[mhays]

Seattle's SR99 freeway tunnel and boulevard are a 1:1 capacity replacement. The replacement was due to the potential for the elevated section to collapse. The tunnel was to get through-traffic and the structure out of the way.

I heard the parts about transit and growth rates. But that doesn't change the point that you could accommodate most growth with transit and density if you wanted to.

It wouldn't be simple or easy of course. Limiting outward growth, eliminating or reducing parking requirements, and other factors would play in. But it's a cultural choice, not a mathematical one.

There's ALWAYS a no-build option. Cities do it all the time all over the world, some with Houston-like growth rates. People adapt. Those who prioritize free-flowing freeways might not choose your city.

In the end it's still Houston being Houston because it wants to be. Just don't expect praise here.