More Congestion On Interstate-10

[IronTiger]

Denying that there is still a level of racism is denial of reality. You've always denied it but maybe you've never had to deal with it? I'm not sure.

I'm not saying that there are no racist feelings in Afton Oaks, I'm saying that your "Afton Oaks residents say X" is offbase. Of course, when you also say...

 

Culberson is the devil.

...some exaggeration is to be expected. Carry on, I suppose.

[Subdude]

Guys, let's bring the discussion back to the topic.

 

 

[kylejack]

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

Disagree. I want the University Line for personal reasons, but there are a lot of people in the East End and Third Ward that are hungry for good transit.

[kylejack]

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.

 

Yes, but we have the option of changing our environment to something that suits us better. Dallas built a park over a freeway. http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/files/2013/03/NM_23DeckParkMTower04.jpg

[Slick Vik]

Disagree. I want the University Line for personal reasons, but there are a lot of people in the East End and Third Ward that are hungry for good transit.

Agreed but the university line connects greenway plaza, the galleria, and the heavily populated gulfton area. The progress being made now is good though.

[livincinco]

Yes, but we have the option of changing our environment to something that suits us better. Dallas built a park over a freeway. http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/files/2013/03/NM_23DeckParkMTower04.jpg

 

No question that there's always opportunity to improve, but when we see opportunities to improve, that's exactly what they are, not necessarily a lack of foresight in the original implementation.

[kylejack]

No question that there's always opportunity to improve, but when we see opportunities to improve, that's exactly what they are, not necessarily a lack of foresight in the original implementation.

 

I mean, what's the problem, are we going to hurt the feelings of long-dead freeway planners by criticizing their creations?

[livincinco]

I mean, what's the problem, are we going to hurt the feelings of long-dead freeway planners by criticizing their creations?

Because its revisionist history which runs rampant around here. IMO, its relevant to understand the context of why things developed the way that they did, not just look at it in context of today.

[Slick Vik]

Because its revisionist history which runs rampant around here. IMO, its relevant to understand the context of why things developed the way that they did, not just look at it in context of today.

 

Don't start this again. Eisenhower never wanted freeways to go through city centers.

[livincinco]

Don't start this again. Eisenhower never wanted freeways to go through city centers.

That has nothing to do with it. The highway system was created and passed by Congress and they always intended to go through cities. The Atlantic recently published an article debunking the whole idea that freeways weren't supposed to do that and they're not exactly a right wing publication.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/02/it-or-not-most-urban-freeways-are-here-stay/8428/

[Slick Vik]

That has nothing to do with it. The highway system was created and passed by Congress and they always intended to go through cities. The Atlantic recently published an article debunking the whole idea that freeways weren't supposed to do that and they're not exactly a right wing publication. I'm on my phone and don't have the link at the moment, but will add later in the thread.

 

The evidence says otherwise.

 

[The President] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way… [He] was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored.

 

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/interstate_highway_system/1960_04_08_Meeting.pdf

[livincinco]

The evidence says otherwise.

[The President] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way… [He] was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored.

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/interstate_highway_system/1960_04_08_Meeting.pdf

You didn't read my post. Congress passed the law. Congress always intended it to go through cities. I'm not arguing Eisenhower's intentions, but Eisenhower's intentions functionally don't matter because the President can craft a vision, but the law that ultimately gets enacted is what Congress crafts unless the President vetoes it. Congress designed it to go through cities. Eisenhower signed it.

[Slick Vik]

You didn't read my post. Congress passed the law. Congress always intended it to go through cities. I'm not arguing Eisenhower's intentions, but Eisenhower's intentions functionally don't matter because the President can craft a vision, but the law that ultimately gets enacted is what Congress crafts unless the President vetoes it. Congress designed it to go through cities. Eisenhower signed it.

 

You missed the point again

 

You might wonder why the Interstate Highway System became something that Eisenhower, its great champion, never wanted it to become. For one thing, officials felt the interstates had to run through cities for urban-minded members of Congress to give the plan their vote. Then there was the money; with the feds paying 90 cents of every interstate dollar, any calls for other types of transportation structures fell on deaf ears.

 

And of course there was the simple fact that officials and opinion leaders generally failed to anticipate the negative impacts of running highways through cities. Few realized the system would destroy the character and cohesion of urban neighborhoods, for instance, or that it would breed an intransigent car-first engineering mindset. To be sure, the Interstate Highway System did an enormous amount of good for the United States, but in retrospect the decision to thread it through cities was a great mistake.

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/01/what-interstate-highway-system-should-have-looked/8097/

 

The implication is that the urban highways sold the program to reluctant urban Congressmen, concerned they weren’t getting return on their tax dollars in some warped version of subarea equity. If so, it was one of the most disastrous failures at representing constituents in the 20th Century.

 

To say these highways should never have been built is not to say they should necessarily all be torn out; entire cities have sprung from them. Still, it’s one of the underrated tragedies in American history that what we feared Soviet bombs would do to our cities, we in a small way did ourselves.

http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/03/10/eisenhower-didnt-want-highways-through-cities/

[livincinco]

You missed the point again

You might wonder why the Interstate Highway System became something that Eisenhower, its great champion, never wanted it to become. For one thing, officials felt the interstates had to run through cities for urban-minded members of Congress to give the plan their vote. Then there was the money; with the feds paying 90 cents of every interstate dollar, any calls for other types of transportation structures fell on deaf ears.

And of course there was the simple fact that officials and opinion leaders generally failed to anticipate the negative impacts of running highways through cities. Few realized the system would destroy the character and cohesion of urban neighborhoods, for instance, or that it would breed an intransigent car-first engineering mindset. To be sure, the Interstate Highway System did an enormous amount of good for the United States, but in retrospect the decision to thread it through cities was a great mistake.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/01/what-interstate-highway-system-should-have-looked/8097/

The implication is that the urban highways sold the program to reluctant urban Congressmen, concerned they weren’t getting return on their tax dollars in some warped version of subarea equity. If so, it was one of the most disastrous failures at representing constituents in the 20th Century.

To say these highways should never have been built is not to say they should necessarily all be torn out; entire cities have sprung from them. Still, it’s one of the underrated tragedies in American history that what we feared Soviet bombs would do to our cities, we in a small way did ourselves.

http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/03/10/eisenhower-didnt-want-highways-through-cities/

It's really kind of naive to think that just because a President wants something executed that it should be executed exactly that way. There are very few major initiatives that have not been impacted by Congress, because that's the way our government is designed to work. There was absolutely political concessions made to get the bill passed. In exactly the same way that every major bill has the same concessions.

I think that it's arguable whether it was the right decision, but it happened and they are there.

BTW, it's nice that you reference an article that talks about the enormous amount of good that the Interstate Highway system has done, but your Seattle transit blog link has no more credibility than the other blogs you've provided in the past.

[Slick Vik]

It's really kind of naive to think that just because a President wants something executed that it should be executed exactly that way. There are very few major initiatives that have not been impacted by Congress, because that's the way our government is designed to work. There was absolutely political concessions made to get the bill passed. In exactly the same way that every major bill has the same concessions.

I think that it's arguable whether it was the right decision, but it happened and they are there.

BTW, it's nice that you reference an article that talks about the enormous amount of good that the Interstate Highway system has done, but your Seattle transit blog link has no more credibility than the other blogs you've provided in the past.

 

I used the article you cited against you, so you are tossing insults back. The fact that the President whose idea the system was was disappointed is very important.

 

You've pointed out before that Eisenhower is your favorite president, but now you undermine him conveniently because it fits your argument. In the end many were hoodwinked and we ended up destroying cities worse than wars possibly could have. Wicked irony.

[livincinco]

I used the article you cited against you, so you are tossing insults back. The fact that the President whose idea the system was was disappointed is very important.

You've pointed out before that Eisenhower is your favorite president, but now you undermine him conveniently because it fits your argument. In the end many were hoodwinked and we ended up destroying cities worse than wars possibly could have. Wicked irony.

You didn't quote the article that I linked to, you quoted a different article from the same publication.

Eisenhower is my favorite President, but I'm not undermining him at all. I'm just explaining how the US Government works and that's not an opinion or an insult it's just a fact. The President has no ability to introduce legislation to Congress and no ability to authorize spending to support this kind of proposal. He can propose it to them, but someone in Congress has to actually introduce the legislation and it can be amended through that process. That happens to every major bill and all the President can do is sign or veto.

I'm more than happy to explain any other government functions that you're unclear on.

[Slick Vik]

You didn't quote the article that I linked to, you quoted a different article from the same publication.

Eisenhower is my favorite President, but I'm not undermining him at all. I'm just explaining how the US Government works and that's not an opinion or an insult it's just a fact. The President has no ability to introduce legislation to Congress and no ability to authorize spending to support this kind of proposal. He can propose it to them, but someone in Congress has to actually introduce the legislation and it can be amended through that process. That happens to every major bill and all the President can do is sign or veto.

I'm more than happy to explain any other government functions that you're unclear on.

You're using a technicality. Let me ask you this, will congress be remembered for introducing obamacare or Obama? It's his idea and his legacy.

[IronTiger]

You're using a technicality. Let me ask you this, will congress be remembered for introducing obamacare or Obama? It's his idea and his legacy.

Congress introduced it (he definitely had like-minded friends in Congress, if that's your asking) and they voted on it, but Presidents are usually remembered for things that happened during their legacy--otherwise Bush wouldn't have been vilified the way he did.

And I'm loving that hilariously insensitive comparison of freeway construction to war.

[livincinco]

You're using a techbutality. Let me ask you this, will congress be remembered for introducing obamacare or Obama? It's his idea and his legacy.

Never heard Article 1 of the Constitution referred to as "a technicality" before, but very little surprises me in these conversations anymore.

[Slick Vik]

Congress introduced it (he definitely had like-minded friends in Congress, if that's your asking) and they voted on it, but Presidents are usually remembered for things that happened during their legacy--otherwise Bush wouldn't have been vilified the way he did.

And I'm loving that hilariously insensitive comparison of freeway construction to war.

Is johnson remembered for civil rights or Vietnam?

[Slick Vik]

Never heard Article 1 of the Constitution referred to as "a technicality" before, but very little surprises me in these conversations anymore.

Again, discounting eisenhower's idea on the entire interstate system. Just because it ended up in a way you liked, you're okay with it. But that was not the original intention and it had major consequences.

[Ross]

Again, discounting eisenhower's idea on the entire interstate system. Just because it ended up in a way you liked, you're okay with it. But that was not the original intention and it had major consequences.

 

One of the best consequences is that I do not have to drive 30-45 minutes on surface streets to get to I-10 East to go to Baytown. Instead, I get on I-10 at T C Jester, and am in Baytown in less than 30 minutes on a weekend. Same thing when I drive to Galveston, I cna get on 10 then 45, and get to the Seawall in an hour or so.Without freeways through town, it would take twice as long.

 

[IronTiger]

Is johnson remembered for civil rights or Vietnam?

People remember them anyway. Here's a hint: in the psyche of most Americans, Nixon's work on U.S.-China relations isn't what comes to mind first.

And besides, the idea of building highways through city centers pre-dated Eisenhower: Boston and San Francisco were building then-modern urban highways years before the Interstate system. The Interstate system modified them and introduced much-needed new standards such as shoulders and wider lanes. Therefore, the "Interstates through city centers" isn't a bastardization of the idea.

[Slick Vik]

One of the best consequences is that I do not have to drive 30-45 minutes on surface streets to get to I-10 East to go to Baytown. Instead, I get on I-10 at T C Jester, and am in Baytown in less than 30 minutes on a weekend. Same thing when I drive to Galveston, I cna get on 10 then 45, and get to the Seawall in an hour or so.Without freeways through town, it would take twice as long.

Because city planning should be based on the convenience of Ross, right?

[Slick Vik]

People remember them anyway. Here's a hint: in the psyche of most Americans, Nixon's work on U.S.-China relations isn't what comes to mind first.

And besides, the idea of building highways through city centers pre-dated Eisenhower: Boston and San Francisco were building then-modern urban highways years before the Interstate system. The Interstate system modified them and introduced much-needed new standards such as shoulders and wider lanes. Therefore, the "Interstates through city centers" isn't a bastardization of the idea.

When it happened through the centers of nearly every major city in the country, yes it's a bastardization. The point was an INTERstate and really intercity system not intra.

[IronTiger]

Because city planning should be based on the convenience of Ross, right?

No, it should be based on a Midtown guy who thinks that the Pierce Elevated should be torn down because it looks ugly. All the traffic it carries can find alternate routes. Screw functionality. Also, anyone who opposes light rail is unambigously evil.

[nativehoustonion]

TXDOT spent 2 billion on that 575 feet wide freeway.  I live inside the loop and never go there.  That 2 billion could of build not light rail but heavy rail like Atlanta.  Now they are doing 290, then 288.  Fort bend county has almost 700,00 residents with no transportation plan.  They are a large as Forth Worth with 99, and 59, what a mess this will turn out to be.  I'm glad I do not live out there. 

[JJxvi]

One thing I am curious about. Is highway transportation really "more cost efficient?"  Clearly a lot of people think so because the build cost is relatively low and capacity is so much higher, but all in all you're not really considering all the costs.

 

Just using the $2billion as the cost does not consider the costs borne by the user (ie what they have to pay for their car in either depreciation or lease,  what they have to pay in fuel, what they have to pay in vehicle maintenance plus safety and emissions inspections and repairs, what they have to pay in insurance, etc, all of which is covered by the transit authority with rail and transit and only passed to the user via a user fee (and freeways have started getting in on that act too).

 

If its costing 150,000 people $5000 per year or more in costs to drive on the freeway that's like $750 million per year of costs to use that mode of transportation being hidden because its paid by the user.

[JJxvi]

It seems like for the end user, its definitely more cost efficient to use transit, which explains why its a very common mode of transportation from the poor who cant afford the capital, maintenance, and red tape costs the car requires you to put in for the convenience of having it.   For the city itself I guess highways are better because you only have to pay for the initial infrastructure and maintenance and after that all the burden is shoved on to the populace.  Meanwhile for the people with the means to afford cars, they already are paying for that, so they probably don't want to pay for their car, and also pay for part of the costs for people without cars also even though their part of that would be way lower than whats its really costing them to drive.

[livincinco]

Again, discounting eisenhower's idea on the entire interstate system. Just because it ended up in a way you liked, you're okay with it. But that was not the original intention and it had major consequences.

 

So let's extrapolate this for a second here.  Eisenhower was opposed to running freeways through cities, however by the time it made it to his desk for final signature, it's clear that the system was going to run through cities and he signed it.  That means one of two things - either he wasn't aware of the changes to the bill (highly unlikely) or that he knowingly accepted the change and accepted (as you have argued that his legacy was going to include running freeways through cities.  That kind of makes his whole earlier opposition meaningless doesn't it?

 

By the way, when you say "it ended up in a way you liked", that's where we have a big disconnect.  As I openly mentioned earlier, I think that there's room for discussion about whether it was the right thing at the time, but they are there and unless someone has discovered a time machine and hasn't shared that fact, then we have no ability to go back in time to change that.  Who likes what doesn't change the reality that we have the infrastructure that we have.  That's a sunk cost - there's no going back.

 

The more relevant question is "does it make sense to remove them now" and I can't think of any freeway that it makes sense to remove in Houston.  Now you're going to go to your old standby of mentioning the 3 or 4 freeways with probably 10 miles of total road that have been removed.  10 miles in a more than 47,000 mile network doesn't even qualify as a rounding error let alone a trend.  Most of the "plans" that are proposed, such as removing I-345 through Dallas get rejected because they make no sense, not because there's a "highway conspiracy".