IronTiger

That sucks. Bryan-College Station got shafted, too.

Airport rail connections (besides between terminals and immediate hotels) is pretty impractical. I imagine it could work if downtown was the real "center" of town with hotels, tourist amenities, etc. (Las Vegas being an example), but Houston is not. If hotels or some other private entity wanted to foot the bill, fine. But it's impractical to make locals foot the bill for it, especially since they'll almost certainly never use this connection (even less so than light rail). However, it might work if there was some substantially huge draw--like a rail from the Orlando airport to the Walt Disney World complex...but again, private investment should work. The airport connection is a popular idea, and it's a bit of a common fallacy in planning, especially by light rail enthusiasts. The reasoning is that Location A is a popular destination, and Location B is a popular destination, therefore, linking A & B would be a smashing success.

I may be in the minority, but I like them. Not just a fan of the 60s-70s brutalist-style architecture, but the fact that they are simple, practical, and built to last. A glassy skyscraper or two is really nice but you can't overdo it (for an example of how this goes horribly wrong, look at Vancouver's skyline). On the other side of the "simple concrete" spectrum is crazy modernist buildings that cost way more than an equivalent building, have all sorts of engineering problems, and look dated even quicker.

That's not what he said: you were implying that EVERYONE walks because they want to just a few posts up.

I'm sure it's already been discussed, but what if one alternative is to re-do all the highways entirely? 1. Reroute Interstate 10 to north of the Hardy Yard, eliminating the curviness of the original Interstate 10. 2. This older part of Interstate 10 is rebadged as part of Interstate 45/US-59. 3. Tear up Bagby Road and create a new "cut and cover" sunken freeway. This connects to the existing Spur 527 and takes the part of the old Interstate 45 that leads south to the Pierce Elevated. 4. The aging Southwest Freeway stretch between that and 288 is partially dismantled and turned into new exit lanes for 288. 5. Dismantle the Pierce Elevated. Of course, this is extremely expensive and probably won't solve any of the biggest problems.

Backing your statement up: At about the time of Bush 1's Presidency, in China, the majority of the people in the streets were bicycling. Urban dream to some, perhaps: but the economy got better in China, and people could afford more. By the time G.W. came into office, there were far more cars on the road.

[doublepost, please delete]

To me, there are two Westheimers--Westheimer Parkway to Katy and Westheimer Road in Houston. To me, the uultimate Houston road is Bellaire/Holcombe, stretching from to 288 to Mission Bend, and that's only the drivable part. The "stubs" lead almost out to Fulshear, Texas. It passes by lots of ethnic areas, and while it doesn't have as much commercial establishments as Westheimer, it's a great long road. Of course, if you account the "alternate names" for Westheimer, it's even bigger. I was fascinated when I went to Houston in 2011 as I drove on the "same road" no less than three times... - Going to Montrose to eat at Katz Deli - Driving on Elgin to get back on the freeway - Driving on Lockwood to get to the ship channel Seriously though: I don't know how, but it's a shame that Westheimer Parkway continues west to parts unknown while Westheimer Road merges in with the highway...

I used to consider myself one entering post-crash (around 2008). Things worked out well at first, and it zoomed to be my number one site, but then I made a series of really awful posts that irreparably damaged my reputation and scaled back my presence. For a time I regretted being a HAIFer, and by the time I returned, traffic had dropped off from what it used to be. I really liked the College Station forums, they used to be great, but they get so little traffic...and MyBCS is crawling with trolls and garbage posts.

To each his own. With what you were saying, it was false: you can ride a great deal on a bike and don't have to be auto dependent. The idea that freeways somehow cut off rail, biking, and walking is total nonsense. I hate to inform you, but running light rail down the center would not significantly change the traffic problem, but would be a huge money waster as well. As our friends up on the other end of I-45 showed us, longer light rail lines do not an effective transit make. Another total nonsense idea with no basis in reality. Trains, like we've talked about, have been around even longer than freeways. Just because the cost/benefit for trains is far worse than equivalent freeways doesn't mean they're "brainwashed and corrupt". To be fair, light rail proponents are often called untrue names as well. ...and yet, Houston needs billions (if not trillions) of light rail to meet some sort of "mobility" standard...

Yeah, that's it.

Read the question again. Total BS and you know it. The "Complete Streets" is one example of how wrong this is. The original freeway was choked...because Houston GREW between the late 1960s and the early 2000s. Right now, the way Houston is growing and developing edge cities, freeways are the best solution right now, for better or for worse. There are lots of things that visitors are often confused or unhappy about Houston. Does that make Houston wrong somehow? While 10 lane freeways may seem excessive, it probably is better than two roughly parallel freeways. Ridiculous? Maybe. Unnecessary? Of course not.

Don't know the names of the buildings off the top of my head, but they demolished the McDonald's at Main and Capitol which replaced something else. Now the place is a parking lot. Another large building was imploded for an 80-level supertall, which was never built.

That last part sounds like something a marketer/developer would say. The question that Mr. Gattis posed was not if you're okay with either one, is which one you prefer. The first option isn't less walkable. Again, you're talking about "auto dependence" when you want to depend entirely on rail and walking, which limits mobility. That book that I mentioned in the first post had surface roads cleared up by the addition of freeways, and had photos to prove it. (I'd like to see someone do the same for rail corridors, and not because people are trying to avoid that road). Yes, the Katy Freeway did tend to fill up again after it expanded, but that's because Katy and Park 10 area expanded like wildfire as well, and that's a consequence of a good economy. If the Texas economy imploded in the next five years and people started flowing out, I'd guarantee you'd see less traffic. At some point, if not already, Houston will stop growing out. Dallas did years ago. Besides, a city with a growing population will of course have problems for emergency vehicles. The question I posed was trying to investigate why people had a grudge against freeways, but all I'm getting is a mix of evasiveness and propaganda. There is no reason to dislike freeways unless you also disliked the idea of private vehicles.

OK--clearly in the past, issues of price and feasibility haven't fazed you. All cars don't need to be self-driving, as even the few that are will benefit everyone. With self driving cars, you'll have less people that save 10 seconds by doing something stupid, causing people to break and jams to occur. Or you might have a car that "sees" trouble on the freeway before you do and direct you to an alternate route. I noticed you didn't have anything to say about my paragraphs about how freeways really don't interrupt walkability, which seems to be what one of your arguments hinges on. Even if a freeway is "mildly uncomfortable" to walk under, Houston's climate gets pretty hot and humid, which makes everything "mildly uncomfortable", which to you would render Houston as unwalkable entirely. Perhaps this belief has already taken root in your mind, which is why you feel like Houston needs to compensate for its lack of walkability by building lots of (useless) rail lines and scapegoating freeways. Remember, the original topic was why freeways are unfairly attacked by people who think they're the scourge of mobility by looking at a perspective that made them so good in the first place (the past is not always wrong). It was not supposed to be a rail/freeway war. To people Slick, rail is welcomed as an addition to a walkable neighborhood, but freeways are not. Why was that? What's wrong with freeways?

So, the reason you're anti freeway is the auto dependency thing, or walkability? Walkability is mostly about building good sidewalks, decent zoning so you're never too far away from eateries and shops, and street crossing. Complaining how a freeway is an impediment to this somehow is petty.

That's true, cars are more prone to accidents. But not riding a car because of accident potential is like never getting in water for fear of drowning, etc. The city of Houston is confiscating people's bicycles?! Wow, why isn't this on the news? Seriously, though, light rail is frankly a luxury and only found in major cities. Most of the more established networks have been around for decades. Even then, rail doesn't go every place in town, and before you bring up European trains again, keep in mind that Europe is almost bankrupt. The equivalent of stations for freeways is exits...it's not a mandatory stop and there's no electricity required. The thing about freeways is I don't think anyone besides a small troupe of roadgeeks really love them...but everyone uses them as they are necessary in larger cities.

There was something a few years ago about some architect wanting to build some magnificent mixed-use place on an airport in Dallas. Needless to say, it didn't happen save for some fancy renderings...

Sonic is known for cheap food (especially those Happy Hour drinks...), so they have to sell a lot of it to make up for the low profit margin.

I guess people are going to asphyxiate now. I'm curious as to how the Sonic is going to make money--the aforementioned one in College Station's mall didn't make much money at all. The tunnel hours are even more limited: no half-drunk people coming in at 11pm.

I'm wondering exactly what makes cities "livable". In Waco, Texas, there used to be a structure called Ivy Square at the corner of University Parks Drive and Interstate 35. It was a strip mall that in its heyday included a 7-Eleven and a movie theater. Above it were apartments. If you were a student at Baylor, then that all sounds like an ideal solution. Everything you want--your classes for school, snacks and other grocery-type items, entertainment, greenspace, etc. all within your finger's reach. Of course, that by no means makes it especially desirable or a better place to live. Living does not mean living happily, and it may just be *possible* that not having freeways has nothing to do with a city's livability rating. That, of course, makes sense. Remember the pre-City Beautiful days, of highly polluted cities and all sorts of other bad stuff? That had no freeways, and it was still miserable. As for the "underpasses are bad", that happens with every other type of mass transit, including your beloved trains. For instance, here is a railroad underpass. It is dark, but there are sidewalks and structures on both sides. Would you walk under this to cross to the neighborhood on the other side, or decry that it divides neighborhoods and must be demolished? Why are freeways unfairly maligned while similar railroad viaducts get a pass?

Accidents happen and delays occur on both freeways and light rail (remember the train in Houston that crashed into a building not even a year ago? No?) In one of the articles mentioned somewhere on this board, it talked about how mass transit rides were usually LONGER overall than highway commutes (even taking into account congestion). And, really, who is "productive" on a train? As much as you may like to be a power user, closing out million-dollar deals on your iPad on the train before coffee, it's far more likely that you'll be reading a book, figuring out a crossword puzzle, or playing Angry Birds instead, and that's the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that you'll be forced to stand next to someone that drinks constantly and almost never showers, so you'll be stewing in that. I also noticed that in your relatively short time vacationing to Rome and London, you've already dealt with strikes and "all kinds of random slowdowns", but you were there for only a few days. Imagine the hell that everyone else puts up with year-round.

For someone that constantly points to other cities as what they're doing "right", I'm surprised you haven't seen what Japan did with (at least) one of its highways. Over at http://keephoustonhouston.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/can-pedestrians-and-elevated-highways-coexist/#comments'>Keep Houston Houston, there's an overpass that has street life under it. It's worth mentioning that concrete in Houston tends to be fairly light colored already, and the Pierce Elevated has no lighting under it. If we added light to it and maybe even added retail under it. That, my friends, is innovation.

Rebuttal to Slick: The suburb growth was linked to Houston's growth in post-war, which happened at around the time of air conditioning. I admit, in reality, Houston's case is an exception in that the core didn't die. There you go. Again, you cling to the idea that freeway removal should be more common. Let's agree to disagree, as neither of us are going to gain ground in our argument. The point I was trying to make is that you paint this happy picture of Midtown and Downtown being joined in harmony without freeways. In reality, Midtown might still be run-down as it is now...as is the case elsewhere, which is the point made. In fact, if you really wanted to join Midtown and Downtown, perhaps we should start to think of some innovative plan to make the area under Pierce Elevated pedestrian friendly. [no response to no response--glad we agree] Clearly you didn't read my last response to my post very carefully, so I'll wait until you do. Top three Google results for most livable city in the world don't show Vancouver past #3. Besides, these types with vague parameters ("most livable cities") are rather subjective while other things (pollution, congestion, etc.) are more concrete. And I won't lie, it probably is a lovely place to take a vacation, which is why visitors to it like yourself are so enamored with it (I was a fan of Canada at one time, too). Need I remind you that while you love to trump articles about how young people are moving into urban American cities, they're moving OUT of Vancouver. In conclusion, I rest my case. Freeways, like 'em or hate 'em, are beneficial overall.

You blamed Houston's sprawl on freeways, I said it was because Houston was a popular place to live. Houston's population didn't implode after the war, it exploded...even within the urban portions too. Freeways made the grand city Houston is today. For other less-desirable cities, it enabled them to remain viable and keep jobs within the city. Again, fringe cases and extremely rare. You've validated your view in your mind because of these unique cases (and I've told you why in the U.S. they are removed). We both have no idea what Houston would like look if there wasn't a freeway, or if we removed it. After all, in cities that don't have freeways running through the urban core (SF, NYC), a difference of a few blocks can make a huge difference between a tourist-friendly, walkable area to a scary area where you can get mugged. I hate to tell you this, but it wasn't just white people leaving the inner city, it was everyone that could afford to. Without freeways, people would simply move out--and take jobs with them. First off, I never said it didn't bisect African-American communities, and in the South, there were almost certainly corrupt white politicians that influenced that. But again, the lower land value was the primary driver to force highways through, and while some areas picked up higher land value, some freeways still continue to go through deteriorated area. However, even in that case, politicians are to blame, and not the freeways themselves. (Surely you don't think of freeway removal as some sort of "white guilt" thing, do you?) Oh, yes, one more thing about freeways and congestion: A city of only about 600,000 people has the worst traffic congestion in North America! Here's a hint: It lacks freeways.