Texasota Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 Oh god. I somehow always forget how awful I-10 is. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Texasota said: Oh god. I somehow always forget how awful I-10 is. It's actually the best freeway we have. Lanes are wide enough, it's smooth like butter, and makes visiting friends & family out there a breeze. Compare it to the narrow pot holed mess that is 45 N & S, sharp curve and dump trucks on 59 N, random lane drop offs & merges on 59 S, it's amazing. That being said, I hope this new development brings some fresh restaurants to the area. Tired of going to the same old places in City Centre and the chains scattered along the freeway. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmitch94 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 I think he meant awful in the, “this is a horrid waste of space/resources and it divides a city in two and is emblematic of our terrible public transportation and is the antithesis of good urban planning” 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 I10 is awesome, not awful. Every mile of freeway in the city should be built out to that standard, including the loops. Then, if you want good public transport, just run park and ride buses all day long in each direction and connect to local lines at the park and ride locations. Development is already clustered around our existing highways so it makes it much easier to get to pretty much any destination in just two or three bus hops, including one that moves at highway speeds down the hot lanes. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.33 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Research shows that more lanes = more traffic. Katy Freeway has actually had worst travel times during peak am/pm rush hour than it did before the expansion. https://cityobservatory.org/reducing-congestion-katy-didnt/ 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 35 minutes ago, Justin Welling said: Research shows that more lanes = more traffic. Katy Freeway has actually had worst travel times during peak am/pm rush hour than it did before the expansion. https://cityobservatory.org/reducing-congestion-katy-didnt/ Thank you for posting that link. Reading the article led me to this: http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/hist/hist_traveltimes_menu.aspx This is the source cited for the four year increase in travel times from Pin Oak to downtown. It shows data gathered by transtar for average trip time broken down by 15 minute increments and sections of roadway. Here are the 2021 highlights from transtar: Quote 2021 Highlights As people adapted to life during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2021 saw increases in travel time and travel delay across the majority of freeways in the Houston region when compared to 2020. However, congestion has still not risen back to pre-pandemic levels. Overall travel delay increased 57% in the AM and 59% in the PM over 2020. Despite the travel delay increases from 2020 to 2021, delay is still 50% less in the AM period and 32% less in the PM period than it was in 2019 before the pandemic began. Travel delay in 2021 is near the same level it was at the beginning of the 2010s. These charts show the average travel delay per mile on freeways in Houston from 2012-2021 in both the AM and PM periods. There is a larger discrepancy in travel delay between the AM and PM periods in 2021 than seen in the past. Typically, the PM period has 2x delay of the AM period. However, in 2021 the PM period has nearly 3x the travel delay of the AM period. Routes that were congested for the largest precentage of time in the AM in 2021. Routes that were congested for the largest percentage of time in the PM in 2021. With the construction concluding on SH-288, the time spent congested has been almost eliminated and traveler delay has decreased, even from 2020 levels. Travel time at peak in the morning for 2021 on I10 is below where it was 10 years ago. 2020 was clearly an anomalous year due to the shutdowns in the spring. I'll be curious to see where this goes over the next year or two as work patterns have changed, hopefully permanently. What I've noticed, anecdotally, is that I10 is gloriously open during non-peak hours. The bottlenecks I've found are now where it meets smaller narrower roadways. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iah77 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, august948 said: Thank you for posting that link. Reading the article led me to this: http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/hist/hist_traveltimes_menu.aspx This is the source cited for the four year increase in travel times from Pin Oak to downtown. It shows data gathered by transtar for average trip time broken down by 15 minute increments and sections of roadway. Here are the 2021 highlights from transtar: Travel time at peak in the morning for 2021 on I10 is below where it was 10 years ago. 2020 was clearly an anomalous year due to the shutdowns in the spring. I'll be curious to see where this goes over the next year or two as work patterns have changed, hopefully permanently. What I've noticed, anecdotally, is that I10 is gloriously open during non-peak hours. The bottlenecks I've found are now where it meets smaller narrower roadways. Keep in mind that the west corridor literally added 100,000s of residents so this is ridiculous to say time went up by a little. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmitch94 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 This pretty much sums up generally what I dislike about mega freeways. They prohibit walkability and create a fractured non contiguous city that encourages people to use cars as their only mode of transport. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, iah77 said: Keep in mind that the west corridor literally added 100,000s of residents so this is ridiculous to say time went up by a little. Exactly. The problem you have to watch out for, other than using a portion of the data to present things in a certain light, is that there are other factors at play. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post august948 Posted January 21, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted January 21, 2022 16 minutes ago, jmitch94 said: This pretty much sums up generally what I dislike about mega freeways. They prohibit walkability and create a fractured non contiguous city that encourages people to use cars as their only mode of transport. I'm still amazed by how apples to oranges comparisons are passed around so uncritically. 10 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmitch94 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 14 minutes ago, august948 said: Exactly. The problem you have to watch out for, other than using a portion of the data to present things in a certain light, is that there are other factors at play. That’s called induced demand and is exactly why expanding freeways in like adding a hole on your belt to cure your obesity. You’re right I guess I can only compare Houston to Houston. Comparing one city to another is definitely apples to oranges. And don’t come back with the whole Europe was built before the automobile and America wasn’t because they tore down huge swathes of dense urban centers during the urban revival movement of the mid 20th century. “Keep calm and frac on” must mean whatever burns the most oil is the best solution. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 18 minutes ago, jmitch94 said: That’s called induced demand and is exactly why expanding freeways in like adding a hole on your belt to cure your obesity. You’re right I guess I can only compare Houston to Houston. Comparing one city to another is definitely apples to oranges. And don’t come back with the whole Europe was built before the automobile and America wasn’t because they tore down huge swathes of dense urban centers during the urban revival movement of the mid 20th century. “Keep calm and frac on” must mean whatever burns the most oil is the best solution. Induced demand is a flawed model. If a city is growing, as Houston has by about 3 million people in the last 20 years, that considerably factors into the traffic flow. No doubt, had we not rebuilt I10 it would be much worse today. But by just building out I10, we've connected a large pipe to smaller pipes. For best traffic flow we need to expand out the other freeways, including the loop, the beltway and grand parkway to the same standard including interchanges that can smoothly handle the larger capacity without creating bottlenecks. If you go back and read my earlier post I suggested that we run park and ride buses along hot lanes on all the freeways creating a faster public transit system that would allow those who don't want to drive the option to reach any destination relatively quickly. However, for most trips the most efficient and preferred way to get from point to point will always be the individual vehicle unless artificial restrictions are put in place. Whether that vehicle runs on fossil fuels or renewables is a separate question. Trying to re-create a medieval urban format by eliminating cars, which is really what this is about, is a truer example of induced demand. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iah77 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 3 minutes ago, august948 said: Induced demand is a flawed model. If a city is growing, as Houston has by about 3 million people in the last 20 years, that considerably factors into the traffic flow. No doubt, had we not rebuilt I10 it would be much worse today. But by just building out I10, we've connected a large pipe to smaller pipes. For best traffic flow we need to expand out the other freeways, including the loop, the beltway and grand parkway to the same standard including interchanges that can smoothly handle the larger capacity without creating bottlenecks. If you go back and read my earlier post I suggested that we run park and ride buses along hot lanes on all the freeways creating a faster public transit system that would allow those who don't want to drive the option to reach any destination relatively quickly. However, for most trips the most efficient and preferred way to get from point to point will always be the individual vehicle unless artificial restrictions are put in place. Whether that vehicle runs on fossil fuels or renewables is a separate question. Trying to re-create a medieval urban format by eliminating cars, which is really what this is about, is a truer example of induced demand. I think they think if we get rid of freeways we will magically have a beautiful city like Sienna complete with medical churches and olive groves... Houston is naturally densifying and is literally a baby barely 120-50 years old? All the cities people keep name dropping are literally at the very least twice as old. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmitch94 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 28 minutes ago, iah77 said: I think they think if we get rid of freeways we will magically have a beautiful city like Sienna complete with medical churches and olive groves... No, believe it or not I am capable of understanding that Houston will never be a medieval European city. I’m just saying that maybe we should stop using the same solutions that are not working simply because there are decades of inertia behind them. Maybe we cater the infrastructure to the needs of the people in the city instead of prioritizing suburbs. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 6 minutes ago, jmitch94 said: No, believe it or not I am capable of understanding that Houston will never be a medieval European city. I’m just saying that maybe we should stop using the same solutions that are not working simply because there are decades of inertia behind them. Maybe we cater the infrastructure to the needs of the people in the city instead of prioritizing suburbs. I10 works every day. As do the other highways in the metro area. Road solutions work for their purpose. Not sure why you think roads don't work. Nothing wrong with building out infrastructure within the city limits. That happens all the time, but Houston isn't really just confined to the city borders. Houston is the entire metro area. You can't divorce one from the other. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aachor Posted January 22, 2022 Share Posted January 22, 2022 (edited) On 1/21/2022 at 4:21 PM, jmitch94 said: This pretty much sums up generally what I dislike about mega freeways. They prohibit walkability and create a fractured non contiguous city that encourages people to use cars as their only mode of transport. I've seen this shared around the internet a number of times and it always annoys me. It's like comparing a horse and buggy to a modern automobile, and marveling at the energy efficiency of the horse. I'm pretty sure that interchange can move a lot more people, goods, and wealth than that medieval town can. Which is probably why Texas has a per-capita GDP nearly twice that of Italy's. Sure, the medieval town is more pretty in a romantic sort of way, but try setting up an auto plant, distribution center, data center, or medical center in it or on it's periphery. Need to get a truck in so that you can deliver supplies to replace a roof or build a renovation? Not going to happen. You're going to be using a convoy of compact delivery vans and your costs are going to triple. It's an outmoded, outdated method of building human settlements. Heck, even a decent sized HEB would occupy a significant portion of that town. Houston does sprawl. And that sprawl does come with drawbacks. But the positives far outweigh the negatives for most people. One of the most significant upsides to Houston's layout and sprawl is the nearly unlimited opportunity- something you just don't get in a cramped medieval town with 12'-wide streets. Edited January 22, 2022 by aachor 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freundb Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 You guys seem to be getting personally offended by this simple comparison. Its just a little fun fact 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmitch94 Posted January 23, 2022 Share Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, freundb said: You guys seem to be getting personally offended by this simple comparison. Its just a little fun fact Haha exactly. Like I get it guys, Houston isn’t a 500 year old Italian town. I never said we should be either. It’s just a simply way to show the two extremes of urban development. On one side is a city where it is next to impossible to live without a car and the majority of public space is dedicated to cars, and the other where it’s nearly impossible to own and use a car. 23 hours ago, aachor said: I'm pretty sure that interchange can move a lot more people, goods, and wealth than that medieval town can. Which is probably why Texas has a per-capita GDP nearly twice that of Italy's. Some of us just have different priorities. I don’t see a city maxing out it’s GDP as the most important metric for a city. Don’t get me wrong, it is important to a degree. Edited January 23, 2022 by jmitch94 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post zaphod Posted January 23, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2022 23 hours ago, aachor said: I've seen this shared around the internet a number of times and it always annoys me. It's like comparing a horse and buggy to a modern automobile, and marveling at the energy efficiency of the horse. I'm pretty sure that interchange can move a lot more people, goods, and wealth than that medieval town can. Which is probably why Texas has a per-capita GDP nearly twice that of Italy's. Sure, the medieval town is more pretty in a romantic sort of way, but try setting up an auto plant, distribution center, data center, or medical center in it or on it's periphery. Need to get a truck in so that you can deliver supplies to replace a roof or build a renovation? Not going to happen. You're going to be using a convoy of compact delivery vans and your costs are going to triple. It's an outmoded, outdated method of building human settlements. Heck, even a decent sized HEB would occupy a significant portion of that town. Houston does sprawl. And that sprawl does come with drawbacks. But the positives far outweigh the negatives for most people. One of the most significant upsides to Houston's layout and sprawl is the nearly unlimited opportunity- something you just don't get in a cramped medieval town with 12'-wide streets. Couldn't disagree more. For one, Italy being the sick man of Europe is a complicated story but I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with urban density. Otherwise you'd expect Japan and Germany to be just as behind and their not. Also I may be wrong but someone told me that Italians do in fact make cars.... and therefore have "auto plants". And factories making everything else. Italy was Europe's place to "nearshore" a lot of manufacturing prior to the EU making places like Poland and Bulgaria just as appealing, and it's still where a lot of appliances and other "white goods" like fridges and ovens sold under a variety of brand names get made. Maybe if you opened up Google Maps in your web browser you'd notice that country has a massive highway network and that cities like Naples have bypasses and ring roads with elevated structures and tunnels ducking below hills that have stuff developed on them. And that outside of these old cities are no shortage of industrial zones, big box stores, outlet malls, and all the other stuff we have here. I don't see what's so outmoded about affordable housing where people can enjoy common areas and walk places and interact with their community while exercising? Also unsure about your comment on opportunity related to land use. Actually, given Italy's demographic decline some of those old villages are emptying out and therefore very cheap places to live. Unlike Texas they don't have a housing shortage. You know maybe it's convenient that people there can be happy living in dwellings that are smaller and simpler and can devote their income and money and efforts into other economic activities. We take for granted our roads and freeways and the extra miles of sewer lines and water pipes we have but all those things are very expensive. One day when the US is over the demographic hump due to low birth rates and limited immigration, there will be fewer people paying more in taxes to sustain those things. Formerly middle class subdivisions with HOA's funding and maintaining aging infrastructure are going to be in pain in another 30 years when those areas are as old as neighborhoods in Cleveland and Detroit are now. Think about it. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokemonizepic Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 On 1/22/2022 at 6:04 PM, aachor said: Houston does sprawl. And that sprawl does come with drawbacks. But the positives far outweigh the negatives for most people. any evidence for this claim that the positives far outweigh the negatives? GDP per capita in now way relates to density and there have been several studies that show the negative effects of urban sprawl. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/09/transport-noise-linked-to-increased-risk-of-dementia-study-finds#:~:text=“In this large nationwide cohort,disease%2C” the researchers wrote. https://www.socialconnectedness.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Emma-Harries-Social-Isolation-and-its-Relationship-to-the-Urban-Environment.pdf just to name a few of the drawbacks of car centered development, as well as the fact that it is incredibly expensive and inefficient 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iah77 Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 32 minutes ago, pokemonizepic said: any evidence for this claim that the positives far outweigh the negatives? GDP per capita in now way relates to density and there have been several studies that show the negative effects of urban sprawl. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/09/transport-noise-linked-to-increased-risk-of-dementia-study-finds#:~:text=“In this large nationwide cohort,disease%2C” the researchers wrote. https://www.socialconnectedness.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Emma-Harries-Social-Isolation-and-its-Relationship-to-the-Urban-Environment.pdf just to name a few of the drawbacks of car centered development, as well as the fact that it is incredibly expensive and inefficient A short poorly written unpublished paper written by a McGill student? Using this logic, all rural peoples should be forced to move to a city lol. The first paper mention also clearly highlights the noise from RAIL so not sure how helpful that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aachor Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 13 minutes ago, pokemonizepic said: GDP per capita in now way relates to density and there have been several studies that show the negative effects of urban sprawl. I certainly agree that there are some strong drawbacks to the sprawl. And, big drawbacks to sprawl to the extent that Houston sprawls. However, in terms of opportunity and quality of life for working-class families, I think Houston is hard to beat. When compared to other large cities in North America or Western Europe, Houston provides more job and earning opportunities, at a lower cost of living, with more affordable housing options than other comparable metropolitan areas. The proof is in the rate of growth of the Houston metro area. I think there are strong advantages to increased density, but I think the an organic market-driven approach to development is best, as it ensures that housing costs remain low. That is: let developers develop whatever they can sell, and do nothing to impede demand for any particular housing from being met. This ensures that supply is maximized, and demand-induced costs are minimized. And ultimately, lower cost of housing helps promote lower cost of living. And, lower cost of living helps families prosper. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokemonizepic Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 1 hour ago, iah77 said: A short poorly written unpublished paper written by a McGill student? Using this logic, all rural peoples should be forced to move to a city lol. The first paper mention also clearly highlights the noise from RAIL so not sure how helpful that is. https://www.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/4529 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/20/the-negative-consequences-of-car-dependency https://unevenearth.org/2018/08/the-social-ideology-of-the-motorcar/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692319307732 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847818308593?dgcid=author https://alex-m-dyer.medium.com/the-inhumanity-of-car-dependency-3616a3258f3b heres some papers about the negative social aspects of car centric development since. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/374/bmj.n1954.full.pdf here is the research paper that the guardian article talked about. It pretty clearly states the negative effects of not just railway noise exposure, but also road traffic noise exposure. Here is even a direct quote from the article . Of those, “the diagnosis in an estimated 963 patients was attributed to road traffic noise, and in 253 patients to railway noise”. anyway, please work on your reading comprehension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big E Posted January 24, 2022 Share Posted January 24, 2022 22 hours ago, freundb said: You guys seem to be getting personally offended by this simple comparison. Its just a little fun fact Except its not being shared as a "fun little fact". Its being shared it as some kind of gotcha and using it to make a point and since its being shared to make a point in the first place, its only natural to scrutinize that point to see if it makes any sense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 20 hours ago, pokemonizepic said: https://www.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/4529 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/20/the-negative-consequences-of-car-dependency https://unevenearth.org/2018/08/the-social-ideology-of-the-motorcar/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692319307732 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847818308593?dgcid=author https://alex-m-dyer.medium.com/the-inhumanity-of-car-dependency-3616a3258f3b heres some papers about the negative social aspects of car centric development since. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/374/bmj.n1954.full.pdf here is the research paper that the guardian article talked about. It pretty clearly states the negative effects of not just railway noise exposure, but also road traffic noise exposure. Here is even a direct quote from the article . Of those, “the diagnosis in an estimated 963 patients was attributed to road traffic noise, and in 253 patients to railway noise”. anyway, please work on your reading comprehension I'll have to work my way through the list, but reading through the paper on noise exposure in Danish cities it sounds like that might fall into the category of correlation does not equal causation. Definitely needs additional confirmation, as per the authors in the final paragraph. Let's assume, for the moment, that long-term exposure to road and rail noise raises dementia risk. That would indicate that it would be better to have residential development spread out and farther from road and rail development. Dense developments near roadways or rail would put more of the population at risk for dementia. Under this model, cul-de-sac designs with limited through traffic would be ideal. Oddly enough, that's exactly how suburban subdivisions have been laid out for at least the last 50 years. I would guess then that the next logical step would be to tear down all those dense developments along the rail lines and replace them with a buffer zone or perhaps single family homes with large front yards, all in the name of public health of course. Let me know when that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 23 hours ago, pokemonizepic said: any evidence for this claim that the positives far outweigh the negatives? GDP per capita in now way relates to density and there have been several studies that show the negative effects of urban sprawl. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/09/transport-noise-linked-to-increased-risk-of-dementia-study-finds#:~:text=“In this large nationwide cohort,disease%2C” the researchers wrote. https://www.socialconnectedness.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Emma-Harries-Social-Isolation-and-its-Relationship-to-the-Urban-Environment.pdf just to name a few of the drawbacks of car centered development, as well as the fact that it is incredibly expensive and inefficient I believe @aachor said the positives far outweigh the negatives for most people. Most people in the Houston metro choose to live outside the loop, where suburban single family home development is the norm. Why do they choose to do so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted January 25, 2022 Author Share Posted January 25, 2022 I deeply regret that my disgust for the Katy Freeway has so thoroughly derailed this thread. Any chance all this discussion unrelated to this specific property could be moved to a more relevant thread? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokemonizepic Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 1 hour ago, august948 said: I'll have to work my way through the list, but reading through the paper on noise exposure in Danish cities it sounds like that might fall into the category of correlation does not equal causation. Definitely needs additional confirmation, as per the authors in the final paragraph. Let's assume, for the moment, that long-term exposure to road and rail noise raises dementia risk. That would indicate that it would be better to have residential development spread out and farther from road and rail development. Dense developments near roadways or rail would put more of the population at risk for dementia. Under this model, cul-de-sac designs with limited through traffic would be ideal. Oddly enough, that's exactly how suburban subdivisions have been laid out for at least the last 50 years. I would guess then that the next logical step would be to tear down all those dense developments along the rail lines and replace them with a buffer zone or perhaps single family homes with large front yards, all in the name of public health of course. Let me know when that happens. believe it or not you can have dense development without large amounts of noise pollution, also the amount of cars passing thru an area does not mean more noise pollution if cars are driving at slow speeds. About your point on the danish study, I'm gonna go ahead and trust a team of scientists instead of some randoms on a forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEES?! Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 On 1/24/2022 at 10:39 AM, aachor said: I certainly agree that there are some strong drawbacks to the sprawl. And, big drawbacks to sprawl to the extent that Houston sprawls. However, in terms of opportunity and quality of life for working-class families, I think Houston is hard to beat. When compared to other large cities in North America or Western Europe, Houston provides more job and earning opportunities, at a lower cost of living, with more affordable housing options than other comparable metropolitan areas. The proof is in the rate of growth of the Houston metro area. I think there are strong advantages to increased density, but I think the an organic market-driven approach to development is best, as it ensures that housing costs remain low. That is: let developers develop whatever they can sell, and do nothing to impede demand for any particular housing from being met. This ensures that supply is maximized, and demand-induced costs are minimized. And ultimately, lower cost of housing helps promote lower cost of living. And, lower cost of living helps families prosper. This is basically what I’ve come to feel on the topic, too. Sure sprawl sucks, and honestly I wish we developed differently, but IMO benefitting the working class far outweighs the negatives for me. I know a lot of people who are moving to Houston area because they’ve been priced out of other markets. Some places are losing middle class families and young people in droves because they can’t afford to live and raise a family there, and that is NOT good for those cities’ futures. I’ve also become a big fan of utilizing our robust road systems as backbones for regional mass transit. I used to be skeptical of that position. But managed lanes w/ BRT and park and rides seem like really cost-effective options to help reduce congestion, eliminating trips for people who don’t want to commute into town for whatever it is they’re up to. As long as it can be integrated well with local bus/rail services, I think it’d serve us really well without having to put hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into a system that wouldn’t be as cost-effective since we don’t have the density to support it. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyt36 Posted January 26, 2022 Share Posted January 26, 2022 On 1/24/2022 at 1:20 PM, pokemonizepic said: https://www.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/4529 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/1/20/the-negative-consequences-of-car-dependency https://unevenearth.org/2018/08/the-social-ideology-of-the-motorcar/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692319307732 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847818308593?dgcid=author https://alex-m-dyer.medium.com/the-inhumanity-of-car-dependency-3616a3258f3b heres some papers about the negative social aspects of car centric development since. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/374/bmj.n1954.full.pdf here is the research paper that the guardian article talked about. It pretty clearly states the negative effects of not just railway noise exposure, but also road traffic noise exposure. Here is even a direct quote from the article . Of those, “the diagnosis in an estimated 963 patients was attributed to road traffic noise, and in 253 patients to railway noise”. anyway, please work on your reading comprehension What’s the prescription, doc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.