More Congestion On Interstate-10

[JJxvi]

I think in a perfect world Houston would consolidate freeway ROW in the downtown area.  It's fairly useless to have highway on all borders, particularly ones that are just passing through without providing good access.

[livincinco]

I think in a perfect world Houston would consolidate freeway ROW in the downtown area.  It's fairly useless to have highway on all borders, particularly ones that are just passing through without providing good access.

 

If we're talking perfect world then I'm holding out for personal jetpacks. 

 

[mkultra25]

Also, anyone who opposes light rail is unambigously evil.

 

The Dark Lord of Unsustainable Internal Combustion and Freeway Sprawl vs. the Messiah of Utopian Mass Transit: who shall win?

 

[por favor gracias]

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.

 

 

So one the best perks is that you can get to Baytown in 30 minutes on a weekend? That's a low bar if you ask me, and there are still plenty of "consequences" that occur from both everyday and situational events on the roads...traffic jams, lane/freeway closures, stalled vehicles, accidents, flashing stop lights like the ones the other day at Hammerly and the Beltway that "graced" thousands of us with yet another unexpected 10 - 20 minute delay, hydrochloric acid on the freeway for 6 or 12 hours, slick/icy conditions...you never know when most of these situations will present themselves. Then there's always that person who is either on his or her cell phone, or can't decide which DVD to put in, or "can't handle" going only 80 MPH and causes an accident...actually there are hundreds of them every day doing just that in the Houston area alone. Let's also not forget about the cop(s) sneakily waiting over some hill around I-10 and Normandy for a certain number to appear on his or her radar gun, whether or not that person is actually affecting traffic in any way. And then there's the fact that we all have to directly pay for our own personal automobiles, and their gas, and their insurance, and their repairs/maintenance, plus tolls and parking fees, plus and any extra time and/or money spent at the DMV, repair shop, court, etc....and then there are the environmental/health impacts.

 

It's just crazy to me that so many people don't even want to talk about this stuff. Other than food, water, oxygen, etc...very few things impact our lives as much as our transportation system does on a daily basis. A lot of people who act as if there is either no consequence from their actions or they just don't care come off as being self-serving and/or fake to me...as if the thought itself of slightly altering such a consumerist lifestyle is "too much of a price to pay." I love driving as much as the next guy, and my business depends on it. That said, I would surrender my personal preferences for a greater good in a heartbeat if there were real options.

 

Give me the train that I know is going to be safer, cleaner, cheaper, more efficient, more consistent, more sustainable and less stressful...unless there's an earthquake or something (and even then, it's not like the road is "the place you wanna be" either). If we had trains/subways going through/around town like our freeways do, you could still very easily make it to Baytown as quickly as (or faster than) you would by automobile...especially at rush hour.

[por favor gracias]

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. 

 

The Katy Freeway project costed $2.8 billion.

[por favor gracias]

The Dark Lord of Unsustainable Internal Combustion and Freeway Sprawl vs. the Messiah of Utopian Mass Transit: who shall win?

 

 

Let's at least make it a fair fight.

[Slick Vik]

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.

Has nothing to do with functionality. You don't even consider the benefits of tearing it down, mainly a dynamic city and property taxes of new buildings where the pierce is now. I was once a blind suburbanite but I've seen both sides and thus my views are fair and balanced.

[Slick Vik]

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".

I think 45 and 59 without a doubt should be removed from downtown. It's not so much a highway conspiracy as the people being in power have a fetish for highways, and it's in the best interest of their pocketbooks as well.

[IronTiger]

...and thus my views are fair and balanced.

Hey, just like Fox News! 

[livincinco]

I think 45 and 59 without a doubt should be removed from downtown. It's not so much a highway conspiracy as the people being in power have a fetish for highways, and it's in the best interest of their pocketbooks as well.

So do you guys remember that scene in Bruce Almighty where Bruce gets everything he wants and the world turns into this complete hairball?

Yeah, me too.

[livincinco]

The Katy Freeway project costed $2.8 billion.

And it conservatively moves 350,000 people a day. DART light rail cost over $5 billion and it moves 95,000 a day.

[Ross]

I had an interesting conversation at work today with a colleague who has lived in Garden Oaks since he was born in 1949. His mother still lives in the house she and his father bought new in 1939. He recalled the days before freeways in Houston. The days when it took 45 minutes to get downtown from Shepherd and 43rd. The days when it took 3 hours to get to Galveston, because you had to get all the way across town without a freeway. The days when congestion on surface streets was awful because all the trucks had to use them to get from one place to another. His opinion was that anyone who thinks we need to get rid of freeways isn't thinking rationally, and never lived in a place without useful roads.

[cloud713]

And it conservatively moves 350,000 people a day. DART light rail cost over $5 billion and it moves 95,000 a day.

DART built 85 miles of light rail for over 5 billion? im interested to know where you got that figure. i know they were able to build cheaper than us but i didnt realize it was that much cheaper. were barely managing to build 23 miles for ~3 billion. i realize some of their routes were old railroad ROWs that are much cheaper than running rail down surface streets, but still.. we have that option for Westpark rail, and had the option along i10 before it was paved over (yes, supposably they built the bridges on 10 to handle train cars, if we ever decided to put rail down 10) yet there is no rail running down Westpark, or immediate plans to build any down the Katy Tollway. all Houston has to show for its first decade of rail is a measly 13 miles of light rail (granted were going to open another 10 or so miles by the end of the year).. DART rail hasnt even been in service for two decades and they have over 6 times the amount of light rail as us (not counting the 30 or so miles of commuter rail they have built in the same span).. is Culberson really to blame for all of our shortcomings?

[Slick Vik]

And it conservatively moves 350,000 people a day. DART light rail cost over $5 billion and it moves 95,000 a day.

Take out federal funding and that number is about half as small

So do you guys remember that scene in Bruce Almighty where Bruce gets everything he wants and the world turns into this complete hairball?

Yeah, me too.

Stay on topic. And freeway removals in other cities haven't turned the world into a hairball. You're simply fear mongering.

[Slick Vik]

I had an interesting conversation at work today with a colleague who has lived in Garden Oaks since he was born in 1949. His mother still lives in the house she and his father bought new in 1939. He recalled the days before freeways in Houston. The days when it took 45 minutes to get downtown from Shepherd and 43rd. The days when it took 3 hours to get to Galveston, because you had to get all the way across town without a freeway. The days when congestion on surface streets was awful because all the trucks had to use them to get from one place to another. His opinion was that anyone who thinks we need to get rid of freeways isn't thinking rationally, and never lived in a place without useful roads.

I've had conversations with people who lived here when streetcars ran and they enjoyed getting around town quickly for cheap. Funny you mention galveston because there was an electric streetcar that went from downtown to galveston. In fact going from garden oaks to downtown to galveston via streetcar or probably cut that travel time in half or more. Sounds to me that there will always be a segment of the population that refuses to take public transportation no matter how much time and money it saves.

[livincinco]

Take out federal funding and that number is about half as small

Stay on topic. And freeway removals in other cities haven't turned the world into a hairball. You're simply fear mongering.

Cost is cost regardless of the source and if anything I've presented a conservative cost for DART and an extremely conservative traffic count for I-10. My count is based off of estimated cars at a single point and doesn't include cars that don't pass that particular point so the total usage is likely to be much higher.

Regarding freeway removals, no one has attempted anything remotely close to the scale of what your suggesting. And regarding your admonitions to stay on topic, sorry I'm to busy hysterically laughing at your hypocrisy to answer.

[Slick Vik]

Cost is cost regardless of the source and if anything I've presented a conservative cost for DART and an extremely conservative traffic count for I-10. My count is based off of estimated cars at a single point and doesn't include cars that don't pass that particular point so the total usage is likely to be much higher.

Regarding freeway removals, no one has attempted anything remotely close to the scale of what your suggesting. And regarding your admonitions to stay on topic, sorry I'm to busy hysterically laughing at your hypocrisy to answer.

 

Stay on topic. You can't throw in federal money into cost to bloat it into something it's not, if that money doesn't come here it goes somewhere else. It's not an extra burden on local taxpayers.

[livincinco]

Stay on topic. You can't throw in federal money into cost to bloat it into something it's not, if that money doesn't come here it goes somewhere else. It's not an extra burden on local taxpayers.

Got it. The Katy Freeway expansion received $1.4 billion in federal financing and $1.1 billion in state financing. The local cost of the project was $255 million with $238 million of that funded from toll revenues.

[JJxvi]

Freeways are cheap for government when you consider the ongoing costs are shifted to the user.  The average I-10 driver probably uses up $5,000 (or more? $10,000? I duuno) per year in depreciation, fuel costs, registration and safety compliance, maintenance, some amount of real estate costs for storage of the vehicle, possibly financing costs related to the vehicle, insurance, etc.  350,000 times $5000 is annual ongoing costs of almost $2 billion per year paid by the users (plus on I-10 you also have fees being charged to some users as well). I dunno how that should get allocated to just I-10 (since some portion of the costs would be allocated to trips on other roads), but my guess is a significant portion of some commuters annual transportation costs come from miles on I-10.

Edited February 26, 2014 by JJxvi

[Slick Vik]

Got it. The Katy Freeway expansion received $1.4 billion in federal financing and $1.1 billion in state financing. The local cost of the project was $255 million with $238 million of that funded from toll revenues.

State financing that never ever goes to passenger rail.

[IronTiger]

I've had conversations with people who lived here when streetcars ran and they enjoyed getting around town quickly for cheap. Funny you mention galveston because there was an electric streetcar that went from downtown to galveston. In fact going from garden oaks to downtown to galveston via streetcar or probably cut that travel time in half or more. Sounds to me that there will always be a segment of the population that refuses to take public transportation no matter how much time and money it saves.

The electric interurban was a private company, therefore, it's not public transit.

[Ross]

I've had conversations with people who lived here when streetcars ran and they enjoyed getting around town quickly for cheap. Funny you mention galveston because there was an electric streetcar that went from downtown to galveston. In fact going from garden oaks to downtown to galveston via streetcar or probably cut that travel time in half or more. Sounds to me that there will always be a segment of the population that refuses to take public transportation no matter how much time and money it saves.

 

Garden Oaks didn't have streetcars. By the time my colleague was born in 1949, there were no streetcars in Houston at all. No one wanted to ride them, preferring the freedom granted by automobile ownership. My Great Grandparents, as I've mentioned elsewhere, lived on W 17th from 1911 to 1919. They never rode public transit, even though there were streetcars available. Of course, that might have been because my Great Grandfather was a salesman at the Overland dealer on Main. He also sold Krit cars.

 

[por favor gracias]

And it conservatively moves 350,000 people a day. DART light rail cost over $5 billion and it moves 95,000 a day.

 

That's true, and it's much better than it was before...although I can't help but criticize the design out by Eldridge and Hwy 6 where it goes down to 4 main lanes. That's a big reason for a lot of those backups, and it's not going to get any better with all the new development underway. And keep in mind that if we added all of the costs to the Katy Freeway project that have been spent since the initial "payment," from gas, tolls, maintenance, insurance, etc....that $2.8 billion price tag is already a lot higher.

 

I don't really like the idea of light rail out as far as, say, the Energy Corridor. We need faster ways of getting to and from areas outside the loop for sure.

[livincinco]

That's true, and it's much better than it was before...although I can't help but criticize the design out by Eldridge and Hwy 6 where it goes down to 4 main lanes. That's a big reason for a lot of those backups, and it's not going to get any better with all the new development underway. And keep in mind that if we added all of the costs to the Katy Freeway project that have been spent since the initial "payment," from gas, tolls, maintenance, insurance, etc....that $2.8 billion price tag is already a lot higher.

I don't really like the idea of light rail out as far as, say, the Energy Corridor. We need faster ways of getting to and from areas outside the loop for sure.

Sorry guys, I'm just not buying this argument that's now been raised by a couple of people that individual private costs that people incur related to the ownership of cars should be attributed to the cost of the project. While I agree that there is an element of necessity to a car purchase, but car purchases are for the most part, driven by discretionary income. People buy the kind of car that they want to drive, not a strictly utilitarian car that just gets them from point to point.

It's also a completely known cost that is directly paid by the user. When you buy a car, you know you're putting gas in it. You're not getting gas for free and then paying taxes to the government to underwrite gas for everyone.

The last point is you again state the fallacy of light rail and "faster ways" to get to places outside the loop. There are many strong arguments for public transit, but faster isn't one of them. With the exception of rare direct point to point connections, intracity public transit increases commute times, it doesn't decrease them. Improving public transit to those areas is beneficial in many ways, but it won't make it faster to get there.

[Slick Vik]

Sorry guys, I'm just not buying this argument that's now been raised by a couple of people that individual private costs that people incur related to the ownership of cars should be attributed to the cost of the project. While I agree that there is an element of necessity to a car purchase, but car purchases are for the most part, driven by discretionary income. People buy the kind of car that they want to drive, not a strictly utilitarian car that just gets them from point to point.

It's also a completely known cost that is directly paid by the user. When you buy a car, you know you're putting gas in it. You're not getting gas for free and then paying taxes to the government to underwrite gas for everyone.

The last point is you again state the fallacy of light rail and "faster ways" to get to places outside the loop. There are many strong arguments for public transit, but faster isn't one of them. With the exception of rare direct point to point connections, intracity public transit increases commute times, it doesn't decrease them. Improving public transit to those areas is beneficial in many ways, but it won't make it faster to get there.

I don't think everyone buys the car they want, in that case they would all be buying Ferraris and Lambhorginis.

You are again decorating the argument to favor yourself. The user and environmental costs of constant freeway expansion are something that you refuse to consider. If two train cars take 100 cars off the road, and they run very few minutes, how do you not see the benefit to society?

I agree sometimes transit takes longer than cars on average, but in many rail corridors worldwide, it does not, and most times it's cheaper than gas plus parking. Buses are really what add times because of their inconsistency and lack of speed.

[IronTiger]

You are again decorating the argument to favor yourself.

Sounds familiar, huh?

The user and environmental costs of constant freeway expansion are something that you refuse to consider. If two train cars take 100 cars off the road, and they run very few minutes, how do you not see the benefit to society?

No one here is against light rail inherently, and light rail does take some cars off the road. However, is a train that can take cars off the road but ends up using less "car equivalents" still be considered efficient?

[JJxvi]

The problem I have with the current method of building higher and higher capacity roads that run further and further away from the city center, with regard to "efficiency" is that it is no doubt inherently more inefficient than building high capacity transportation in the central city. It takes exponentially more land, more miles, more vehicles, more fuel to cover the transportation costs of 5 million people spread over 10,000 square miles than it does to cover the transportation of 5 million people spread over 2,000 square miles.

 

The only way it is more "efficient" is that more of the cost is borne by the user.  And as time goes by, more and more of the costs are being shifted as even the initial construction costs are being financed by the future users through tolls, because its really damned expensive to have big roads to all areas 20-50 miles from city centers.

[livincinco]

I don't think everyone buys the car they want, in that case they would all be buying Ferraris and Lambhorginis.

You are again decorating the argument to favor yourself. The user and environmental costs of constant freeway expansion are something that you refuse to consider. If two train cars take 100 cars off the road, and they run very few minutes, how do you not see the benefit to society?

I agree sometimes transit takes longer than cars on average, but in many rail corridors worldwide, it does not, and most times it's cheaper than gas plus parking. Buses are really what add times because of their inconsistency and lack of speed.

 

I honestly just have no interest in conversing with you any further.  You don't read what I write, have no interest in rational discussion and aren't interested in considering any complexities regarding transit.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Slick Vik]

I honestly just have no interest in conversing with you any further.  You don't read what I write, have no interest in rational discussion and aren't interested in considering any complexities regarding transit.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

I read what you wrote. But it's impossible to debate with someone that refuses to move beyond the status quo and thinks the current situation is sustainable for the future and in the mean time finds a myriad of reasons to not look at feasible alternatives that are being invested in worldwide.

[Slick Vik]

Sounds familiar, huh?

No one here is against light rail inherently, and light rail does take some cars off the road. However, is a train that can take cars off the road but ends up using less "car equivalents" still be considered efficient?

Train cars aren't equivalent to cars