18 Lanes In His Rear View Mirror

[pineda]

18 lanes in his rear view mirror

"NEARLY five years ago, I was relocated to Houston. Occupied in outside sales, I've spent the better portion of these years staring at brake lights in front of me, immersed in a city incapable of effectively moving people from point A to point B.

My frustration level has boiled over and I feel fortunate to be escaping this choked network of expanding freeways and construction vehicles. In a few days, I will be relocating to the scenic and quiet beaches of Delaware. Good riddance to one of the worst-managed cities in the world.

I spent 25 years in Brooklyn, in the largest city in America, which has a 100-year-old subway system that moves millions weekly. Five thousand Houstonians took light rail to a football game and it made the front page of the local section. Good luck to all. Enjoy your 18-lane freeways!"

- DAVE NEEL Katy

(as seen in this Sunday's Houston Chronicle Outlook section)

[SpaceCity]

Ouch. That hurts, but I agree with him.

[ssullivan]

I agree with him too, although I wouldn't call this the "worst managed city anywhere." Also, look where he lived (Katy). As I've said before I have little sympathy for people who live in Katy and complain about the traffic jams getting into town. If it's that bad, live someplace else or take Metro's park and ride service (but many of the complainers would never be caught dead on public transportation even if a high speed rail line stopped at their front door).

[The Great Hizzy!]

Ask yourselves a simple question:

If Mr. Neel lived in Brooklyn and enjoyed the rail transit there, why would he move to Houston and live in Katy? Is he crazy? Full of it? Both?

Surely he's honest enough with himself to admit that if he lived on Long Island or in suburban Jersey and had to commute to Manhattan by car it would be not only a time consuming endeavor (just like in Houston, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Chicago, etc) but expensive as hell. Given that Houston has one of the nation's most successful commuter bus systems (hint-hint: 221 Kingsland P&R, 228 Addicks P&R), why the hell is he commuting via car if he's lamenting the fact that Brooklyn, where he lived once, had excellent mass transit and Houston apparently does not. He suggests that he doesn't have a problem with mass transit. So why wouldn't he take advantage of it here?

"Well, maybe he doesn't work downtown", you say?

Then where does he work? He says he relocated because of his job, and most people tend to move close to where they work. Why didn't he?

"Well, maybe he has to commute over town, since he's in sales"

I don't know how to break this to you, but you'd be dealing with some amout of traffic in any city if you had to drive around all day via car. However, surely he and most of you here will admit that between 9:30 AM and 3:00 PM highway traffic here is about the same as many other places: not great but manageable.

Nevertheless, it's all about perception. So there you go.

Ah--but I'm too old to continuously read this kind of BS and humor it. Dave was pissed he had to move to Houston from New York (or wherever), has been bitching about ever since, and now, as he finally gets to "escape" he levies a parting shot to the nasty ol' folks in Houston in an attempt to make 'em feel insignificant and backwards by writing an unflattering letter to the paper.

He is what he is.

[firstngoal]

And I say good-riddance to him! I feel bad for the folks in Delaware.

Yet another person who is part of the problem - rather than being part of the solution. Perhaps if we got back the money we give to the US government to develop alternative modes of transportation in this region, we would be in better financial shape to address our issues. But, alas, OUR money is going to regions like NYC and Boston so they can enjoy their rail networks, highways, and tunnels. Big Dig anyone??? Price tag: $16 BILLION!! - most of which came from the tax payers of the U.S. Houston's light rail? Price tag: $325 million, almost all of which came from local sources. I blame our local leaders, too, but I have also participated in local forums and have written letters to appeal to our leaders to address our issues. All this bozo is doing is bitching about the obvious... in pure NY form, I say "Get outta here!"

He should be awfully glad he didn't move to any of those other cities that were ranked worse than Houston in highway congestion... I'm not saying that things are good here (traffic-wise), but they certainly aren't the worst either. Perhaps he should have done a little more research on where he was moving rather than blast the city.

[VelvetJ]

Well, in the midst of picking his comments apart, I hope the message wasn't lost. Unfortunately, the guy didn't mention Houston's recent rail efforts in his statement, which Houston deserves credit for. But even with that I think he was speaking to a bigger picture. With all of the progress Houston has made recently, there are a ton of red flags waving, that in certain areas the city is going in the wrong direction.

With the guy having lived in Katy, I'm sure he was disgusted as I and too few other Houstonians, when it was revealed rail tracks were going to be removed from along the Katy Freeway and the freeway itself was going to be expanded to the degree it is (I'm not against Katy Freeway expanding by the way, and believe it should be, but alternatives were not considered as much as they should have been IMO). I'm sure he was disgusted to learn Dallas has more rail miles at the present than what Houston will have in 25 years. I'm sure in his statement he was speaking to the degree of how much road construction is prioritized in this city, even over people and neighborhoods. From his statement, I got he was speaking to the "blindness" of too many in Houston to the fact that there are just as many disadvantages to allowing the city to be run by developers as there are advantages. Even with the very large amount of freeway and road space in Houston today, he looked at the projected spending ratio for roads and for rail, saw the INCREDIBLE gap and was disgusted. Kirby.....a super road.....disgusting. Gessner....widened....disgusting. Westheimer....a super road.....disgusting.

Houston was clearly not the place for that guy, but we have to ask ourselves what was truly behind his statements in the chronicle? Was he "bashing" Houston just to bash it? There are people that trash on Houston just for the sake of doing so (like that chick that wrote that ridiculous piece in the NY Times a couple of months ago about Houston not being "real" because we have air conditioning), but I don't think this guy is a case like that. Before we blow him off and simply say this guy is crazy and full of it, I think maybe we should try to see if possibly he had another motive that was more of a wake up call than really anything else. That wake up call could be to challenge our opinions on roads and our future, or a challenge to change our leadership for our future.

Either way, like The Great Hizzy stated, it's all about perception, and I got more positive out of that guy's comments than negative.

[N8TIV]

I spent 25 years in Brooklyn, in the largest city in America, which has a 100-year-old subway system that moves millions weekly. Five thousand Houstonians took light rail to a football game and it made the front page of the local section. Good luck to all. Enjoy your 18-lane freeways!"

- DAVE NEEL Katy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought that if you could make it in New York, you can make it anywhere..

Obviously he cannot deal with the fact that Houston is going through some growing pains, and is trying to adapt to the amount of people moving here. Cry me a river. Have fun in scenic dullaware.

[westguy]

New York and Massachusetts - as well as Texas and other populous states - get less money than they pay the federal government. It is primarily less populated states that receive the most. Alaska tops the states in pork spending primarily for this issue - especially once we pay for their $2 billion bridge to nowhere.

[MaxConcrete]

Of course, Houston isn't for everyone. Neither is Brooklyn. I think most people will vote for Houston-like cities, as evidenced by the ongoing growth of Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, any Florida city, etc., etc., etc.

Freeways do provide access to new housing (where he lived), which keeps housing costs affordable. Freeways allow people to conveniently go where they want in their private automobiles. Don't most Houstonians want this, as evidenced by the recent report that Houstonians have the nation's highest car payments? (Have nice car, will drive)

Who knows what inspired the writer to submit his letter, but the truth is that he'll find comparable or worse traffic in most major cities. I hope he needs to do sales work in the DC area. Then he'll get a taste of some even worse traffic. And he won't be able to blame the traffic on lack of rail!

[Dallasite]

Ouch. That hurts, but I agree with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, me too. You could put Big D in there too..unfortunately.

[jghall00]

Of course, Houston isn't for everyone. Neither is Brooklyn. I think most people will vote for Houston-like cities, as evidenced by the ongoing growth of Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, any Florida city, etc., etc., etc.

Freeways do provide access to new housing (where he lived), which keeps housing costs affordable. Freeways allow people to conveniently go where they want in their private automobiles. Don't most Houstonians want this, as evidenced by the recent report that Houstonians have the nation's highest car payments? (Have nice car, will drive)

Who knows what inspired the writer to submit his letter, but the truth is that he'll find comparable or worse traffic in most major cities. I hope he needs to do sales work in the DC area. Then he'll get a taste of some even worse traffic. And he won't be able to blame the traffic on lack of rail!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In many cases, the money saved on less expensive housing often goes to auto related expenses. You need a more reliable car, more gas, more maintenance, more time spent in traffic, etc. The developers externalize those expenses, you don't.

I think you'll find in the cities you mentioned that much of the growth is the result of foreign immigration. Also, the absolute numbers often aren't nearly as high as the percentage growth would lead you to believe. People continue to move to Sunbelt and Western cities yes, but is the growth sustainable? The West is having a severe drought. Houston and Atlanta have severe traffic problems. Cities that follow Houston's development style will hit a growth wall much faster then someplace that develops in a Pre WWII style.

Being a native New Yorker, I can sympathize with the writer. It's not so much that traffic is bad here; it's bad in all major cities. But, in many other cities, you have alternatives. You can walk, ride a bike, the bus, a train, etc. In Houston, that's not a viable option for the majority of the populace. Not only that, but the powers that be are still working on more road projects, instead of encouraging better land use. What is one supposed to think when traffic gets bad, and we get the Westpark Tollway, Fort Bend Parkway, I-10 expansion, and Grand Parkway as solutions?

[MidtownCoog]

Funny how this Fuller Brush salesman does not mention how he got around in Brooklyn. I suppose he schleped his ware on the train.

And another thing, people in Katy should not be allowed to complain about Hosuton traffic. He's part of the problem. Poor dumd Yankee should have done his research.

And FWIW, driving Houston during the day is great, it's only during rush-hour that things are really bad.

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Houston's traffic problems aren't any worse than other major cities. Try Los Angeles or D.C. area, or even New York.

[ssullivan]

In many cases, the money saved on less expensive housing often goes to auto related expenses.  You need a more reliable car, more gas, more maintenance, more time spent in traffic, etc.  The developers externalize those expenses, you don't.

This is so true! After moving inside the loop in August, my commute to the Galleria area for work is about the same in time and distance, but my almost nightly trips into town for socializing with friends, church, etc. have been cut in time and distance by about 66%. As a result, I'm saving about $25-30 a month in tolls and $25 in gas. Yes, my rent went up by about $125 over what it would have been had I not moved, but my transportation expenses are down at least $50 in cash, not to mention the time saved (nearly two hours a week). I don't think a lot of people look at it this way; they just see cheap prices and cookie-cutter neighborhoods and shopping centers with no trees that they think are nice because they're new. And then reality hits and they bitch about the traffic. I just don't get it.

[MidtownCoog]

I don't think a lot of people look at it this way; they just see cheap prices and cookie-cutter neighborhoods

With all due respect, when you own, and don't rent, you are lucky to find something livable inside the loop under $300K. At $400K, you actually get closer to something you can call home.

Sure, you can find plent of 2-1 bungalows for $225, but we are talking 1200 sf. A family can not live in that.

THAT is what drives people to the burbs.

[ssullivan]

With all due respect, when you own, and don't rent, you are lucky to find something livable inside the loop under $300K.  At $400K, you actually get closer to something you can call home.

Sure, you can find plent of 2-1 bungalows for $225, but we are talking 1200 sf.  A family can not live in that. 

THAT is what drives people to the burbs.

You are right and that's why I think developers need to focus on building more affordable inner-loop housing. That's part of why I still rent; I cannot afford what I really want if I was to buy right now. Of course I'm single, gay, and have no children and don't plan on having any for a while (if I ever do). I can see where a married couple with young children would be more tempted to live out in the suburbs if they didn't have an income that allowed them to buy inside town. But again, I think that the city and developers need to find a way to provide more affordable housing in town.

[MidtownCoog]

Here's a somewhat related editorial in today's Chronicle. Not sure of what point they are trying to make, but they do bring up the point on re-urbanization for the masses:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2806298

[jghall00]

With all due respect, when you own, and don't rent, you are lucky to find something livable inside the loop under $300K.  At $400K, you actually get closer to something you can call home.

Sure, you can find plent of 2-1 bungalows for $225, but we are talking 1200 sf.  A family can not live in that. 

THAT is what drives people to the burbs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, inner-loop housing is relatively more expensive then what you find in the suburbs, but that's a cause, not an effect. All over the country, cities have disinvested in their cores, leaving them to rot and wither as people sought better school systems and newer neighborhoods elsewhere. If our local governments spent as much time and money fixing damaged infrastructure and getting dilapidated structures back on the tax rolls as they do building roads to nowhere, there would be more and better housing options available nearer the city core. As it stands, entire neighborhoods are left to rot.

Another issue is the way the suburbs are constructed. If suburbs were amenable to forms of transit other then the auto, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why not build a suburb that has parallel roads, so people and traffic can be dispersed throughout the grid instead of funnelled onto unwalkable and congested, major thoroughfares? Why not allow small business to set up shop on the borders of the neighborhood? Are people that set against having an insurance company, delicatessen, or law firm within walking distance? As it stands now, you can't even get to the bus stop from the rear of many subdivisions, without walking quite a distance. All this forces people into their cars, and those cars have to go somewhere. That's why traffic is bad. I see a day not too far in the future where Houston is like LA...all traffic, all the time.

Honestly, there's not an easy solution to this problem. I wish I could make neighborhoods more like they used to be, but I can't. The only thing I can do is vote with my wallet (and encourage others to do the same), and support elected officials who agree with my perspective. Having kids myself, I sympathize with people who've made the decision to move to the burbs. But, I'd rather not have to subsidize their choice with my tax dollars.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when I move to Fresno. It's kinda like the inner loop there, before the outter loop development explosion. Hopefully, they won't make the same development mistakes that other regions have made. The development and road building lobbyists are quite powerful all over, so we'll see what happens in time.

[MidtownCoog]

But, I'd rather not have to subsidize their choice with my tax dollars.

What exactly are you talking about? How about an example?

[jghall00]

You are right and that's why I think developers need to focus on building more affordable inner-loop housing. That's part of why I still rent; I cannot afford what I really want if I was to buy right now. Of course I'm single, gay, and have no children and don't plan on having any for a while (if I ever do). I can see where a married couple with young children would be more tempted to live out in the suburbs if they didn't have an income that allowed them to buy inside town. But again, I think that the city and developers need to find a way to provide more affordable housing in town.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Developers focus on making as much money as possible. If they didn't, they'd go out of business. They do well buying up cheap surburban land, razing it, putting up big houses on big lots, and selling them for a tidy profit. Of course, taxpayers foot the bill for the roads, schools, fire, police, etc. I can't honestly say that isn't a good formula for them, but for the population as a whole, it sucks. What'd I'd like to see happen is a framework that provides incentives for redevelopment in areas with existing infrastructure, while passing the true costs of suburban development on to purchasers.

Really what we need is variety in the types of housing being built. I have kids, but even I have no desire for a 2500 sq ft house on a huge lot for the following reasons: 1) I can't clean it. 2) I like my kids where I can see them 3) Utility costs aren't going down. 4) More furniture to purchase. I'd settle for something 1500 - 2000 sq. ft two story with the garage in back, a large public park within walking distance, and enough yard space to grill and perhaps grow some herbs. When my kids are old enough to get around on their own, I'd rather they didn't have to ask me for a ride everywhere because the nearest store is 3 miles away past houses on 3/4 acre lots.

For some reason, developers seem to think everyone wants or needs a single family home. I guess those are the easiest to sell, but being risk averse will only get you but so far. Ideally, a neighborhood should have a variety of housing types. This will make it attractive to a wide variety of people, and keep people from having to move out when their needs change. I think you'll find that neighborhoods that are lacking in amenities such as variety in the housing stock, or commercial, retail, etc, these are the ones that decline in the long term. As people age and their kids move away, there's no one there to maintain the housing stock because newer houses can be had elsewhere for less or the same amount of money. Developers of course don't care, they're the ones developing the new homes. It's a vicious cycle that we all pay for.

[jghall00]

What exactly are you talking about?  How about an example?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Road construction to (they claim) reduce congestion caused by development unservicable by public transportation. No, the fuel tax doesn't pay the entire cost of expanding infrastructure. That's why Texas is pushing for tollways and road bond issues.

Extending police and fire services to further out areas. Have you seen how cops drive? I'm paying for that gas, and the the time they spend getting from A to B. Likewise with fire. Not to mention, they could police more effectively if the population were in a smaller area. Also, all other things being equal, less driving = less collisions. That means less of officers time being spent resolving and clearing traffic incidents.

Air pollution caused by increased motor vehicle usage. More tailpipe emissions, more smokestack emissions to refine the gas.

High insurance rates caused by 1) people speeding because of the long distances they have to traverse, and causing accidents in the meantime. 2) teenagers wrecking their cars, because they couldn't catch the bus or walk to their destination. Mommy and Daddy got tired of driving them, so they gave them a set of keys.

Armed forces needed to ensure the continued production of oil, so we can shuttle ourselves from suburb to suburb.

The list goes on and on...

[MidtownCoog]

Until the city can improve the urban core, looks for more sprawl.

Drive up Fulton, Homestead, etc. on the East End and you wonder if you are even still in the city of Houston.

The highly dense urban core is a pipe dream. NYC has it, but I don't exactly considering a way of life I'd like to live.

[UrbaNerd]

Let's blindfold him, and make him walk the "plank" ( US 59@610 during Rush Hour )

[jghall00]

Until the city can improve the urban core, looks for more sprawl.

Drive up Fulton, Homestead, etc. on the East End and you wonder if you are even still in the city of Houston. 

The highly dense urban core is a pipe dream.  NYC has it, but I don't exactly considering a way of life I'd like to live.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I stated before, cities all over the country have been disinvesting in their urban core. Houston too is guilty of this. The entire area east of 288 should be a TIRZ (tax increment reinvestment zone). There are entire neighborhoods inside the loop that look like something out of a 3rd world country. The city needs to get deliquent and dilapidated properties back on the tax rolls for investment. This is the perfect time, with baby boomers and young professionals such as myself looking for urban housing.

[MidtownCoog]

The city can't even tear down condemmed property.

I don't have much hope that they can. They have been working on this for close to six years, and nada.

[jtmbin]

With all due respect, when you own, and don't rent, you are lucky to find something livable inside the loop under $300K.  At $400K, you actually get closer to something you can call home.

Sure, you can find plent of 2-1 bungalows for $225, but we are talking 1200 sf.  A family can not live in that. 

THAT is what drives people to the burbs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is so not true. I read this same refrain practically every week on the Forum and it's just not so. There are thousands of 2000sq or larger homes for under $300K available INSIDE THE LOOP! Not in River Oaks, Montrose, West. U. or the Heights, but these very well-to-do areas comprise only a small part of the geographic area of Houston that is inside the Loop.

From Braes Heights south of West U, but inside the loop; to Timbergrove, west of the Heights, but also inside the loop, to the entire north and east sides of downtown inside the loop, there are many lovely middle class neighborhoods with tree-lined streets, pretty parks, access to bikeways, and beautiful well maintained homes.

Let's stop promoting misinformation. There is more to "inside the loop" than Midtown and Neartown.

[MidtownCoog]

A simple HAR.com search is all the proff you need. There are plenty of 2/1/1 if you can live in that.

Timbergrove for the most part is pretty dumpy. 3/2/2 are rare, and one car garages are the standard. And who wants to live backed up to a Industrial Park?

Same thing with Braes Heights. Trust me, I almost bought there, and the best we could find was $270K, and it still needed $50K of renovations to shake off its 1950s feel. That pine and trimed brick does not age well.

[MidtownCoog]

So, I am playing around on HAR.com searching for 2,000 sf with a max price of $300K, inside Loop 610.

It ain't pretty. It's either a dump, or a townhome. "Livable Teardowns" in Braes Heights are going for $269K.

Check it out.

And I think the Chronicle is pretty accurate in their article on values inside the loop:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2673461

[jm1fd]

Timbergrove for the most part is pretty dumpy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Timbergrove? Dumpy? Sounds like you're suffering from a misadjusted dumpy index. Oak Forest has a hint of dumpyness. Harrisburg, Navigation, and the letter avenues....that's dumpy.

[MidtownCoog]

Some streets. Shirkmire is my fav. Linday Ann, etc headed towards Ella need some work. I am very familar with that hood. The other side of TC Jester is pretty sketchy.

Overall it's pretty nice for inside the loop.