I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[samagon]

On 9/16/2023 at 12:14 PM, astrohip said:

I absolutely love this also. I have taken public transport in almost every major city I have visited. I would kill to have something like that in Houston.

But we don't. Can we work towards it? Sure. But it doesn't negate the fact we need our freeway system here, or the city comes to a crashing halt.

oh yeah, no doubt, even the places I've been in Europe (and worldwide, indeed) come to a crashing halt without infrastructure for single occupant vehicles.

all I'm saying is that the city/state should be investing equitably in other methods of transportation.

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

all I'm saying is that the city/state should be investing equitably in other methods of transportation.

I understand this statement to be pretty hollow and one that most people on this forum would agree with in principle.

While "equitably" may throw people off I think the general theme for most people on here, myself included, is that we shouldn't invest less in transit.  But the question is, @samagon, what exactly do you mean by equitable?  Because that can be measured in very different ways.  It's also really not an outcome-driven policy approach--you can invest "equitably" and transit without having people use it in great numbers but still say you invested "equitably."

Once again the problem in Houston is land use.  Change that first, and you can change the transportation system.  Trying to upend the transportation system without the land use is the proverbial case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.  Why?  Because people don't have to participate.  You build a comprehensive, expensive yet highly politically controversial transit system connecting downtown with far-flung suburbs today is not a guarantee that people will use it in the numbers that some people on here think it will.  And you certainly have to acknowledge that there are a hell of a lot of vested interests with a lot of money that will fight it for completely logical reasons.  The State will be happy to help them out, too (and the federal government often as well, dependent on who particular is in power).

It's a chicken-and-the-egg problem.  We keep on about those great European and northeastern cities as if it is achievable with our land use patterns.  It just isn't, not without major, major changes in land use that would essentially require political coercion.  And if people have a choice that is easily presentable to suburban property owners losing the value of their primary investment (and from a variety of different perspectives) or the status quo, most will sensibly (from their perpsective) choose the status quo.  And that can manifest itself in many, many different ways, not the least of which would be INCREASED suburbanization.  There are some relatively comprehensive transit systems built in the last several decades, LA and Dallas among them, and I'm sure we would all agree neither is Amsterdam.

Until we have a solution that more comprehensively addresses the above and creates less distinct "winners" and "losers" (which I personally think is close to impossible, at least under the existing political system), those who keep pining about less reliance on a car by building more transit are living in an unpractical fantasy-world.  The ship has sailed, folks.  The way things are trending politically, I could see one major party formally adopting no federal funding of transit as part of their platform--and have a lot of support for it as they view any of it as "wasted money," just as they do pretty much any government service not used by them (or, more often, that they realize they do not use/benefit from).

Edited September 18, 2023 by mattyt36

[Amlaham]

10 hours ago, Big E said:

I'm sure summers in Europe are not the same as summers in muggy, humid Houston, just like there's a difference between 100 degrees in Houston and 100 degrees in Arizona. And just because Euros are willing to walk in 100 plus degree weather doesn't mean that everyone is.

Once again, I never denied that people do in fact walk. They sure as hell don't make up the majority, not even getting into whether or not those people have to walk because they lack a car (the poor unfortunate souls).

I've experienced both frequently (I have a lot of family overseas so I go back and forth), the weather can be very identical, Southern Europe can be VERY humid and hot. The difference is the entire culture of walking. The buildings sit closer to each other making it more comfortable to walk. Trees, canopies, and buildings provide adequate shade. The streets are narrower so cars can't zoom by, making it feel safer to walk. Also, walking from place to place isn't looked down upon, a lot of places in America sound so classest talking about cars and look down on walking. Beside the mental and physical benefits of walking (America has one of the highest obesity rate in the entire world), there are people who simply cannot drive and from your logic it sounds like "who cares since they're not the majority." For example, teenagers/kids, people who can't afford cars, pts with medical conditions like epilepsy, macular degeneration, MS, Parkinson's, etc......all deserve to have options of getting around that equates to how grand our highways are. I'm not saying we need to get rid of our highways completely, but we need to better our alternative options. TXDOT legit wants to rebuild perfectly good highways, while we still have crumbling streets and abysmal bike and walking infrastructure. The auto industry has us in the palm of their hands. 

[samagon]

3 hours ago, Amlaham said:

I've experienced both frequently (I have a lot of family overseas so I go back and forth), the weather can be very identical, Southern Europe can be VERY humid and hot. The difference is the entire culture of walking. The buildings sit closer to each other making it more comfortable to walk. Trees, canopies, and buildings provide adequate shade. The streets are narrower so cars can't zoom by, making it feel safer to walk. Also, walking from place to place isn't looked down upon, a lot of places in America sound so classest talking about cars and look down on walking. Beside the mental and physical benefits of walking (America has one of the highest obesity rate in the entire world), there are people who simply cannot drive and from your logic it sounds like "who cares since they're not the majority." For example, teenagers/kids, people who can't afford cars, pts with medical conditions like epilepsy, macular degeneration, MS, Parkinson's, etc......all deserve to have options of getting around that equates to how grand our highways are. I'm not saying we need to get rid of our highways completely, but we need to better our alternative options. TXDOT legit wants to rebuild perfectly good highways, while we still have crumbling streets and abysmal bike and walking infrastructure. The auto industry has us in the palm of their hands. 

indeed, and as the average price of a car continues to go up, the access to a car will be harder and harder. 

I wish more people would start pushing to increase the quality of the other options, cars absolutely need to be part of the solution, but they cannot continue to be the only solution.

it's a benefit to everyone. if you can move a percentage of people into pedestrian, cycling, and mass transit, that's a cumulative percentage of fewer people driving. something like that would be a huge win for the drivers in this town.

instead, we build more freeway capacity, which only serves to create more suburban sprawl, which chews up the added capacity within years, and we're right back where we started, only with more cars.

[Big E]

On 9/18/2023 at 11:51 AM, Amlaham said:

The difference is the entire culture of walking. The buildings sit closer to each other making it more comfortable to walk. Trees, canopies, and buildings provide adequate shade. The streets are narrower so cars can't zoom by, making it feel safer to walk. Also, walking from place to place isn't looked down upon, a lot of places in America sound so classest talking about cars and look down on walking.

All of this just goes to emphasize the fact that we are not Europe. Our cities are not designed like European cities and we don't have a culture that likes walking like Europeans. So trying to emphasize a European style of lifestyle is simply a lost cause. We aren't Europe. We never will be Europe.

 

On 9/18/2023 at 11:51 AM, Amlaham said:

Beside the mental and physical benefits of walking (America has one of the highest obesity rate in the entire world), there are people who simply cannot drive and from your logic it sounds like "who cares since they're not the majority." For example, teenagers/kids, people who can't afford cars, pts with medical conditions like epilepsy, macular degeneration, MS, Parkinson's, etc......all deserve to have options of getting around that equates to how grand our highways are.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have options, but they aren't the majority of the population. And many do have options. They can take public transportation (which does still exist), catch an Uber, catch a ride with somebody else, etc. Cities can't necessarily be everything to everyone. You have to find the place that works best for you. More walkable communities exist in America. Just so happens they are in cities, which are among the most expensive places in America to live in. The cheapest places to live are car-centric suburban cities like Houston. Would you rather be able to walk or live in a house? Many "walkable" European cities (London, Paris, etc.) are also extremely expensive to live in, and you probably won't be able to live in a decent home in the city unless your rich, unless you want to live in a slum.

 

On 9/18/2023 at 11:51 AM, Amlaham said:

TXDOT legit wants to rebuild perfectly good highways, while we still have crumbling streets and abysmal bike and walking infrastructure.

TXDOT's job is to maintain, repair, and build the state's highway network. Streets, bike and walking infrastructure are the responsibility of local governments. You want to improve the latter, talk to the local governments, not TXDOT.

[hbg.50]

9 hours ago, Big E said:

All of this just goes to emphasize the fact that we are not Europe. Our cities are not designed like European cities and we don't have a culture that likes walking like Europeans. So trying to emphasize a European style of lifestyle is simply a lost cause. We aren't Europe. We never will be Europe.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't have options, but they aren't the majority of the population. And many do have options. They can take public transportation (which does still exist), catch an Uber, catch a ride with somebody else, etc. Cities can't necessarily be everything to everyone. You have to find the place that works best for you. More walkable communities exist in America. Just so happens they are in cities, which are among the most expensive places in America to live in. The cheapest places to live are car-centric suburban cities like Houston. Would you rather be able to walk or live in a house? Many "walkable" European cities (London, Paris, etc.) are also extremely expensive to live in, and you probably won't be able to live in a decent home in the city unless your rich, unless you want to live in a slum.

 

TXDOT's job is to maintain, repair, and build the state's highway network. Streets, bike and walking infrastructure are the responsibility of local governments. You want to improve the latter, talk to the local governments, not TXDOT.

Agree 100%!  Houston has to build a bike culture gradually.  Why not promote the hike and bike trails.  Let those become so popular that the cyclists begin to spill over into the streets.  Right now we have these bike lanes that go unused 99% of the time and it just infuriates residents who pay for that inefficient infrastructure.

[Texasota]

We can only do one thing at a time and we are DOING THE WRONG THING!!!!

[samagon]

10 hours ago, Big E said:

All of this just goes to emphasize the fact that we are not Europe. Our cities are not designed like European cities and we don't have a culture that likes walking like Europeans. So trying to emphasize a European style of lifestyle is simply a lost cause. We aren't Europe. We never will be Europe.

European cities aren't even designed like European cities. if you do any small amount of research you can see that in the 50s, 60s and even into the 70s and 80s as they rebuilt Europe (after a war completely bombed out a fair number of big cities) they favored a very car centric design philosophy. and then they changed their philosophy as they saw cars killing pedestrians (children walking to school usually), and then the cost of oil/gas started to skyrocket, so public opinion forced change. they've been working for 40+ years to revert the scars created by huge roads. we all visit now and presume that because a church in the middle of town is 400 years old that the city itself and the way it was designed is held over from 400 years ago.

anyway, they have focused for the past 40 or more years on creating walkable cities, which has come from the people pushing for it, where we have focused on driveable cities, which came from car and oil companies wanting to sell more stuff, so in that regard, you are very right, we have not designed cities like they have in Europe.

as far as a European lifestyle, nope, it's all marketing from car manufacturers, the same marketing that has been convincing people that trucks and SUVs are safer than cars because they give you a better view, when in fact, there are more deaths associated with truck/SUVs in accidents. you've been convinced that the American way is driving, and it's simply not true. that's what the car companies want us to believe so we keep buying their cars to keep them in business.

imagine living in a world where you don't have to spend $100 a week on gas, $200 a month on insurance, and $500 a month on a car payment. yeah, $1000 a month so you can use the transit infrastructure the state/city built. talk about subsidized transit!!! 

and yet, you've been convinced that paying a few dollars a month in taxes is too high of a subsidy for mass transit.

but hey, at least you own a depreciating asset that you'll trade in few years for a new one, or maybe you lease, which is paying all the subsidy without having any ownership.

10 hours ago, Big E said:

I'm not saying they shouldn't have options, but they aren't the majority of the population. And many do have options. They can take public transportation (which does still exist), catch an Uber, catch a ride with somebody else, etc. Cities can't necessarily be everything to everyone. You have to find the place that works best for you. More walkable communities exist in America. Just so happens they are in cities, which are among the most expensive places in America to live in. The cheapest places to live are car-centric suburban cities like Houston. Would you rather be able to walk or live in a house? Many "walkable" European cities (London, Paris, etc.) are also extremely expensive to live in, and you probably won't be able to live in a decent home in the city unless your rich, unless you want to live in a slum.

well then, we should look at Manilla, that is a city with super cheap cost of living, and great public transit.

anyway, to consider cost of living without also considering the kinds of wages people make is kind of only looking at half the equation, and without stating that, people are going to naturally try and equate their own wage, which is worse than not equitable. heck, even cost of living in San Diego vs Houston is silly.

any which way you look at it though, they have roughly $1000 extra in disposable income that they aren't putting towards a car, so they can afford to put more into their housing needs.

anyway, the cost to maintain an infrastructure for pedestrians is monumentally lower than it is for roads. like an order of magnitude monumentally. we're talking hundreds of thousands for a mile of sidewalk vs multiple millions for a mile of roadway. that's cost to build, maintain should be even less.

and our city doesn't even maintain sidewalks, it dumps that on landowners!

it'd be great if whatever entity you want to pin it on would provide equitably funded options so everyone isn't forced into paying the $1000 a month subsidy that we all are forced to pay to use roads. heck, even if you own a car outright not making payments, you still pay $100 a week for gas, and even with minimal coverage, $100 in insurance. so at least $500 a month subsidy you have to pay to enjoy a road you paid for. sure the subsidy goes to for profit companies, but isn't that who builds trains, and who is contracted out to make the steel for the tracks, or concrete for the roads? the only difference is the subsidy is paid directly by you into the oil company, rather than through taxes into the concrete company.

10 hours ago, Big E said:

TXDOT's job is to maintain, repair, and build the state's highway network. Streets, bike and walking infrastructure are the responsibility of local governments. You want to improve the latter, talk to the local governments, not TXDOT.

true enough, TXDoT's job needs to be changed to include all forms of transportation, not just the one that lobbying oil companies, and car companies get them to fund.

Edited September 20, 2023 by samagon

[Amlaham]

9 hours ago, Big E said:

All of this just goes to emphasize the fact that we are not Europe. Our cities are not designed like European cities and we don't have a culture that likes walking like Europeans. So trying to emphasize a European style of lifestyle is simply a lost cause. We aren't Europe. We never will be Europe.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't have options, but they aren't the majority of the population. And many do have options. They can take public transportation (which does still exist), catch an Uber, catch a ride with somebody else, etc. Cities can't necessarily be everything to everyone. You have to find the place that works best for you. More walkable communities exist in America. Just so happens they are in cities, which are among the most expensive places in America to live in. The cheapest places to live are car-centric suburban cities like Houston. Would you rather be able to walk or live in a house? Many "walkable" European cities (London, Paris, etc.) are also extremely expensive to live in, and you probably won't be able to live in a decent home in the city unless your rich, unless you want to live in a slum.

 

TXDOT's job is to maintain, repair, and build the state's highway network. Streets, bike and walking infrastructure are the responsibility of local governments. You want to improve the latter, talk to the local governments, not TXDOT.

-European cities weren't always designed the way that they are today. Car culture was huge in Europe, its until recent decades that they started to change. This idea that "we're not Europe and will never be Europe" is so weird considering "Europe" isn't what it was until recently. By your logic, we don't deserve to ever change and progress as a country, just keep it the way it is forever because its always been that way, extremely non-progressive thinking. Images below for reference of what Europe WAS and what it is NOW (not always) :) 

1976 Lisbon

Today :)

1960s Copenhagen Vs Today

2000s Netherlands Vs Today

 

I can go on with thousands of other references/projects, but for clarification to everyone.....Europe was NOT what it is today. The difference is that the auto Industry has paid and prevented politicians to allow these types of transitions... NOT that "its just how Europe is and we are not Europe" thats such a close minded/ and poorly thought out theory. 

-Again, the comment that it doesn't matter if people need other modes of transit, and that they should just move to another city is sooo absurd and such a "if you don't like it, get out of here" instead of progressing a city forward, sticking to Stone Age "we don't need change" theory. Its sooooo non-progressive and does not make sense in a city thats literally growing by millions. 

-Lastly, TXDOT is in FACT in charge of certain poorly condition streets, https://apps3.txdot.gov/apps-cq/project_tracker/ use this link to see which roads :)

[Amlaham]

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=m02

This is a good place to start if you don't think the auto industry isn't contributing to any of this mess. Averaging 40M per year just in lobbying at Washington. 

You are right on one thing, we will NEVER EVER be Europe, actually caring for the future??? The chaos 😮‍💨 

We as a country will ALWAYS put business/money of big corporations before our people and our future. Look into the pharmaceutical industry, the toxic food industry, the work industry. Do not worry, we will NEVER improve these issues because.....we are NOT Europe :)

[samagon]

5 hours ago, Amlaham said:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=m02

This is a good place to start if you don't think the auto industry isn't contributing to any of this mess. Averaging 40M per year just in lobbying at Washington. 

You are right on one thing, we will NEVER EVER be Europe, actually caring for the future??? The chaos 😮‍💨 

We as a country will ALWAYS put business/money of big corporations before our people and our future. Look into the pharmaceutical industry, the toxic food industry, the work industry. Do not worry, we will NEVER improve these issues because.....we are NOT Europe :)

it's not necessarily that an individual person chooses to support the oil industry, or car companies, or just big business in general, we've just been conditioned for generations that not only are cars the only way, but it is superior way.

Edited September 20, 2023 by samagon

[Big E]

15 hours ago, samagon said:

European cities aren't even designed like European cities. if you do any small amount of research you can see that in the 50s, 60s and even into the 70s and 80s as they rebuilt Europe (after a war completely bombed out a fair number of big cities) they favored a very car centric design philosophy. and then they changed their philosophy as they saw cars killing pedestrians (children walking to school usually), and then the cost of oil/gas started to skyrocket, so public opinion forced change. they've been working for 40+ years to revert the scars created by huge roads. we all visit now and presume that because a church in the middle of town is 400 years old that the city itself and the way it was designed is held over from 400 years ago.

Not every European city was a bombed out shell of itself, and not every European country followed car centric development. The places where care centric development really took off were the U.K. (which developed more in line with the rest of the Anglosphere and was bombed to hell and back by Germany) and Germany (which the Allies pounded to cinders). Scandinavia was not bombed to hell. Neither were Switzerland, Spain, or Portugal. Italy and France, despite being invaded, were left relatively intact (Paris and Rome were mostly untouched compared to London and Berlin). Meanwhile, everything east of West Germany fell under the Iron Curtain and followed Commie Block style of development. This idea that Europe suddenly became like America post-WWII isn't really true. Many cities were bombed out shells (see Rotterdam after the Rotterdam Blitz), but many were intact, and even the ones that had to be rebuilt aren't in any way recognizable as anything similar to an American land use pattern today.

 

15 hours ago, samagon said:

as far as a European lifestyle, nope, it's all marketing from car manufacturers, the same marketing that has been convincing people that trucks and SUVs are safer than cars because they give you a better view, when in fact, there are more deaths associated with truck/SUVs in accidents. you've been convinced that the American way is driving, and it's simply not true. that's what the car companies want us to believe so we keep buying their cars to keep them in business.

I'm pretty sure the American way is driving at this point. Car manufacturers didn't tell me that. Urban planners and urban planning boosters like Not Just Bikes have been telling me that, for years. Their entire mantra is that Americans are too attached to their cars and need to get out of them more. That's literally what they've been preaching. They've also been preaching about how the European lifestyle of walking everywhere and mass transportation is superior to the American style of driving for most trips, despite the fact that Europeans do in fact drive, in many cases just as much as Americans when it comes to medium and mid-long range trips. So if the European lifestyle doesn't exist and the American lifestyle doesn't exist, then what are we arguing over?

 

15 hours ago, samagon said:

imagine living in a world where you don't have to spend $100 a week on gas, $200 a month on insurance, and $500 a month on a car payment.

Imagine living in a world where none of that matters because your cost of living is so low, you can easily afford it. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine it. People in Houston live that life right now.

 

15 hours ago, samagon said:

yeah, $1000 a month so you can use the transit infrastructure the state/city built. talk about subsidized transit!!! 

Nobody wants to pay for transit they don't use or don't want to use. Paying an arm and leg to live in a matchbox apartment in the middle of a crowded city, to walk taxi or drive to the nearest bus/subway station to ride in slow mass transit with people I don't want to be around to get within a few miles of my workplace that I still have to hail a cab to get to doesn't sound like my idea of great time.

 

15 hours ago, samagon said:

and yet, you've been convinced that paying a few dollars a month in taxes is too high of a subsidy for mass transit.

It is when I don't want to take the transit. Which is what you are missing.

 

15 hours ago, samagon said:

well then, we should look at Manilla, that is a city with super cheap cost of living, and great public transit.

The Philippines are still a developing country that was a third world dictatorship not that long ago. Its an apples to oranges comparison.

 

15 hours ago, samagon said:

anyway, to consider cost of living without also considering the kinds of wages people make is kind of only looking at half the equation, and without stating that, people are going to naturally try and equate their own wage, which is worse than not equitable. heck, even cost of living in San Diego vs Houston is silly.

Wage comparisons are helpful, but at the end of the day, if cost of living is low, then you simply don't need as high a wage to live comfortably anyway. Which means even having lower wages is not necessarily an issue.

 

15 hours ago, samagon said:

any which way you look at it though, they have roughly $1000 extra in disposable income that they aren't putting towards a car, so they can afford to put more into their housing needs.

That $1000 extra disposable income is merely an assumption on your part. Once again, cost of living will wipe out most of those savings, just in housing and utility costs, not even getting into things like the higher costs of groceries, or higher taxes. City-Journal did an excellent article actually look at this issue, comparing Houston to New York, and looking at the variables we've discussed, including the differences in wages, cost of living, the cost of owning a car vs. not owning one, etc.

 

15 hours ago, samagon said:

true enough, TXDoT's job needs to be changed to include all forms of transportation, not just the one that lobbying oil companies, and car companies get them to fund.

TXDOT doesn't have the money to cover all forms of transportation. They barely have the money to cover the state's highway network, which always needs work and maintenance.

 

14 hours ago, Amlaham said:

-European cities weren't always designed the way that they are today. Car culture was huge in Europe, its until recent decades that they started to change. This idea that "we're not Europe and will never be Europe" is so weird considering "Europe" isn't what it was until recently. By your logic, we don't deserve to ever change and progress as a country, just keep it the way it is forever because its always been that way, extremely non-progressive thinking. Images below for reference of what Europe WAS and what it is NOW (not always) :) 

1976 Lisbon

Today :)

1960s Copenhagen Vs Today

2000s Netherlands Vs Today

 

I can go on with thousands of other references/projects, but for clarification to everyone.....Europe was NOT what it is today. The difference is that the auto Industry has paid and prevented politicians to allow these types of transitions... NOT that "its just how Europe is and we are not Europe" thats such a close minded/ and poorly thought out theory. 

-Again, the comment that it doesn't matter if people need other modes of transit, and that they should just move to another city is sooo absurd and such a "if you don't like it, get out of here" instead of progressing a city forward, sticking to Stone Age "we don't need change" theory. Its sooooo non-progressive and does not make sense in a city thats literally growing by millions. 

-Lastly, TXDOT is in FACT in charge of certain poorly condition streets, https://apps3.txdot.gov/apps-cq/project_tracker/ use this link to see which roads :)

You've posted a lot of nice pictures, but the one thing you seem to neglect is what is actually in them besides cars or the lack thereof. Look at the pictures of Lisbon and Copenhagen. What you notice is that the cities themselves haven't changed at all between the then-vs-now pictures. The city is the same. The same with the pictures of Toulose and the Netherlands. This is what I mean when I say America isn't Europe. The bones for the walkable city utopia you speak off was already present. In Lisbon, they took a plaza that had been turned into a parking lot and turned it back into a plaza. In Copenhagen, they just blocked off a street. In Toulouse, they changed an old parking lot into a park (which even Houston has done with Discovery Green). But the cities were already designed in such a way that minimal change was necessary to achieve this. American cities are generally built to be car centric, with the exception of a few older cities on the East Coast. It will take a lot more effort to achieve the same end goals as Europe, because European cities are in fact centuries old and designed with walking, maybe the horse and buggy in mind.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Big E

[samagon]

6 hours ago, Big E said:

Nobody wants to pay for transit they don't use or don't want to use. 

It is when I don't want to take the transit. Which is what you are missing.

I think this is the crux of what you are missing, and my last comment on this subject in this thread.

I don't wants you to have to take transit, and I don't believe anyone in this forum wants to make you take transit.

a lot of people want to not be forced to drive cars because the other options are horrible. they don't like having to pay for infrastructure they don't want to use, but they are forced to, all because you don't want to have to pay a small amount in extra taxes to support other options.

the nicest thing I can say about your opinion is that it is exceedingly hypocritical, and that you are extremely self centered. you want only your method of transit to be bolstered by taxes that everyone pays (roads). and then, by way of not wanting to pay taxes for other methods of transit to make them anywhere close to equitable, in essence, you would force everyone to use your preferred method of transit.

and until you realize that what you want is for everyone to pay for and conform to your desired form of transit, and you don't want to see others be able to use other forms of transit that have equitable public funds put into them so as to be viable options because you don't want to pay for it, there's not really any point in continuing to discuss this.

and for the record, I do want to pay for transit I don't use. I love driving my car, but I absolutely want to pay more taxes so that mass transit, and other infrastructure can be better built out, I know this will take people who don't want to drive off the road which will make more room for me to drive (so yes, my motives are selfish).

Edited September 21, 2023 by samagon

[Big E]

8 hours ago, samagon said:

a lot of people want to not be forced to drive cars because the other options are horrible. they don't like having to pay for infrastructure they don't want to use, but they are forced to, all because you don't want to have to pay a small amount in extra taxes to support other options.

What you are failing to understand is that far more people drive cars than take transit. And most people really have no problem with driving and don't necessarily want an alternative. The weight of government spending will always go to the most used method. Everybody pays for roads because everybody uses them. Even many forms of transit (like buses and trolleys) use them. Hence the majority of money that goes into transportation goes into road maintenance. Its not a zero sum game, but their is a limited pool of funds, so governments have to prioritize. 

 

8 hours ago, samagon said:

I absolutely want to pay more taxes so that mass transit, and other infrastructure can be better built out, I know this will take people who don't want to drive off the road which will make more room for me to drive (so yes, my motives are selfish).

Those are your personal feelings, but the fact is, you represent a distinct minority.

 

8 hours ago, samagon said:

that you are extremely self centered.

No, that makes me a normal human being. I want things that I will use to be well be funded and don't necessarily care to fund things I won't use or need. That's how the majority of people think. Hell, its how YOU think. I have no problem putting some money towards things like buses or trains. But I sure as hell don't want my taxes to go up to fund something I will never use or will never benefit me or my community directly. Frankly, I think such things should be funded primarily by ridership fares. The people who actually use the service should pay for its upkeep. And if people really want to use these things, they will more than pay for themselves.

[BeerNut]

Oh boy.  This should probably be moved. But I'll dip in for a bit

Most people in the States haven't experienced a functioning public transportation system comparable to Europe or SE Asia.  So when they say it won't work here I wonder what metrics they're using?  If your cities transit is underfunded and poorly routed... Of course it sucks.

Txdot is an outlier when it comes to funding.  Most states can't fund their highway network and rely on tolls or federal funds.  This will present challenges in the future as ev adoption increases.  Gas prices have been all over the place the last few years so locking in a fixed price with electric will benefit people with the means to do so.  

Not having any alternative to using a private vehicle makes everyone immediately concerned about gas prices.  The US should have learned it's lesson in 70s like other countries but why do that when your government thinks it's in control with the petrodollar and will invade/coup countries with oil. 

As for the weather being a factor... eh people need to get outside more ..  I walked and took public transportation in HK in July, not 100f but extremely humid upper 80s.   Maybe Americans are too soft and asking them to walk, ride a bike, or be slightly inconvenienced is too much.  I've seen enough people complain about how they can't park right in front the entrance to not doubt this.

 

[samagon]

article raising questions about how safe cap parks are (or aren't) for lung health.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/30/colorado-built-a-park-over-i-70-to-contain-pollution-is-the-air-safe-to-breathe/

[mattyt36]

10 hours ago, samagon said:

article raising questions about how safe cap parks are (or aren't) for lung health.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/10/30/colorado-built-a-park-over-i-70-to-contain-pollution-is-the-air-safe-to-breathe/

Good thing no one is proposing to build cap parks in Houston to cure asthma. 🙄

[hindesky]

After years of planning, studying, and designing, followed by public protests and a county lawsuit, the expansion of I-45 through downtown is on the horizon.

The Texas Department of Transportation said it's are nearing the start of construction for the North Houston Highway Improvement Project (NHHIP).

The massive, nearly $9 billion project to widen I-45 from downtown, north to Beltway 8, is broken up into three segments.

Segment 3, which alone is comprised of nine individual projects, is the portion that runs right through downtown.

"Our focus presently is on Segment 3, which will be the area that we move forward with first," Raquelle Lewis, the southeast Texas communications director for TxDOT, said.

This is the portion that was facing serious scrutiny for the demolition of public housing, businesses, and churches.

In 2021, the Federal Highway Administration even stepped in over civil rights concerns and paused the project for two years.

Last December, Houston city leaders and Harris County finally agreed to embrace the project only after TxDOT agreed to a series of public health, safety, and housing assurances.

TxDOT said Segment 3 is fully funded and ready for construction.

"We are looking at getting started with the first project in Segment 3 in 2024, and so we probably have anywhere from seven to 10 years before we see the Segment 3 elements completed," Lewis said.

The first project is a drainage improvement project along St. Emanuel to retrofit the right-of-way.

https://abc13.com/i45-expansion-houston-project-to-start-north-highway-improvement-controversial/14036342/

[Houston19514]

13 hours ago, hindesky said:

Segment 3, which alone is comprised of nine individual projects, is the portion that runs right through downtown.

"Our focus presently is on Segment 3, which will be the area that we move forward with first," Raquelle Lewis, the southeast Texas communications director for TxDOT, said.

This is the portion that was facing serious scrutiny for the demolition of public housing, businesses, and churches.

In 2021, the Federal Highway Administration even stepped in over civil rights concerns and paused the project for two years.

Last December, Houston city leaders and Harris County finally agreed to embrace the project only after TxDOT agreed to a series of public health, safety, and housing assurances.

https://abc13.com/i45-expansion-houston-project-to-start-north-highway-improvement-controversial/14036342/

SMH   More horrible Houston journalism.  Segment 3 absolutely was NOT the portion that was facing serious scrutiny that triggered the FHWA delay and county lawsuit.  In fact, Segment 3 was the only portion of the project that was partially released from the hold because it was NOT the focus of the scrutiny.

[hindesky]

As of November, TxDOT crews are working on a detail design on the portion of the project covering the southern end of I-69, from Spur 527 to Hwy. 288.

Design work is also underway on a drainage outfall project under St. Emmanuel Street from McIlhenny Street to Buffalo Bayou and on the interchange reconstruction at I-69 and Hwy. 288. TxDOT is coordinating with the Harris County Flood Control District on the drainage work, which involves using a large detention pond that drains to Buffalo Bayou.

Most of segments in the Inner Loop are fully funded, Mapes said, including work on the I-10 corridor. The realignment of I-45 behind the George R. Brown Convention Center is partially funded, as is the segment of I-45 between I-10 and Loop 610 North. Projects outside of Loop 610 are unfunded.

Cap structures with parklike amenities are being planned at three locations, Mapes said:

At Caroline and Wheeler streets, which could be expanded to include San Jacinto and Austin streets

At Fannin Street where the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County light rail crosses

At Cleburne Street and Almeda Road

One virtual and one in-person public meeting will take place for each of the three segments.

Segment 3: Downtown roadways

Dec. 6: in-person at 5 p.m. at St. John's Downtown Church, 2019 Crawford St., Houston

Dec. 7: virtual meeting from 5-7 p.m.

Segment 2: I-45 from I-10 to Loop 610

Dec. 11: in-person at 5 p.m. at the Moody Community Center, 3725 Fulton St., Houston

Dec. 12: virtual meeting from 5-7 p.m.

Segment 1: I-45 from Loop 610 to Beltway 8

Dec. 14: in-person meeting at 5 p.m. at the Aldine Ninth Grade Center, 10650 North Freeway, Houston

Dec. 15: virtual meeting from 5-7 p.m.

https://communityimpact.com/houston/bellaire-meyerland-west-university/transportation/2023/11/17/txdot-gives-updates-on-i-45-expansion-timeline-announces-public-meetings/

[Twinsanity02]

Does anyone know how the Hardy toll road extension to downtown (if ever built) will connect to all this?

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, Twinsanity02 said:

Does anyone know how the Hardy toll road extension to downtown (if ever built) will connect to all this?

Hard to describe in a meaningful way, but you can see it in the interactive map here.

[hindesky]

NHHIP alignment according to a map from UHD.

[hindesky]

[Ross]

Nextdoor had a post alerting everyone to the fact that TxDoT would be closing the exits to Allen Parkway, Memorial, and Houston Avenue as part of the project, making it impossible for anyone who needs those exits to get to their destinations. I don't think they realized that with the Pierce Elevated torn down, those exits would be meaningless. Hilarious.

[kennyc05]

3 hours ago, Ross said:

Nextdoor had a post alerting everyone to the fact that TxDoT would be closing the exits to Allen Parkway, Memorial, and Houston Avenue as part of the project, making it impossible for anyone who needs those exits to get to their destinations. I don't think they realized that with the Pierce Elevated torn down, those exits would be meaningless. Hilarious.

I was wondering how they were gonna do those exits.

[freundb]

12 hours ago, Ross said:

Nextdoor had a post alerting everyone to the fact that TxDoT would be closing the exits to Allen Parkway, Memorial, and Houston Avenue as part of the project, making it impossible for anyone who needs those exits to get to their destinations. I don't think they realized that with the Pierce Elevated torn down, those exits would be meaningless. Hilarious.

His post isn't even correct. All the entrances and exits will still be there minus the ones made obsolete by the removal of Pierce elevated. 

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

[Triton]

3 hours ago, freundb said:

His post isn't even correct. All the entrances and exits will still be there minus the ones made obsolete by the removal of Pierce elevated. 

https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/project-sites/nhhip/docs/segment-3-pm4-exhibit-01-overall.pdf

Right, this is what I was thinking too. I mean, you won't have exits going south anymore but this seems like we still have most of them.

[Ross]

7 hours ago, Triton said:

Right, this is what I was thinking too. I mean, you won't have exits going south anymore but this seems like we still have most of them.

The Nextdoor poster was specifically complaining about TxDoT "closing" the Allen Parkway, Memorial and Houston Avenue exits from I-45 North of the Pierce Elevated. None of those exits are relevant after the Pierce is demolished.

 

Nextdoor poster added a diagram to demonstrate what they are talking about. This is too funny, and completely incorrect

Edited November 24, 2023 by Ross
Add picture

[kennyc05]

So if I'm coming from 288 you pretty much follow 45 around to the new connectors to exit Memorial/Allen Parkway?