[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

It's not worsening poverty for Houston to relieve traffic congestion.

I have clearly discussed the impact on property taxes. You have not rebutted that argument. Its specific, not general, its math. I challenge you to explain how any other conclusion is possible.

It's not induced demand to widen freeways to alleviate and facilitate demand that already exists.

It most certainly is; unless, of course, you're suggesting that all sprawl will stop, that Houston will have no further population growth, and that no new cars will occupy the newly created lanes.

Perhaps that's what you believe, but I won't make assumptions.

I will simply say I don't find that to be a credible scenario.

Where you create new capacity for cars, primarily from existing and u/c and planned suburban areas, those lanes will be back-filled by additional cars creating the effects previously described.

It's not representative of a city to be anti-transit when in fact many projects to do what you want them to do are U/C or in active planning. The pollution issue is one caused by the engines of cars and you have no real alternative other than suggest everyone walks and bikes everywhere in a city you don't seem to know much about.

I am not suggesting that everyone walk, how absurd.

I haven't suggesting forcing a single existing car off the roads.

I have suggested that strategies be focussed on providing people other, better options, at a lower cost, primarily transit and commuter rail; along with some relocation of some people, whose homes are in danger from floods, w/priority going to areas that are the least cost-effective to service. The result over time is a modest uptick in transit/walking/cycling; which would have the same effect as the new lanes on the highways, because those new riders previously would have been drivers, and such their new choice freed up space on the existing highway at much lower cost.

You are also making asinine comparison to suburban cities in Canada with populations of less than a quarter million to an American megalopolis of over 7 million.

The comparison is apt, no matter how often you jump up and down turning funny colours suggesting otherwise.

I compared it for land-use, density and modal split.

The suggestion that somehow lessons can't be learned from larger communities to smaller or vice versa makes no sense.

Of course they can.

You haven't refuted any of the facts in the comparison......

There are a comparatively limited number of cities in North America where a comparison can be drawn.

Most US cities, NYC and Chicago, and maybe DC excepted have fairly poor transit systems.

None of those three are Houston's identical twin either.

We could use Calgary or Edmonton.

But it doesn't matter, because instead of discussing the substance of the idea, you attack me, the messenger.

If you could rebut the idea with something other than an insult/attack on me or a simple 'its laughable' without in fact showing that to be the case.....we could discuss.

But you remain committed to evidence-free discussion.