4 ms·

The problem as I see it with Houston is that there are few inhibitors to the sprawl, and few options to navigate it. Land to the west of town(where a significan

by S_A_P 7y ago

The problem as I see it with Houston is that there are few inhibitors to the sprawl, and few options to navigate it. Land to the west of town(where a significant part of the growth is happening) is plentiful and relatively cheap. I sometimes joke that Houston and San Antonio will merge at some point.(they are technically ~180 miles apart) There are now 3 rings around the city: 610, 8 and 99. The best way to get in and out of the city is by car, there just isnt a comprehensive public transport system to be found. There is talks of rail every few years, but they usually end up being shot down because a) nobody wants to give up their land to build it(imminent domain fighting) b) the city is so damn big it would be cost prohibitive to build a rail system. The only way I manage to deal with it is to work 6am to 3pm so that my commute is in front of rush hour. I'm admittedly part of the problem, as I live 30 miles southwest of the city. If I were to commute at the 8-5pm time, I would be on the road for 110 minutes each commute. As long as I get on the road by 5:30am, I cut that to 45 minutes in the morning and 55 in the afternoon.

rjkennedy98 7y ago
> the city is so damn big it would be cost prohibitive to build a rail system. But yet there is endless money for roads and parking lots as if they are free or cheap. I'm so sick of people acting like there is no money for public transit. In my hometown of San Diego they are spending close to a billion dollars adding a single lane to a freeway. Also, public transit is not the same thing as rail. Public bus systems work amazingly well in other parts of the world. But in America they are stigmatized (as being for poor people) to the point that they aren't even mentioned as public transit options.
- kodablah 7y ago
  Cost prohibitive doesn't mean there's no money, it means money used wouldn't be worth it. The Dallas area has the longest light rail system in the US, yet it barely covers the sprawl. Same with buses. There are too many people, living dozens of miles away from each other, going in all directions at all times which makes public transit often cost prohibitive. Of course they try anyways to service their citizens. But without a mind shift change _and_ a recentralization of people _and_ a significant increase in expenditure, it's a real waste to grow the barely used system. Especially since most of the people we're talking about with the sprawl don't live in the city anyways. As for road expenditures, in both Houston and Dallas, a large amount of new money towards them use private money on toll roads. This includes joint ventures for toll lanes on public highways which is of course regressive, but keeps at bay this kind of comment complaining about public funds.
  - rjkennedy98 7y ago
    > Cost prohibitive doesn't mean there's no money, it means money used wouldn't be worth it. Yes, light rail sucks (you will get no argument from me on that). Its basically the least functional of all public transit, and often times I believe is put in to make people hate transit since it is less functional > As for road expenditures, in both Houston and Dallas, a large amount of new money towards them use private money on toll roads That's great that they have toll roads. I still think most people completely underestimate how unsustainable this type of development is. In 50 years these sunbelt cities will be falling apart with strip malls collapsing and pot holes in the roads.
    - tmm84 7y ago
      I remember when light rail was proposed. The thing that got me at the time was it was a single line and it went a very short distance (the goal was to have people not park in downtown if I remember because downtown Houston is a pain to park). After the first line was built the number of people who had traffic accidents with the light rail trains were staggering. The light rail even switches lanes from one side of the street to the other with cars having to stop for the train to cross. Downtown is where they aimed it but there wasn't much room to properly develop and design a line there. If they had developed/designed it to bring people into town from the suburbs it would have been better I think.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  Are there examples? The New York and Tokyo subways have earned a reputation for reliably showing up very frequently, but I can't name any busses like that.
Merrill 7y ago
According to http://www.h-gac.com/regional-growth-forecast/documents/Current_Maps_and_Tables.pdf http://www.h-gac.com/regional-growth-forecast/documents/Curr... In 2020, 691 K jobs are inside I-610, while 911 K jobs are in the ring between I-610 and TX-8. The other 1850 K jobs are in various sectors around the perimeter. So not only do most Houston metro residents not commute to the city center, they do not commute to inside of 8, a ring of about 25 miles in diameter.
- S_A_P 7y ago
  Thats definitely true in many cases, and Im sure its driven largely by the traffic patterns. I can add that once you get inside of beltway 8, its usually a pretty easy drive. It is the part between 99 and beltway 8 (usually about 5-10 miles iirc) that takes 50% of the commuting time.
throw0101a 7y ago
> The problem as I see it with Houston is that there are few inhibitors to the sprawl While Lake Ontario prohibits development to the south of Toronto, Canada, there is not much limiting development in any other direction, and the suburbs have done so. However, to protect the water supply and farmland, the Ontario legislature created a 'green zone' around the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that limited municipalities and regions/counties from approving development in certain areas: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenbelt_(Golden_Horseshoe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenbelt_(Golden_Horseshoe)

by S_A_P 7y ago

rjkennedy98 7y ago

> the city is so damn big it would be cost prohibitive to build a rail system. But yet there is endless money for roads and parking lots as if they are free or cheap. I'm so sick of people acting like there is no money for public transit. In my hometown of San Diego they are spending close to a billion dollars adding a single lane to a freeway. Also, public transit is not the same thing as rail. Public bus systems work amazingly well in other parts of the world. But in America they are stigmatized (as being for poor people) to the point that they aren't even mentioned as public transit options.

kodablah 7y ago
Cost prohibitive doesn't mean there's no money, it means money used wouldn't be worth it. The Dallas area has the longest light rail system in the US, yet it barely covers the sprawl. Same with buses. There are too many people, living dozens of miles away from each other, going in all directions at all times which makes public transit often cost prohibitive. Of course they try anyways to service their citizens. But without a mind shift change _and_ a recentralization of people _and_ a significant increase in expenditure, it's a real waste to grow the barely used system. Especially since most of the people we're talking about with the sprawl don't live in the city anyways. As for road expenditures, in both Houston and Dallas, a large amount of new money towards them use private money on toll roads. This includes joint ventures for toll lanes on public highways which is of course regressive, but keeps at bay this kind of comment complaining about public funds.
- rjkennedy98 7y ago
  > Cost prohibitive doesn't mean there's no money, it means money used wouldn't be worth it. Yes, light rail sucks (you will get no argument from me on that). Its basically the least functional of all public transit, and often times I believe is put in to make people hate transit since it is less functional > As for road expenditures, in both Houston and Dallas, a large amount of new money towards them use private money on toll roads That's great that they have toll roads. I still think most people completely underestimate how unsustainable this type of development is. In 50 years these sunbelt cities will be falling apart with strip malls collapsing and pot holes in the roads.
  - tmm84 7y ago
    I remember when light rail was proposed. The thing that got me at the time was it was a single line and it went a very short distance (the goal was to have people not park in downtown if I remember because downtown Houston is a pain to park). After the first line was built the number of people who had traffic accidents with the light rail trains were staggering. The light rail even switches lanes from one side of the street to the other with cars having to stop for the train to cross. Downtown is where they aimed it but there wasn't much room to properly develop and design a line there. If they had developed/designed it to bring people into town from the suburbs it would have been better I think.
erik_seaberg 7y ago
Are there examples? The New York and Tokyo subways have earned a reputation for reliably showing up very frequently, but I can't name any busses like that.

Merrill 7y ago

According to http://www.h-gac.com/regional-growth-forecast/documents/Current_Maps_and_Tables.pdf http://www.h-gac.com/regional-growth-forecast/documents/Curr... In 2020, 691 K jobs are inside I-610, while 911 K jobs are in the ring between I-610 and TX-8. The other 1850 K jobs are in various sectors around the perimeter. So not only do most Houston metro residents not commute to the city center, they do not commute to inside of 8, a ring of about 25 miles in diameter.

S_A_P 7y ago
Thats definitely true in many cases, and Im sure its driven largely by the traffic patterns. I can add that once you get inside of beltway 8, its usually a pretty easy drive. It is the part between 99 and beltway 8 (usually about 5-10 miles iirc) that takes 50% of the commuting time.

throw0101a 7y ago

> The problem as I see it with Houston is that there are few inhibitors to the sprawl While Lake Ontario prohibits development to the south of Toronto, Canada, there is not much limiting development in any other direction, and the suburbs have done so. However, to protect the water supply and farmland, the Ontario legislature created a 'green zone' around the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that limited municipalities and regions/counties from approving development in certain areas: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenbelt_(Golden_Horseshoe) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenbelt_(Golden_Horseshoe)