Houston’s $7 billion solution to gridlock is more highways

[LA21st]

I wouldn't say the Asian percentages arre a minor difference. Texas has more AA's, but the AA population isn't as diverse as what an Asian population is, especially for California, where's tons of different cultures.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I wouldn't say the Asian percentages arre a minor difference. Texas has more AA's, but the AA population isn't as diverse as what an Asian population is, especially for California, where's tons of different cultures.

You're spitting hairs, both states are majority minority with all major groups represented. CA has more Asians due to geography and history and TX has more blacks..because South. Blacks are not just AA but Nigerians as well which I know Houston has a rather large population. The Asian population is fairly diverse but dominated by Vietnamese. Not sure if Asian includes 'South Asian' or not but they are well represented in both states. We have waaaaay more rednecks but CA has the Kardashians...so..it balances out.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by matt777

Houston transit doesn't move "significantly" more, it's about 10% or less more. Do not forget that DART is not the only DFW transity authority. There is Trinity Metro, MATA, and Denton County Transit Authority that you have to add together. In reality, the two metros move about the same amount of people by public transit and have similar population sizes.

Both metros could drastically increase public transit usage in the coming decades. Houston has bet the farm on bus service, and invested in it. DFW has ignored bus service growth and focused on rail, with many lines having just recently opened or coming soon (Cotton Belt Line, D2 line, new streetcar lines). So DFW has set up itself for long term growth around rail stations, but is also planning a complete revamp of the bus system which could be great or be a failure.

When it comes to downtown highways, I would love to see some graphics on this planned Houston project because it doesn't sound too palatable. I would rather support a complete removal of certain segments of Downtown highways. Dallas covered most of Woodall Rogers freeway downtown, with Klyde Warren Park, but the most promising project is the potential complete removal of the I-345 connector highway which separates Downtown from Deep Ellum.

It would be nice to see this Houston freeway project present several options and scenarios, with some of them being complete removals of some of the highways.

Fair point, just pushing back at the notion that rail is always effective and an indicator of a good transit system. Maybe the entirety of DFWs mass transit systems will be very effective, im just very dubious of rail in the way DFW is implementing it.

As far as this proposal, it will seeks to remove the freeways and connectors along the western and southern portions while possibly trenching the east side where I45 and I69 temporarily combine. Maybe put a park on top of part of the trenched highway.

Essentially this is a proposal to eliminate the elevated highways the cut off downtown from everything else. I’ll see if I can get some pictures from HAIF.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I wouldn't say the Asian percentages arre a minor difference. Texas has more AA's, but the AA population isn't as diverse as what an Asian population is, especially for California, where's tons of different cultures.

Yes, and that's an important point. But I think adding "diversity" for California vs. Texas is stretching a bit. If you compared California to South Dakota or Alabama it would make more sense. The difference between Texas and California is rather small.

[LA21st]

That's true.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Or maybe they just don't like living in Texas. I know it's hard for Texans to accept this, but it's true. Not everyone is a fan of the place. Not everyone is a fan of California, obviously.A bigger house doesn't solve your problems and I've seen NYers make the same comments after moving south for the same reasons. It's not everything.


Why would rodent infestations be on the typical resident's mind? Unless your life is being hampered by it, I'd assume most people have better things to think about. Are you referencing those articles by Fox News about a few blocks in downtown LA (in a industrial area) a few months ago? The pictures were gross, but 99.9 % of LA does not go to that area.

Theres articles about flesh eating bacteria in Florida recently, along with mosquitos that carry a severe brain disease. It's been reported in NY state too. Should those residents be afraid of those things, all the time, because of a couple articles/cases?

Originally Posted by LA21st

Coming from the guy who had no problem mentioning LA's problems. Incentives are there for a reason, buddy. And California is ranked in bottom 5 of business incentives along with Washington, Virgina, Maryland, and Nevada.
With the execption of Nevada those are 3 states with strong economies. Two are helped by the Federal Government.

Anyway, there's plenty of articles that say incentives are dumb, a waste of money and unstainable. So good for Texas, I guess.

You clearly are not reading my posts.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Diversity?

Texas
White:45%
Black:12%
Hispanic:38%
Asian:4%

California
White:38%
Black:7%
Hispanic:39%
Asian:15%

They're are pretty much the same with minor differences.

However, yeah, I love the scenery out west(which Texas has too) and LV.

I don't only mean ethnicity of the residents, I mean everything overall. The architecture, the weather, microclimates, geography, neighborhoods, etc.

It is my understanding Houston is the most ethnically diverse city in the US or close to it.

Though I love Texas and will be quick to criticize it and my home state, contrary to what LA21st thinks, I love California much more and that particularly why I'm harsh on it. I am through responding to him though because he seems to be bipolar and not reading my entire posts.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

You clearly are not reading my posts.

So you didn't bring up LA's biggest problems? I think you're forgetting what you've posted. It just seems weird you think it's ok to crap all over LA but when I mentioned a small thing like Texas incentives , you think it's unfair. Just seems weird, but whatever. You crapped on LA much more than vice versa. Let's not kid ourselves. You keep mentioning the plague, like it's actually killing hundreds or thousands of people here. Your posts are bonkers.

For some reason, people don't like it when LA/California stand up for the place on this forum.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by LA21st

So you don't bring up LA's biggest problems? I think you're forgetting what you've posted. It just seems weird you think it's ok to crap all over LA but when I mentioned Texas incentives , you think it's unfair. Just seems weird, but whatever. You crapped on LA much more than vice versa. Let's not kid ourselves.

Dude, I fucking love Los Angeles. I am about to invest a fairly large amount of money to purchase a home here. This thread is about Houston's freeways. Not talking about the good and bad's of cities. Every city has good things about it and bad things about it. Why do I have to confirm I am in agreement with this notion? Most reasonable people look at things like that. I brought up the negatives of LA because LA is suffering from a lot of problems. Article after articles shows this. Rarely other than weather and fashion does LA seem to be pushed as a good city to live. At this point I honestly don't even know what we are arguing about or why we're debating whether one can acknowledge that there are great aspects of Los Angeles.

PS, I mentioned the plague as satire on the Chicago's page. Someone made a post about Chicago being the capital of rat country and I jokingly said LA has rats with the plague and they do. Never once did I insinuate people were dying from it. The plague isn't a serious disease anymore from my understanding with modern medicines. Stop blowing shit out of proportion.

[floor23]

I don't see the problem with Houston expanding their highway infrastructure. Yes, expanding transit would be preferred among myself and posters on SSP, but the vast majority of us don't live in Houston or Texas. In the curbed article it mentions 94% of Houston Residents drive, I think its going to be difficult if not impossible politically to justify spending billions on transit projects when 94% of the population clearly has a preference for cars. Talk about political suicide.

Anyone wanting to live a car-free/urban lifestyle would be a complete fool to move to Houston in the first place. Plus the industries that make up Houston aren't exactly known for being "transit-friendly". Does anybody really think executives in the oil industry are going put their weight behind transit expansion over highway expansion in their own backyard.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Dude, I fucking love Los Angeles. I am about to invest a fairly large amount of money to purchase a home here. This thread is about Houston's freeways. Not talking about the good and bad's of cities. Every city has good things about it and bad things about it. Why do I have to confirm I am in agreement with this notion? Most reasonable people look at things like that. I brought up the negatives of LA because LA is suffering from a lot of problems. Article after articles shows this. Rarely other than weather and fashion does LA seem to be pushed as a good city to live. At this point I honestly don't even know what we are arguing about or why we're debating whether one can acknowledge that there are great aspects of Los Angeles.

PS, I mentioned the plague as satire on the Chicago's page. Someone made a post about Chicago being the capital of rat country and I jokingly said LA has rats with the plague and they do. Never once did I insinuate people were dying from it. The plague isn't a serious disease anymore from my understanding with modern medicines. Stop blowing shit out of proportion.

You also said you belived LA should be number one for rats, and Angeleno's should be thinking about rodent infestations, like they're all over the place and it's some massive concern.
I'm just going off you've actually said. You're the one taking these things to a different level. If the plague isn't a big deal, what's the point of even mentioning it?

[JManc]

Alright. Enough with LA. Off topic.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by floor23

I don't see the problem with Houston expanding their highway infrastructure. Yes, expanding transit would be preferred among myself and posters on SSP, but the vast majority of us don't live in Houston or Texas. In the curbed article it mentions 94% of Houston Residents drive, I think its going to be difficult if not impossible politically to justify spending billions on transit projects when 94% of the population clearly has a preference for cars. Talk about political suicide.

94% drive and 4% ride the bus -- that bus must be driven on roads and freeways as well.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by floor23

I don't see the problem with Houston expanding their highway infrastructure. Yes, expanding transit would be preferred among myself and posters on SSP, but the vast majority of us don't live in Houston or Texas. In the curbed article it mentions 94% of Houston Residents drive, I think its going to be difficult if not impossible politically to justify spending billions on transit projects when 94% of the population clearly has a preference for cars. Talk about political suicide.

Anyone wanting to live a car-free/urban lifestyle would be a complete fool to move to Houston in the first place. Plus the industries that make up Houston aren't exactly known for being "transit-friendly". Does anybody really think executives in the oil industry are going put their weight behind transit expansion over highway expansion in their own backyard.

1. How do you get from "94% of Houston residents drive" to "94% of the population clearly has a preference for cars"? Obviously some drivers would use transit if it worked better for their trips, and some transit riders would drive if they could. I bet the right transit measure would have a chance at the polls.

2. Not everyone that lives in Houston chose it for its characteristics. Maybe their wife wants to live there. Maybe they're kids. Maybe it's a way station for a few years before they can live where they want. Also, maybe they like 85% of it but wish it had more transit.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

94% drive and 4% ride the bus -- that bus must be driven on roads and freeways as well.

A good urban bus route is often on a bus-only lane or HOV lane...those can collectively be a tiny percentage of the overall road mileage, and an even tinier percentage of road square footage.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by JManc

We have waaaaay more rednecks but CA has the Kardashians...so..it balances out.

Never have I heard a more accurate comparison of Texas and California lol.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

1. How do you get from "94% of Houston residents drive" to "94% of the population clearly has a preference for cars"? Obviously some drivers would use transit if it worked better for their trips, and some transit riders would drive if they could. I bet the right transit measure would have a chance at the polls.

2. Not everyone that lives in Houston chose it for its characteristics. Maybe their wife wants to live there. Maybe they're kids. Maybe it's a way station for a few years before they can live where they want. Also, maybe they like 85% of it but wish it had more transit.

1) Given the options we have now, yes, 94% prefer to drive. Had we had a well developed subway/ transit system, those numbers would be different. Our light rail is infested by the indigent and homeless which turns off a lot of people from using it.

2) True for most places. I am here for economics. My wife's mother and my mother live here otherwise we'd consider our options. This is not unique to Houston or Texas. People that seek out a place and then move there are far and few between...because life gets in the way.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by JManc

...because life gets in the way.

Problem is, a lot of the sentiment on this forum is basically "fuck you for having a life that doesn't fit into whatever reality I have set for myself and expect others to live up to"

[dubu]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Problem is, a lot of the sentiment on this forum is basically "fuck you for having a life that doesn't fit into whatever reality I have set for myself and expect others to live up to"

this forum is better then most places on the internet. most people are over 30 and are not know it all teenagers. when I first posted on this forum I didn't know anything about the world, now its like the world is basically a joke. at least this forum is a place to share things, without places like this the us would be worse. the name of the site is misleading though, most people here aren't wanting to live in a skyscraper, but skyscrapers are more pretty then suburbs by 1,000.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by JManc

1) Given the options we have now, yes, 94% prefer to drive. Had we had a well developed subway/ transit system, those numbers would be different. Our light rail is infested by the indigent and homeless which turns off a lot of people from using it.

I take material issue with your use of the word 'infested'.

You essentially just said anyone who is very poor/homeless should be compared with and thought of as vermin.

To say that is unkind and unfair is to understate by an order of magnitude how I feel about this line of thinking.