miles of roads and freeways there are than there are for trains/subways, I don't think it's fair to label this method of transportation as largely ineffective. The problems we have with rail ridership have more to do with how our cities are so spread out (which is largely due to roads/automobiles in the first place) than anything. It's not close to a level playing field. There's simply not nearly enough access to mass transit. If we had the infrastructure (and we wouldn't need nearly as much as we do for roads and automobiles) in place, and built it the right way...we would have MUCH different results.

 

There's more of a need for higher speeds for commuters coming in from the suburbs. If we had a rail/subway system somewhat similar to the one I "proposed," we could get from The Woodlands and Katy to GWP with or without a transfer. There are many ways to do it, but some are better than others.

 

I agree that the Katy Freeway expansion has played a huge role in the activity that's gone on throughout that corridor since then...but I wonder what makes you think that the rest of Houston wouldn't have at least gained a net positive by now from what's been going on in the Energy Corridor lately if the Katy Freeway wasn't widened (if that's what you're saying)? We've still had a lot of growth of all sorts in town lately (and lots more to come apparently) despite rising prices. I'm not really arguing that the Katy Freeway expansion hasn't helped, but what if we build a subway system as well?

 

I'm also not saying that more development would be concentrated in central areas...just that these areas may still be experiencing the same kind of growth they're seeing today if the Katy Freeway wasn't expanded, and perhaps more...most likely dependent on any overflow from would-have-been Energy Corridor employees. Not sure how much the difference would be or how much it would affect prices. The more development, the higher the prices more likely go. That said, I'd be willing to bet that all of this new development in the Energy Corridor (and The Woodlands) has contributed to increased prices in and of itself.

[por favor gracias]

Money is the deciding factor. If we could just spend the extra money and submerge it at 2-3 key intersections per line then our design would be a lot better.

 

I do't think subway would be appropriate for Houston for many decades. 

 

I agree...although I don't like the idea of "going on the cheap" when it comes to transportation infrastructure....especially when the final product could be five times more expensive than it would have been to completely submerge it. There are subways in other parts of the world that costed about the same amount of money per mile as the Katy Freeway. I think they're the best kind of mass transit we can get at this point.

[livincinco]

I'm sure that different transit systems have different results in different cities, but there's no doubt that more ridership = more cars off the road...and considering how many more miles of roads and freeways there are than there are for trains/subways, I don't think it's fair to label this method of transportation as largely ineffective. The problems we have with rail ridership have more to do with how our cities are so spread out (which is largely due to roads/automobiles in the first place) than anything. It's not close to a level playing field. There's simply not nearly enough access to mass transit. If we had the infrastructure (and we wouldn't need nearly as much as we do for roads and automobiles) in place, and built it the right way...we would have MUCH different results.

There's more of a need for higher speeds for commuters coming in from the suburbs. If we had a rail/subway system somewhat similar to the one I "proposed," we could get from The Woodlands and Katy to GWP with or without a transfer. There are many ways to do it, but some are better than others.

I agree that the Katy Freeway expansion has played a huge role in the activity that's gone on throughout that corridor since then...but I wonder what makes you think that the rest of Houston wouldn't have at least gained a net positive by now from what's been going on in the Energy Corridor lately if the Katy Freeway wasn't widened (if that's what you're saying)? We've still had a lot of growth of all sorts in town lately (and lots more to come apparently) despite rising prices. I'm not really arguing that the Katy Freeway expansion hasn't helped, but what if we build a subway system as well?

I'm also not saying that more development would be concentrated in central areas...just that these areas may still be experiencing the same kind of growth they're seeing today if the Katy Freeway wasn't expanded, and perhaps more...most likely dependent on any overflow from would-have-been Energy Corridor employees. Not sure how much the difference would be or how much it would affect prices. The more development, the higher the prices more likely go. That said, I'd be willing to bet that all of this new development in the Energy Corridor (and The Woodlands) has contributed to increased prices in and of itself.

Agreed with your points and that's why I get testy when its suggested that there are simple answers to very complex issues like mobility. I think that everyone here has good intentions, but history is littered with good intentions that have gone awry due to poor execution and/or poor planning.

[por favor gracias]

Agreed with your points and that's why I get testy when its suggested that there are simple answers to very complex issues like mobility. I think that everyone here has good intentions, but history is littered with good intentions that have gone awry due to poor execution and/or poor planning.

 

I couldn't agree more...and I don't mind one bit when people are passionately expressing their thoughts about issues like this. I love talking about this stuff. If anything, it shows how much you care about this issue...and it's a very important one.

[Slick Vik]

I couldn't agree more...and I don't mind one bit when people are passionately expressing their thoughts about issues like this. I love talking about this stuff. If anything, it shows how much you care about this issue...and it's a very important one.

 

There are a lot of people passionately against it because this is their last stand. There isn't any other major city in the country that isn't investing heavily in rail projects. Houston is the last one standing.

[IronTiger]

There are a lot of people passionately against it because this is their last stand. There isn't any other major city in the country that isn't investing heavily in rail projects. Houston is the last one standing.

Just stop. METRO is still adding lines, don't play to some "good vs. evil" rhetoric.

[livincinco]

There are a lot of people passionately against it because this is their last stand. There isn't any other major city in the country that isn't investing heavily in rail projects. Houston is the last one standing.

And just as quickly rational conversation goes back out the window.

[Slick Vik]

Just stop. METRO is still adding lines, don't play to some "good vs. evil" rhetoric.

The critical line isn't being built and that's the one being blocked.

And just as quickly rational conversation goes back out the window.

It's true. No other major city besides houston is so ardently against public transportation.

[IronTiger]

The critical line isn't being built and that's the one being blocked.

The Uptown Line isn't the "most critical", because even if you're getting it off METRO predicted numbers, keep in mind that even those are estimates to get funding.

It's true. No other major city besides houston is so ardently against public transportation.

Houston isn't "ardently against public transportation". It's a good thing Culberson's there, because who else would you blame for not getting rail lines built?

[mfastx]

The Uptown Line isn't the "most critical", because even if you're getting it off METRO predicted numbers, keep in mind that even those are estimates to get funding.

Houston isn't "ardently against public transportation". It's a good thing Culberson's there, because who else would you blame for not getting rail lines built?

Sorry to butt in here, but I think that he's talking about the University line, not the uptown line. And I would say it is the most critical because it has by far the highest ridership estimate (and realistically would obviously have higher ridership than the North, Southwest, and East lines).

Agree on the last point. Culberson is ideologically opposed to rail (which I am still trying to figure out why) but Houston as a whole wants better public transportation, as they have voted for more buses and rail when it's been proposed the last couple of referendums.

However I will say that lots of major politicians seem to be opposed to investing any significant amount of money into public transportation, as shown in their vehement attempts to keep bleeding money from METRO in the form of GM payments.

[Ross]

However I will say that lots of major politicians seem to be opposed to investing any significant amount of money into public transportation, as shown in their vehement attempts to keep bleeding money from METRO in the form of GM payments.

 

Those GM payments help transit in areas that will never have any rail, but still have needs. Like most of the County outside the city limits of Houston. Those folks pay a larg eportion of the Metro sales tax in areas that are called Houston due to limited purpose annexation. If all of that money went to rail projects in the middle of the City, you would soon find those areas withdrawing from Metro.

[IronTiger]

Agree on the last point. Culberson is ideologically opposed to rail (which I am still trying to figure out why) but Houston as a whole wants better public transportation, as they have voted for more buses and rail when it's been proposed the last couple of referendums.

I think that Houston needs more rail-based transit, but I also think people here hate Culberson WAY more than they should. In other cities, there are anti-freeway politicians (yeah, I know freeways and rails are really different, but roll with me here). A lot of people may think that they and their neighborhoods are holding the city back and that it would be better off without them. However, they aren't necessarily evil for choosing this. This unhinged "Culberson is Satan" rhetoric going on is total nonsense and almost makes me want to support Culberson more, because who wants to be associated with nutcases?

[livincinco]

I disagree. Houston, with just the slightest planning, could have made our inner core freeway system aesthetically pleasing either submerging it like 59 or getting rid of frontage lanes or planting a wall of trees alongside the freeways decades ago or all of those things or combination of them, We need the mobility of our freeways connecting to downtown, but the way we did it destroyed many neighborhoods. 

 

I agree with you that urban freeways could have been better planned, but it's always easy to look at things that were built 60 years ago and criticize the way that they were constructed.  I doubt that many people at that time expected that the Houston of 500,000 people at the point that the Gulf Freeway opened was going to grow to a regional population of 6,000,000.

[mfastx]

Those GM payments help transit in areas that will never have any rail, but still have needs. Like most of the County outside the city limits of Houston. Those folks pay a larg eportion of the Metro sales tax in areas that are called Houston due to limited purpose annexation. If all of that money went to rail projects in the middle of the City, you would soon find those areas withdrawing from Metro.

Those areas still receive bus P&R service which should be enough to justify the tax. They benefit from HOV lanes as well, paid for by METRO.

I know the argument for GM payments, but I still fail to see the need. Somehow every other major city doesn't need those GM payments. It's just political, there is no actual need.

[Slick Vik]

I think that Houston needs more rail-based transit, but I also think people here hate Culberson WAY more than they should. In other cities, there are anti-freeway politicians (yeah, I know freeways and rails are really different, but roll with me here). A lot of people may think that they and their neighborhoods are holding the city back and that it would be better off without them. However, they aren't necessarily evil for choosing this. This unhinged "Culberson is Satan" rhetoric going on is total nonsense and almost makes me want to support Culberson more, because who wants to be associated with nutcases?

When one guy is stopping what the voters voted for yes he's a detriment to society

[Ross]

When one guy is stopping what the voters voted for yes he's a detriment to society

What part of "He represents the wishes of his district" is not clear to you? if one Congressman can block an entire transit system, then there's something wrong with the process, not the politician. And I say that as someone who thinks that in general, Culberson is dumber than a box of rocks. I've met the man, and he is not bright, but he does represent the desires of his district well.

[IronTiger]

Just a friendly reminder: public transit isn't considered a human right, and even where people DO talk about that, they don't mean rail.

[Slick Vik]

Just a friendly reminder: public transit isn't considered a human right, and even where people DO talk about that, they don't mean rail.

 

People have expectations. Everywhere isn't like College Station.

[IronTiger]

Everywhere isn't like College Station.

Nice strawman to deflect the point there.

[Slick Vik]

Nice strawman to deflect the point there.

People are moving every day from other cities where good public transit is normal. At some point this will have an effect on the city's politicians and finally force real investment in a comprehensive public transit system.

[livincinco]

People are moving every day from other cities where good public transit is normal. At some point this will have an effect on the city's politicians and finally force real investment in a comprehensive public transit system.

You do realize the irony of what you just said right?

[Slick Vik]

You do realize the irony of what you just said right?

No irony. People have expectations and they will be met.