Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc
This THREAD is about Houston.
|
No, its not!
Its about a policy proposal for Houston to expand its freeway system, resulting n greater urban sprawl, greater poverty, and more pollution.
The presumption implicit in the proposal is that Houston's modal share for transit cannot be materially improved.
You have argued in favour of that position.
I have offered evidence that the necessary steps to achieve greater modal share for transit have not been taken, and therefore there is no basis on which to conclude that a transit-first approach to addressing Houston's traffic congestion would not be at least as effective if not more effective than the proposal now on the table.
I have not wandered away from transportation and related landuse as the focus of the discussion; and have brought up other cities only to illustrate what is possible and effective.
I don't know on what basis you would evaluate a proposal's utility or desirability in Houston (or any other City) without examining alternative options.
In the course of proposing specific solutions for Houston, which I did, I have encountered resistance from certain posters, yourself included, who argue 'x' can't be done.
I have countered by showing that yes it can, and has.
You are reduced to ' but its not Houston', 'but its not Houston' etc etc. as if this somehow established that the laws of physics and finance don't apply in Houston.
I'm content to go back to discussing specifics in Houston alone, so long as you agree that everything I'm saying is entirely possible and can be done; that you simply don't want to it to be done.
Which is fine. That's a preference. You can prefer the colour pink or the music of NSYNC or highway expansion in Houston if you wish, and you needn't have a good reason either.
Just don't belittle the rest of us that have faith that Houston can do better and achieve more by not complacently going back to the same old solutions which have never worked before, and won't this time either.