Houston Freight Rail Plan web site

[CDeb]

Any particular reason why you felt the need to write the same thing twice?

Nice of you to provide the full report...of course, you only did so after we asked you for it, and not intially. After scanning the report, I can see why you did this. The report only discussed "major streets and highways," which the report defines as:

"[a]ll Interstates and limited-access freeways, as well as other major city streets and routes within an urban area. Most routes that have at least four-lanes are arterial routes, although some key two-lane roads

are also classified as arterial routes."

So....ummm...that would mean that most two-lane city roads weren't considered, right??? Heck, I have never said that our highways and major roads weren't in good shape...instead, I have said (or certainly intended to say), that our streets (but not our highways) are in horrible shape. I guess we can dispute what "major city streets and routes" refers to, but I guess they are referring to roads like 1960, Shepherd, Kirby, Westheimer, and most of the roads Redscare listed previously---and not two-lane inner-city roads?

Also, although the report provides the rating method (although I don't know enough about the IRI to really know how it measures anything), I notice the report states that

"Roads rated as poor may have cracked or broken pavements. These roads often show significant signs of pavement wear and deterioration and may also have significant distress in their underlying foundation. Road or highway surfaces rated poor provide an unacceptable ride quality and are in need of resurfacing

and some need to be reconstructed to correct problems in the underlying road deck. Roads rated as being in either mediocre or fair condition may also show some signs of deterioration and may be noticeably inferior to those of new pavements . . ."

That paragraph implies than anything less than a road rated as "good" needs work and improvement. I imagine you'll disagree with my assessment, but I believe my interpretation is certainly a reasonable one. But under this interpretation of what constitutes a "good" road, Houston (with 24% of its roads rated as "good") now appears to be in the bottom quarter of the rankings.

Look, I can see that we are never going to agree on this subject. But my view on this issue is most certainly not "false, unfounded, ignorant, [or] idiotic." And, yes, it is an absolute embarrassment to drive visitors down Airline or Monroe on the way to Hobby. Perhaps I should be more careful in the use of "absolutes," such as the word "only," although I note that in a prior post, I admitted that Houston did a few more smooth roads than I initially mentioned. But it is absolutely crazy to not believe that Houston needs to improve its roads and quite disheartening to realize the amount of vitriol that people have when someone merely makes an observation.

I think you have to understand where some people are coming from. I'm a fairly new and relatively infrequent visitor to this forum, but it is pretty easy to detect some of the "tone" and "m.o." of this forum and it's posters. There is a whole lot of "but Dallas has this" or "San Diego has that" and "Atlanta does this" combined with the implication that Houston is a backwater slum that really starts to get old after a while. Hence, that tends to provoke an overreaction on some people's part. Every city has it's problems, I have yet to visit an urban paradise. A lot of other cities in the US have a lot of good things, but I've traveled a good bit and I think something they all have is busted up streets.

[Houston19514]

Nice of you to provide the full report...of course, you only did so after we asked you for it, and not intially. After scanning the report, I can see why you did this. The report only discussed "major streets and highways," which the report defines as:

"[a]ll Interstates and limited-access freeways, as well as other major city streets and routes within an urban area. Most routes that have at least four-lanes are arterial routes, although some key two-lane roads

are also classified as arterial routes."

So....ummm...that would mean that most two-lane city roads weren't considered, right??? Heck, I have never said that our highways and major roads weren't in good shape...instead, I have said (or certainly intended to say), that our streets (but not our highways) are in horrible shape.

LOL Pardon me? You never disputed that are highways and major roads are in good shape???? Allen Parkway is clearly a four-lane arterial (major) road. So when you said it was the only good road in town you weren't discussing major roads and highways? Nice try... but you can't really expect anyone to buy that squirming can you?

Nice of you to provide the full report...of course, you only did so after we asked you for it, and not intially. After scanning the report, I can see why you did this. The report only discussed "major streets and highways," which the report defines as:

"[a]ll Interstates and limited-access freeways, as well as other major city streets and routes within an urban area. Most routes that have at least four-lanes are arterial routes, although some key two-lane roads

are also classified as arterial routes."

I guess we can dispute what "major city streets and routes" refers to, but I guess they are referring to roads like 1960, Shepherd, Kirby, Westheimer, and most of the roads Redscare listed previously---and not two-lane inner-city roads?

After having read and even quoted from the report, where is there any dispute about what "major city streets and routes" refers to? You just quoted language that clearly says "Most routes that have at least four lanes are arterial routes, although some key two-lane roads are also classified as arterial routes." Yes, most two-lane inner city roads were not included, but where in this conversation has anyone (including you) mentioned any two-lane inner city roads? And that changes nothing in the overall discussion.

Also, although the report provides the rating method (although I don't know enough about the IRI to really know how it measures anything), I notice the report states that

"Roads rated as poor may have cracked or broken pavements. These roads often show significant signs of pavement wear and deterioration and may also have significant distress in their underlying foundation. Road or highway surfaces rated poor provide an unacceptable ride quality and are in need of resurfacing

and some need to be reconstructed to correct problems in the underlying road deck. Roads rated as being in either mediocre or fair condition may also show some signs of deterioration and may be noticeably inferior to those of new pavements . . ."

That paragraph implies than anything less than a road rated as "good" needs work and improvement. I imagine you'll disagree with my assessment, but I believe my interpretation is certainly a reasonable one. But under this interpretation of what constitutes a "good" road, Houston (with 24% of its roads rated as "good") now appears to be in the bottom quarter of the rankings.

LOL again. The study's finding that 24% of Houston's roads are good makes your interpretation that Allen Parkway is the only good road in town a "good one?" What would it take to make it a bad one? I guess only if the study found Houston to have 100% good roads?

My analysis of the "good" column shows Houston to rank at 37th out of 70 metro areas. I don't know where you studied math, but where I learned it 37 out of 70 is well above the bottom quarter of the rankings.

Edited November 3, 2006 by Houston19514

[uncertaintraveler]

LOL Pardon me? You never disputed that are highways and major roads are in good shape???? Allen Parkway is clearly a four-lane arterial (major) road. So when you said it was the only good road in town you weren't discussing major roads and highways? Nice try... but you can't really expect anyone to buy that squirming can you?

In all seriousness, I wouldn't call Allen Parkway "clearly" a "major" road. Yes, it has multiple-lanes, but it is quite short (4 miles in total length, perhaps?), and is of limited utility in transporting people from one part of town to another (as in, shutting-down Allen Parkway---as often happens---does not result in major traffic tie-ups or great inconvenience to most Houstonians). By contrast, I would suggest that Memorial, Shepherd, San Felipe, Westheimer and such are major roads....and, except for short stretches inside of 610, they aren't terribly smooth ones at that.

And I'm not "squirming."

Edited November 3, 2006 by uncertaintraveler

[Houston19514]

Look, I can see that we are never going to agree on this subject. But my view on this issue is most certainly not "false, unfounded, ignorant, [or] idiotic." And, yes, it is an absolute embarrassment to drive visitors down Airline or Monroe on the way to Hobby. Perhaps I should be more careful in the use of "absolutes," such as the word "only," although I note that in a prior post, I admitted that Houston did a few more smooth roads than I initially mentioned. But it is absolutely crazy to not believe that Houston needs to improve its roads and quite disheartening to realize the amount of vitriol that people have when someone merely makes an observation.

Sorry, but your statement that the only good road in town is Allen Parkway is clearly, demonstrably, objectively false, unfounded, ignorant and idiotic. And it would be almost equally false, unfounded, ignorant and idiotic to pretend that the only good roads in Houston are Allen Parkway and the ten or so other roads mentioned earlier.

Nice job of setting up straw men and knocking them down. . . Nobody in this thread has said or even suggested that Houston does not need to improve its roads. But that can be said about almost every city (as demonstrated by the study I posted. Houston is not unique or even relatively bad in this category and it is indeed false, unfounded, ignorate and idiotic to say otherwise, as you did. Well-founded observations that can be backed up with facts are welcome. The "vitriol" as you call it, comes from making unfounded and hyperbolic statements and then refusing to admit that the facts don't back you up.

[uncertaintraveler]

My analysis of the "good" column shows Houston to rank at 37th out of 70 metro areas. I don't know where you studied math, but where I learned it 37 out of 70 is well above the bottom quarter of the rankings.

You're correct...I scanned the chart too quickly and didn't do my calculations. Still, if, as you say, Houston ranks 37 out of 70, that means our rank is 52.85%. So we should be proud that Houston is solidly in the middle? Should Houston's slogan be "we may not be the best, but we aren't the worst"?

Look...as I said, I'm clearly not going to change your opinion on this subject. But, personally, I'm tired of driving to work on roads that remind me of my travels in Cambodia and cause my car to rattle and squeak. I'm not asking for crystal-smooth roads everywhere all the time, just unbroken pavement, filled potholes, manhole covers to be placed at the same level as is the top of the road, and roads that don't make you feel as if you trying to tame a wild horse. But I guess that is too much to expect and I suppose I should just be happy that I'm not driving on dirt and gravel.

Now, can we get back to the trains and their freaking horns?

[Houston19514]

You're correct...I scanned the chart too quickly and didn't do my calculations. Still, if, as you say, Houston ranks 37 out of 70, that means our rank is 52.85%. So we should be proud that Houston is solidly in the middle? Should Houston's slogan be "we may not be the best, but we aren't the worst"?

Look...as I said, I'm clearly not going to change your opinion on this subject. But, personally, I'm tired of driving to work on roads that remind me of my travels in Cambodia and cause my car to rattle and squeak. I'm not asking for crystal-smooth roads everywhere all the time, just unbroken pavement, filled potholes, manhole covers to be placed at the same level as is the top of the road, and roads that don't make you feel as if you trying to tame a wild horse. But I guess that is too much to expect and I suppose I should just be happy that I'm not driving on dirt and gravel.

Now, can we get back to the trains and their freaking horns?

Why do you insist on setting up straw men that you can knock down easily? I never ever ever said that Houston should be proud of being solidly in the middle, and I repeatedly reminded you of that fact (and I don't recall anyone else on this board suggesting such "pride" either). Again, neither does Houston have anything to be particularly ashamed of when it is in fact, solidly in the middle, and when, not just one stretch of its roads, not just a dozen stretches of its roads, but a full 24% of its roads are in good condition, again, solidly in the middle of the major metros in this country.

Apparently you are an easily excitable and hyperbolic individual. Even after being shown that Houston is IN FACT pretty average in regard to the condition of its roads, you insist on figuratively running through the streets yelling "the sky is falling", "Houston is no better than a third world country." Get a grip, man.

Edited November 3, 2006 by Houston19514

[musicman]

Look...as I said, I'm clearly not going to change your opinion on this subject. But, personally, I'm tired of driving to work on roads that remind me of my travels in Cambodia and cause my car to rattle and squeak. I'm not asking for crystal-smooth roads everywhere all the time, just unbroken pavement, filled potholes, manhole covers to be placed at the same level as is the top of the road, and roads that don't make you feel as if you trying to tame a wild horse. But I guess that is too much to expect and I suppose I should just be happy that I'm not driving on dirt and gravel.

I'd suggest that you move out of the trailer park. When you get to the real world, roads are paved.

[MiDTOWNeR]

I'd suggest that you move out of the trailer park. When you get to the real world, roads are paved.

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black?

Why do you insist on setting up straw men that you can knock down easily? I never ever ever said that Houston should be proud of being solidly in the middle, and I repeatedly reminded you of that fact (and I don't recall anyone else on this board suggesting such "pride" either). Again, neither does Houston have anything to be particularly ashamed of when it is in fact, solidly in the middle, and when, not just one stretch of its roads, not just a dozen stretches of its roads, but a full 24% of its roads are in good condition, again, solidly in the middle of the major metros in this country.

Apparently you are an easily excitable and hyperbolic individual. Even after being shown that Houston is IN FACT pretty average in regard to the condition of its roads, you insist on figuratively running through the streets yelling "the sky is falling", "Houston is no better than a third world country." Get a grip, man.

No, you need to get the grip. Just the fact that you have entertained this thread this far in some quest to prove someone wrong over their perception is insanely funny.

How about Memorial Drive...Shepard to Dowtown/both directions. bouncy bouncy bouncy.

Edited November 3, 2006 by MiDTOWNeR

[MiDTOWNeR]

some of the "tone" and "m.o." of this forum and it's posters. There is a whole lot of "but Dallas has this" or "San Diego has that" and "Atlanta does this" combined with the implication that Houston is a backwater slum that really starts to get old after a while.

I have heard the Dallas and Atlanta comparisons, but have not heard the San Diego comparisons.

The rest of your post makes complete sense. The problem is what you mentioned...the tone. If somene such as myself..says something like "the roads are bad" Other posters seem to read into that.."the roads are bad you hick sobs livin' in yer trailers holdin' you dat dar gun" Certainly I am guilty of using colorful language, my my original post.."the roads are bad" was not meant as as an all out assault on the Houston way of life. Yet, it is immediately taken that way and therefore difficult to have a discussion about it. Or if I say, "the roads are bad" for arguments sake people take the side of "well, they are bad everywhere, it is not unique to Houston. Which is true too, but denies my rermise that on a whole, on a daily basis, when travelling inside the loop, which is where i do most of my travelling the proporation of good roads versus roads that are like off roading on-an exageration-dont get hot and bothered..is fairly poor when compared to similar areas of other cities in the US.

[uncertaintraveler]

Nobody in this thread has said or even suggested that Houston does not need to improve its roads. But that can be said about almost every city (as demonstrated by the study I posted. Houston is not unique or even relatively bad in this category and it is indeed false, unfounded, ignorate and idiotic to say otherwise, as you did. Well-founded observations that can be backed up with facts are welcome. The "vitriol" as you call it, comes from making unfounded and hyperbolic statements and then refusing to admit that the facts don't back you up.

Again, neither does Houston have anything to be particularly ashamed of when it is in fact, solidly in the middle, and when, not just one stretch of its roads, not just a dozen stretches of its roads, but a full 24% of its roads are in good condition, again, solidly in the middle of the major metros in this country.

Apparently you are an easily excitable and hyperbolic individual. Even after being shown that Houston is IN FACT pretty average in regard to the condition of its roads, you insist on figuratively running through the streets yelling "the sky is falling", "Houston is no better than a third world country." Get a grip, man.

I don't recall stating that Houston was the only city that has bad roads....

And, good grief, the study you posted revealed that only 24% of Houston's major roads rated as "good." Accordingly, 76% of Houston's roads are not considered "good" by the authors of the study. Although my original point was that the "minor" roads in Houston are not in good condition, even the study you posted reveals that the majority of Houston's major roads are not in "good" condition. So I do think that the facts, which you so kindly provided, do indeed prove my point.

Regardless, I fail to understand how pointing out that the roads here could be better makes me an "easily excitable and hyperbolic individual." Who really cares that the condition of our roads are like those of most other major metros in this country? Whoopee. I'd rather have the best roads, and I don't think wanting them is a bad thing. I'm not saying that you don't, I'm just saying that I do.

In any event, I'm sorry I provoked such a response from you on the issue of Houston's roads. I'll be sure to run any of my observations by you before I ever post here again.

[Houston19514]

I don't recall stating that Houston was the only city that has bad roads....

And, good grief, the study you posted revealed that only 24% of Houston's major roads rated as "good." Accordingly, 76% of Houston's roads are not considered "good" by the authors of the study. Although my original point was that the "minor" roads in Houston are not in good condition, even the study you posted reveals that the majority of Houston's major roads are not in "good" condition. So I do think that the facts, which you so kindly provided, do indeed prove my point.

Regardless, I fail to understand how pointing out that the roads here could be better makes me an "easily excitable and hyperbolic individual." Who really cares that the condition of our roads are like those of most other major metros in this country? Whoopee. I'd rather have the best roads, and I don't think wanting them is a bad thing. I'm not saying that you don't, I'm just saying that I do.

In any event, I'm sorry I provoked such a response from you on the issue of Houston's roads. I'll be sure to run any of my observations by you before I ever post here again.

Or you could try saying in your first post on the subject what you now claim to have meant to have said.

If you had indeed said "Houston's roads could be better", the words "easily excitable and hypberbolic" would not have leapt to mind. Oh, and those repeated references to third world countries and Cambodia... no hyperbole there, right? ;-)

But of course we all know that is not what you said. (And by the way, you know all of this is in writing and reviewable, so your attempt to re-write history are not likely to work. We can all go back and see that your original point was not that the "minor" roads in Houston are not in good condition.) The roads you have specifically referenced are all very obviously not "minor" roads, but are arterial roads. (And trying to pretend that Allen Parkway is not an arterial road just makes you look silly and desperate.) Are you really trying to suggest now that Airport and Monroe are also just "minor" (and not arterial) roads? (I'm presuming you meant Airport, not Airline, since I don't think Airline goes anywhere near Hobby Airport.)

Edited November 3, 2006 by Houston19514

[musicman]

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black?

i don't think so. i'm not the one comparing Houston's infrastructure to that of a third world country.

[CDeb]

So how about those loud train horns?

[Montrose1100]

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black?

No, you need to get the grip. Just the fact that you have entertained this thread this far in some quest to prove someone wrong over their perception is insanely funny.

How about Memorial Drive...Shepard to Dowtown/both directions. bouncy bouncy bouncy.

God forbid the road be hilly.

Anyways, to avoid the bumps, stay in the middle of the *3* lanes.

[MiDTOWNeR]

God forbid the road be hilly.

Hilly would be an improvement from bouncy bouncy bouncy.

Or you could try saying in your first post on the subject what you now claim to have meant to have said.

If you had indeed said "Houston's roads could be better", the words "easily excitable and hypberbolic" would not have leapt to mind. Oh, and those repeated references to third world countries and Cambodia... no hyperbole there, right? ;-)

But of course we all know that is not what you said. (And by the way, you know all of this is in writing and reviewable, so your attempt to re-write history are not likely to work. We can all go back and see that your original point was not that the "minor" roads in Houston are not in good condition.) The roads you have specifically referenced are all very obviously not "minor" roads, but are arterial roads. (And trying to pretend that Allen Parkway is not an arterial road just makes you look silly and desperate.) Are you really trying to suggest now that Airport and Monroe are also just "minor" (and not arterial) roads? (I'm presuming you meant Airport, not Airline, since I don't think Airline goes anywhere near Hobby Airport.)

WOW, there is sum ANGER in that thar post.

i don't think so. i'm not the one comparing Houston's infrastructure to that of a third world country.

Well of course you dont.

[musicman]

Well of course you dont.

if you could provide some supporting data, you could make a believer out of me......saying a specific road is bouncy bouncy bouncy isn't supporting data.

[MiDTOWNeR]

if you could provide some supporting data, you could make a believer out of me......saying a specific road is bouncy bouncy bouncy isn't supporting data.

Why, so you can post-You are generalizing and I drive that road everyday and dont find it bouncy bouncy bouncy. Check your shocks....

Edited November 5, 2006 by MiDTOWNeR

[musicman]

Why, so you can post. You are generalizing and I dirve that road everyday and dont find it bouncy bouncy bouncy.

whew that was easier than i thought.

[MiDTOWNeR]

whew that was easier than i thought.

See, I am not so bad.

[musicman]

See, I am not so bad.

nah i know you're getting over the whiplash you received from the bouncy bouncy bouncy road. it's the painkillers talkin'

[MiDTOWNeR]

nah i know you're getting over the whiplash you received from the bouncy bouncy bouncy road. it's the painkillers talkin'

mmmmmmmm vicadin.

[UNLV]

No way this plan allows for HRT traffic.

[lockmat]

Well, I scanned through this entire thread and I don't think anyone brought up my question. Hope it isn't the topic of some other thread either.

Anyway...

Can the rails that UP and other trains run on also be used for Heavy Commuter Rail? Or would that make it too congested? Are new rails for Heavy Commuter Rail a must for us if we decide to go that route? Because I don't know if I believe if LRT in the future should run all the way out to our distant suburbs like Katy and The Woodlands. I don't mean to keep on comparing things to Europe, but it's the only place I've used trains. If I'm not mistaken, they had subways in the city and used heavy rail to go out any further.

The way I feel about things, I want the city of Houston to build public transportation only so far out and then let the people out in the far 'burbs drive. If they choose to live out there, they'll know they'll need a car to get around.

[Guest danax]

Well, I scanned through this entire thread and I don't think anyone brought up my question. Hope it isn't the topic of some other thread either.

Anyway...

Can the rails that UP and other trains run on also be used for Heavy Commuter Rail? Or would that make it too congested? Are new rails for Heavy Commuter Rail a must for us if we decide to go that route? Because I don't know if I believe if LRT in the future should run all the way out to our distant suburbs like Katy and The Woodlands. I don't mean to keep on comparing things to Europe, but it's the only place I've used trains. If I'm not mistaken, they had subways in the city and used heavy rail to go out any further.

The way I feel about things, I want the city of Houston to build public transportation only so far out and then let the people out in the far 'burbs drive. If they choose to live out there, they'll know they'll need a car to get around.

Here's a decent topic on the subject.