VelvetJ

I chose to give up the tollway as well due to cost. Before the dramatic gas increases, I would use it because the time it saved was indeed significant. However, once the gas prices increased, I could no longer spend $120 per month JUST in toll. It began to blow my budget out of the water. Not to mention many of those trips were delayed due to congestion on the tollway. Sevfiv it was exactly the way you described above.

Yes, unfortunately that is what this site is becoming known for and it's really sad because this was not always the case. I, along with other members have noticed the rise of the small but vocal group, who apparently are ignorant to their own issues, and apparently Isiah Carey of Fox 26 has found out why this site is becoming known for more than architecture and Houston issues. As a long time member who was one of the first, it's sad to see the reputation of this site tarnished. But it is indeed starting to be tarnished and the word has started to spread. While I was driving home on the West Loop on yesterday, this white idiot pulled in front of me forcing me to slam on my brakes. IMO, just like there was no point in me mentioning the race of that idiot, I found no point in race entering this thread.

Nice test.

Heckling is a common part of being a standup comedian and if he can't deal with heckling, he is in the wrong profession. Is heckling rude, of course it is, but all comedians expect it and all of them have gotten it and deal with it whether it is ignoring them or appropriately jabbing back. Heckling is uncommon in certain situations but doing standup at a comedy club is NOT one of them. Michael Richards went over the line and deserves every bit of flack he is receiving.

Well would you be so kind as to show the uneducated where you received your education? Did it come from the same source that said these cameras are for public safety? Did this same source dismiss lengthening yellow lights? Did this same source even consider warning signs at the high risk intersections in the city to warn drivers about the high rate of red light runners before settling on traffic cameras? Did this source support the $75 fee because the $75 fee the city was to receive via "Safe Clear" did not pan out the way they initially planned? Also, will some express their opinions on why the intersection of Wesheimer and Post Oak has not been fitted with a camera? It clearly can't be because of a low rate of red light runners? If I were to support a camera it would be at that intersection.

And we know this is true how? They are starting out with the deception that this is for Public Safety and Public Safety only. That alone says a lot. When money is to be made I don't put anything past anyone and the same is true here. By the way, I wonder if they are planning on adding the intersection of Westheimer and Post Oak to the list of camera locations? Why wasn't it one of the first locations to get one?

It's not always that "black and white" of a situation. I think that is a issue with the whole thing. A lot of these situations aren't as simple as, "well just don't run red lights".

Well we at least are on the same page about something with regard to the both of us realizing "the whole thing" is NOT about public safety as city officials are claiming it is. This is about revenue and the constant claims it's about public safety is the most annoying thing about this situation. But almost as annoying is Houstonians who have allowed themselves to be convinced this is about public safety. This is all about money and the company that makes these cameras knows this which is why they have "given" the cameras to the city. I personally would not like to wait any longer at traffic lights either, however if public safety is the concern to the point where cameras have to be installed, then we should be willing to make that sacrifice at certain intersections. BUT like I've already addressed, this is not about public safety. I am not in the habit of running red lights, however we have all gone through yellow lights. Now when the front of my car goes through a yellow light but the tail end of my car is caught in the intersection in that second it turns red, will I get a $75.00 ticket? And is that fair? Am I mistaken in being under the impression certain intersection (Gessner at Beechnut is what I saw on a news broadcast) cameras will be able to be controlled by officers in a central command type building? Will they change the traffic light to "catch" more cars when more money is needed? Will I be able to dispute that officer in court? THAT is what there is to "get used to". But back to my point of my initial post, the environments of certain intersections should be considered as well. I took a look at that list and saw the number of new cameras along service roads. What baffles me is no one has asked WHY people tend to run lights at intersections of feeder roads. Why do people tend to drive so fast on service roads? Does the environment play a role in the high level of red light runners there....I think so.

^ But CDeb so what if the capacity of the intersection is decreased by 10%, isn't that worth saving lives since this whole thing is supposedly about public safety? Just like we are being forced to get used to Red Light cameras, we can also get used to little longer waits at "hot bed" intersections......if it will save lives and make us all safer......correct? Another example of a dangerous intersection is the Southwest Freeway and Murphy Road/Wilcrest. As the lights for the feeders are still green, the lights for those on Wilcrest have also turned green and often have to slow up under the freeway to allow the lights on the feeder to turn red. In an environment like this, the driver is always blamed? This whole dangerous intersection thing is a "two way street" in Houston's case.

As someone who considers himeself a safe cautious driver who has never recieved a moving violation, I am against these cameras. IMO, those cameras were not installed for public safety but simply for revenue. I also do not think it's as simple as "people just shouldn't run red lights". Let's be a little realistic here. You create environments that are conducive to high rates of speed and that is exactly what you are going to get despite what the speed limit is. There is a reason why the average speed in Times Square is not 80mph. There is a reason why there are high accident rates along the Westbelt and Bellaire and Beechnut and Bissonett, and along the whole Westbelt stretch. I think it's important to look at the environment of those areas as well. Those feeders are practically freeways and in many situations you have cars exiting the beltway onto a 3 lane wide smooth surface where the next intersection is a distance away. IMO Houston has some of the largest roads and freeways in the nation. Plus in many parts of the city the distance between major intersections is practically a mile. You mix that with relatively smooth 2- 5 lane city streets with no obstructions or buffers such as hills or curves in a Metro area of almost 5 1/2 million people in a city that was built with the automobile as the priority, and you are going to get high rates of speed. And city officials wonder why Westpark and 59 have high accident rates. IMO, the solution is as simple as properly timed traffic lights. If the city was so concerned about saftey of the public they would time the lights where there is at least a 3-4 second delay where all sets of traffic lights at the intersection are red before one turns green for cars to go. Or as it was stated earlier, extend the time of the yellow light. Of course every place has red light runners. Even small towns have them. But in Houston's case I believe it's a situation of both irresponsible drivers as well as the type of environment the city of Houston has created for cars to speed. The fact teens choose Westheimer to drag race instead of Richmond is no coincidence, and Houston has more than it's share of Westheimer type environments. note- I do not support running red lights.

Count me in.

I agree with this as well. I think the Katy Freeway's construction affecting the Westpark Toll traffic jams is being overstated a bit. I also believe it probably is a factor but is not the only and certainly not the biggest factor in why it has become congested so quickly. There are people sitting on the Southwest Freeway, only to exit onto the Westpark Tollway and sit in traffic just as bad, but they are paying to do so. I have made this prediction before, but just as it didn't take long for the Westpark Tollway to be congested, I'm betting the same is going to happen on the Katy Freeway. And it all seems to be happening within 2 years from the completion period. Whatever happened to the concept of getting more people out of their cars? I don't think the Westpark Tollway is really doing that at this point because practically everday there are people in cars sitting on it literally idleing there gas and money away. Gessner at Westpark is a perfect place to observe this. I'm not saying the Tollway is neccesarily a bad thing but I personally do not buy the concept of the only reason the Westpark Tollway is congested is due to the construction on the Katy Freeway.

I'm not sure anyone has actually addressed your question. Not surprising that out of the things you stated, the last sentence would be the focus. I don't think what you inquired about would get off of the ground in Houston any time soon and you basically hit the nail on the head with the reason. COST! I'm afraid too many would view such a thing as "a waste of my tax money", particularly if their areas aren't served immediately. Plus, I don't think Houstonians as a whole even understand why the city should have such a system at all.

^ What part of Kirby?

Who would have thought in a city that places the dollar above all else, there are those who would bask in loosing $125 million in EXTRA tax money for the city. Ignorance can not only be bliss it can also be costly. Judging by this thread Houston is a screaming example of Diversity not automatically equating to tolerance and it's a shame. We've come so far yet have so very far to go. Let this thread be an example.

Though I am glad to see the Energy Belt Skyline grow even more, the conservative designs of these buildings leave much to be desired. Buildings don't always have to be extravagant spectacles to be exciting to look at.

THIS is the key because more than likely he will indeed be re-elected. This election means so much on so many levels.

Yes, but one unremarkable characteristic of Houston culture is even recognizing it needs a redirection in some areas at all. Houston actually building something is not the problem as much as it's slow to even get the idea, and it can be frustrating because this has not always been the case in this city.

That's great news 2112

So is it your opinion the city of Houston caters to developers no more than most other American cities? The point I was trying to make was, yes developers bring in money to the city, however there is a downside to a city making pleasing developers the priority and it seems not enough Houstonians are aware, or even worse, don't care enough about that downside, to make decisions that will take our city into a more responsible future. With regard to specific changes I would like to see, well for starters altering our setback rule for certain areas of the city that want it changed. For instance Midtown is a golden opportunity and there are already signs of that opportunity being squandered due to that rule. We as citizens have the opportunity to vote in those that understand the importance of altering some of our outdated rules but we don't seem to take advantage of that. I agree with KinKaidAlum in that Houston should at least offer the option to live in more pedestrian friendly enviroments, but that option for the most part, does not exist here and any steps to create such options is viewed by too many as "trying to be like other cities", instead of looking at the benefits of the pedestrian friendly option.

And this is a good thing? If not, why is it taking so long for our citizens to realize our city codes need a change? Danax stated, "The long run is not a concern, by either the City or the developers." My question is why haven't our citizens or city leaders yet realized it's time to think about "The long run"? I have stated for as long as I've been a member of this site that Houston always seem to be a step behind. Why do we allow ourselves to do so? Why do we seem to "get it" after everyone else? This has nothing to do with wanting the east and west coast to think we are cool. This is about Houston making wise decisions for itself and thinking about our city's future. It's about doing what is best for the city. Seriously.

Very Interesting. I saw a picture of a guy on Ski's in "Ski Dubai" in the Chronicle this past Sunday. It looks cool. I actually envisioned the AstroDome being turned into a giant ski facility like this to contrast our hot summers and proximity to the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. But apparently I think I was the only person in Houston to envision such a thing. Dallas is about to build a skiing facility so maybe Houston will follow in it's steps in about 10 -12 years.

Whoops, my bad. You are right.

The project at the intersection of Champions Forest and Cypresswood is under construction. There are 3 sizable pilars that are already up and there are people actively working. The rendering boards on both the Champions Forest side as well as on the Cypresswood side further down Cypresswood are the initial renderings which are none of what has been posted on this thread. The renderings at the site reflect 3 seperate towers, with the largest appearing at least 15-20 stories (I was trying to quickly count the floors on the rendering board). The other two towers on each side of the talllest appear to be maybe 5 stories shorter. Does anyone have any more updates on this?

Hey I actually like Houston Green.