Rail To Uptown In Time For The Super Bowl?

[Slick Vik]

Ok. So we've got "top of the top" narrowed down to recent college graduates (from what college(s) and with what majors?) who got job offers from top companies. And I suppose the location of said top companies wasn't really the primary driver of where the job was located and thus where the "top of the top" went. Just out of curiosity, do you work in the field of education?

No I'm an actuary

[Slick Vik]

And I would posit that we already have a thorough transit system via the highways, local buses and park and ride buses that are used by many and can get you all over town. I'd advocate that we expand the highways and bus system further to encompass more outlying areas and serve even more people.

So no rail and bus rapid transit?

[august948]

No I'm an actuary

Good to know. I look forward to seeing more statistics backed with evidence to support your claims.

[august948]

So no rail and bus rapid transit?

Not as the primary component. Neither is flexible enough to do the heavy lifting and both require larger capital outlays.

[Slick Vik]

Not as the primary component. Neither is flexible enough to do the heavy lifting and both require larger capital outlays.

Most systems have buses feed into rail and bus rapid transit systems as a complement to rail. You disagree with this? For comparison, highways also have large capital outlays with higher maintenance costs over time than rail,

[mfastx]

You are referring to the GaWC study, which makes its designations based entirely and solely on "their connectivity through four 'advanced producer services':  accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and law".   Very silly to pretend it means anything more than a ranking of cities with heavy concentrations of employment in those particular industries.

 

I suggest you read the Wikipedia page, there are numerous other factors that go into the ranking. 

 

I'd like someone to explain what's so subpar about the Metro bus system. You can get pretty much from anywhere to anywhere in it's service area, which is pretty broad. Give me an example of a better system so I can compare.

 

Personally, I don't think it's subpar so to speak, but bus systems are most useful as compliments to higher capacity systems. 

 

And I would posit that we already have a thorough transit system via the highways, local buses and park and ride buses that are used by many and can get you all over town. I'd advocate that we expand the highways and bus system further to encompass more outlying areas and serve even more people.

 

The issue with this is the cost.  Running buses in such a large area such as Houston is too inefficient, and would require a much larger subsidy per rider.  It's already high enough as it is, as METRO pays $4 per passenger boarding a bus compared to around $1 per passenger boarding the rail line.  And this is after METRO cut the most inefficient, lowest ridership routes.  

[Trae]

Nah the GAWC is just about the worst "global city" list you can use. Their criteria is stupid and they have been discredited time and time again. Other lists like Foreign Policy are much better. People like to use the gawc list because they are at the top of the Wikipedia page.

[august948]

Personally, I don't think it's subpar so to speak, but bus systems are most useful as compliments to higher capacity systems.

I look at it the other way around. It's the local buses that connect to 95% of the stops. Higher speed systems, whether that's rail, brt or limited stop buses like the quickline help move people on the longer stretches but have limited flexibility in descending order vs a bus on a street.

The issue with this is the cost. Running buses in such a large area such as Houston is too inefficient, and would require a much larger subsidy per rider. It's already high enough as it is, as METRO pays $4 per passenger boarding a bus compared to around $1 per passenger boarding the rail line. And this is after METRO cut the most inefficient, lowest ridership routes.

If running buses in a large area like the Houston Metro service area is too inefficient then perhaps we should eliminate local bus service in favor of personal autos?

I'm not sure comparing average subsidy per boarding for buses serving the entire metro area to the average subsidy for a single rail line is apples to apples. I'd also like to know if capital costs are considered in that comparison.

[RedScare]

Good to know. I look forward to seeing more statistics backed with evidence to support your claims.

 

Yes. One of those stats should be the number of recruiters making these claims that the "top of the top" won't come to Houston, especially in light of the numerous articles claiming that Houston is one of the top destinations for young professionals and recent college grads. Maybe those recruiters are remembering the 80s and 90s. Or, maybe they just suck at what they do. Can you explain the contradiction between all of the glowing articles...with statistics...saying Houston attracts college grads with recruiters that apparently tell you otherwise?

[samagon]

So in Vancouver the transit agency didn't get the initial projections right (shock!) and therefore traffic has been reduced by exactly how much? I thought you were talking about stopping rush hour traffic not reducing it, or more likely it's growth, by a insignificant fraction. And at what cost?

 

I don't think that's a good argument.

 

How much did I-10 cost to make wider? What insignificant fraction of time does it save them on their commute?

[Slick Vik]

If running buses in a large area like the Houston Metro service area is too inefficient then perhaps we should eliminate local bus service in favor of personal autos?

 

What about the people that can't afford personal autos?

[Slick Vik]

Yes. One of those stats should be the number of recruiters making these claims that the "top of the top" won't come to Houston, especially in light of the numerous articles claiming that Houston is one of the top destinations for young professionals and recent college grads. Maybe those recruiters are remembering the 80s and 90s. Or, maybe they just suck at what they do. Can you explain the contradiction between all of the glowing articles...with statistics...saying Houston attracts college grads with recruiters that apparently tell you otherwise?

 

This even happens on the top level. The Houston Rockets have had trouble for years attracting free agents because players just aren't enamored with Houston. Finally they got James Harden but that was via a trade.

[livincinco]

Wow, went away for 12 hours and there are over 50 posts on this thread, so I'm not even going to try to reply to stuff that happened two pages ago.

 

To me, there's a functional side and a marketing side to mass transit.  The functional side is transit that is an economic necessity for certain people.  The marketing side is a lifestyle choice that is desired by certain people due to personal choice.  Every transit project has a mix of these two elements, but I think that it's important to differentiate the two.

 

I would argue that Houston's transit policy has been focused to heavily emphasize the economic necessities of transit as opposed to the lifestyle choice and I agree with that focus completely.  I'm opposed to mass transit to support lifestyle choice because I don't think it's a wise investment of government money.  The numbers show that Houston is doing quite well in attracting young professionals even without extensive transit that was built to support lifestyle choice.  The overall economy is doing extremely well in comparison to the rest of the country as well.

 

I'd also add that, in my opinion, the "everyone else is doing it, so we need to also" is the wrong argument.  Houston wants to position itself as a 21st century city and a leader in innovation.  If we're going to do a large scale infrastructure project that defines transit in this city, we should be doing something that's on the leading edge, not acting as a late adopter to technology that's already in place throughout the country.  We have two of the leading academic transportation centers in the country in this region in Texas A&M and Rice.  I would call for the city and the county to work closely with both of those centers to innovate, not follow.

 

 

[livincinco]

This even happens on the top level. The Houston Rockets have had trouble for years attracting free agents because players just aren't enamored with Houston. Finally they got James Harden but that was via a trade.

 

Just a guess, but I have a feeling that professional athletes don't factor mass transit into their decision making process when choosing teams.

[mfastx]

Nah the GAWC is just about the worst "global city" list you can use. Their criteria is stupid and they have been discredited time and time again. Other lists like Foreign Policy are much better. People like to use the gawc list because they are at the top of the Wikipedia page.

 

Well, going by the Foreign Policy rankings, the same group of cities in the US are ahead of us so it's not that different. 

 

I look at it the other way around. It's the local buses that connect to 95% of the stops. Higher speed systems, whether that's rail, brt or limited stop buses like the quickline help move people on the longer stretches but have limited flexibility in descending order vs a bus on a street.

 

 

That's true, but most systems around the world have a limited number of trunk rail lines that the bus system ties into.  Those are higher capacity corridors that the rail carries more efficiently, and for lower traffic corridors stemming from the trunk lines, you have buses which are suited for smaller corridors. 

 

If running buses in a large area like the Houston Metro service area is too inefficient then perhaps we should eliminate local bus service in favor of personal autos?

I'm not sure comparing average subsidy per boarding for buses serving the entire metro area to the average subsidy for a single rail line is apples to apples. I'd also like to know if capital costs are considered in that comparison.

 

Well we've got to run something.  I advocate for building a few major trunk lines then having the buses tie into that.  This can allow for shorter local bus lines (and therefore more dependable) and would also eliminate some redundant bus lines in the core that will then allow for those buses to be deployed elsewhere. 

 

Local bus lines going to the suburbs would be a waste of money, not enough transit ridership out there to support it.  Look at the P&R service, the ridership honestly isn't that impressive, even though we've invested as much money into that as rail lines.

 

As for the operating subsidy per rider, no, capital costs aren't included in those statistics.  Obviously you have higher capital costs for rail, but rail's efficiency ends up making it cheaper in the long run (over a span of about 50 years or so).

[Slick Vik]

Wow, went away for 12 hours and there are over 50 posts on this thread, so I'm not even going to try to reply to stuff that happened two pages ago.

 

To me, there's a functional side and a marketing side to mass transit.  The functional side is transit that is an economic necessity for certain people.  The marketing side is a lifestyle choice that is desired by certain people due to personal choice.  Every transit project has a mix of these two elements, but I think that it's important to differentiate the two.

 

I would argue that Houston's transit policy has been focused to heavily emphasize the economic necessities of transit as opposed to the lifestyle choice and I agree with that focus completely.  I'm opposed to mass transit to support lifestyle choice because I don't think it's a wise investment of government money.  The numbers show that Houston is doing quite well in attracting young professionals even without extensive transit that was built to support lifestyle choice.  The overall economy is doing extremely well in comparison to the rest of the country as well.

 

I'd also add that, in my opinion, the "everyone else is doing it, so we need to also" is the wrong argument.  Houston wants to position itself as a 21st century city and a leader in innovation.  If we're going to do a large scale infrastructure project that defines transit in this city, we should be doing something that's on the leading edge, not acting as a late adopter to technology that's already in place throughout the country.  We have two of the leading academic transportation centers in the country in this region in Texas A&M and Rice.  I would call for the city and the county to work closely with both of those centers to innovate, not follow.

 

Ironic you say that, because the government subsidized suburbanization, which is a "lifestyle choice." So, with your above argument, are you against all the sprawl which you yourself have benefitted from?

[RedScare]

This even happens on the top level. The Houston Rockets have had trouble for years attracting free agents because players just aren't enamored with Houston. Finally they got James Harden but that was via a trade.

 

This is categorically untrue, but before I actually call it out as an outright fabrication, I will give you the opportunity to post a link to proof of such. Keep in mind that it must be proof that free agents (the ones who buy ferraris and lamborghinis) refused to come to Houston because of our lack of rail transit, not because they like LA or Chicago or Miami better. Remember, your argument is that lack of rail ran them off.

 

You may begin...now.

[Houston19514]

I suggest you read the Wikipedia page, there are numerous other factors that go into the ranking. 

 

I suggest you focus on the GaWC portion of the Wikipedia page (and perhaps read beyond the Wikipedia page).  There are NOT numerous other factors that go into the GaWC ranking. 

[livincinco]

Ironic you say that, because the government subsidized suburbanization, which is a "lifestyle choice." So, with your above argument, are you against all the sprawl which you yourself have benefitted from?

 

I'm very much in favor of massive infrastructure spending, especially if it benefits large segments of the population.  Using the example of the widening of I-10,massive government spending that has spurred extensive development in both Memorial City and the Energy Corridor and has led directly to economic growth for the region and an increase in tax revenue.  That's a win.

 

I'm not as convinced that light rail on Main Street was a win.  The mobility has improved some, but the economic development along the corridor has been marginal.  If you compare it to some of the other projects that the city has undertaken, I don't think it stands out.  For example, I'd argue that the parks initiative, Discovery Green, Market Square Park, etc. has had a much bigger impact/benefit than the rail system has when it comes to allocation of limited financial resources. 

 

The City government has also undertaken an expensive improvement of flood control infrastructure.  I would say that was a better investment than light rail as well.

 

The bottom line is that I'm very much sold on spending large amounts of money to improve mobility in Houston, I'm not nearly as sold that light rail is the right way to spend that money.  It's frequently mentioned on here, that light rail is a 50 year investment and I'm not at all convinced that it will be the preferred method of transit in 50 years.  That's why I think that it is absolutely the responsibility of the city to aggressively investigate the best options for the future.

[kylejack]

Just a guess, but I have a feeling that professional athletes don't factor mass transit into their decision making process when choosing teams.

 

Connor Barwin lived downtown and would ride bike and take rail to Reliant.

[kylejack]

I'm not as convinced that light rail on Main Street was a win.  The mobility has improved some, but the economic development along the corridor has been marginal.  If you compare it to some of the other projects that the city has undertaken, I don't think it stands out.  For example, I'd argue that the parks initiative, Discovery Green, Market Square Park, etc. has had a much bigger impact/benefit than the rail system has when it comes to allocation of limited financial resources.

 

Economic development along the corridor has been significant.

 

Lots of bars and restaurants, large apartment complexes, skyscraper, all kinds of stuff.

[livincinco]

Connor Barwin lived downtown and would ride bike and take rail to Reliant.

 

There's a big difference between using the transit and choosing to sign with a team because of it.  Connor Barwin was drafted by the Texans, he didn't choose to come here.  He chose to sign with Philadelphia this offseason, and I don't recall him mentioning anything at the press conference about the difference in the transit system.

[samagon]

I'm very much in favor of massive infrastructure spending, especially if it benefits large segments of the population.  Using the example of the widening of I-10,massive government spending that has spurred extensive development in both Memorial City and the Energy Corridor and has led directly to economic growth for the region and an increase in tax revenue.  That's a win.

 

I'm not as convinced that light rail on Main Street was a win.  The mobility has improved some, but the economic development along the corridor has been marginal.  If you compare it to some of the other projects that the city has undertaken, I don't think it stands out.  For example, I'd argue that the parks initiative, Discovery Green, Market Square Park, etc. has had a much bigger impact/benefit than the rail system has when it comes to allocation of limited financial resources. 

 

The City government has also undertaken an expensive improvement of flood control infrastructure.  I would say that was a better investment than light rail as well.

 

The bottom line is that I'm very much sold on spending large amounts of money to improve mobility in Houston, I'm not nearly as sold that light rail is the right way to spend that money.  It's frequently mentioned on here, that light rail is a 50 year investment and I'm not at all convinced that it will be the preferred method of transit in 50 years.  That's why I think that it is absolutely the responsibility of the city to aggressively investigate the best options for the future.

 

To be fair, what was the price of the gulf freeway when originally built in 1948-1952? How did that freeway, in its first 10 years of service, drive development along the corridor in the 10 years following completion?

 

You're comparing the expansion of a known quantity in a specific market (long established freeway through the I-10 corridor) to the addition of a brand new quantity in a specific market (light rail down main street).

 

it's an unfair comparison of the expansion of a system that people know what happens with it against a system that is untried in this city.

 

I believe we're just getting to a point where we can quantify the impact the system has, and business can use it as a model, not just as a chance in our market.

 

Only time will tell.

[livincinco]

To be fair, what was the price of the gulf freeway when originally built in 1948-1952? How did that freeway, in its first 10 years of service, drive development along the corridor in the 10 years following completion?

 

You're comparing the expansion of a known quantity in a specific market (long established freeway through the I-10 corridor) to the addition of a brand new quantity in a specific market (light rail down main street).

 

it's an unfair comparison of the expansion of a system that people know what happens with it against a system that is untried in this city.

 

I believe we're just getting to a point where we can quantify the impact the system has, and business can use it as a model, not just as a chance in our market.

 

Only time will tell.

 

That's a fair assessment, although I think that it's also fair to point out that Main Street existed and had a degree of existing development prior to the implementation of light rail.  As a city, Houston is investing in three additional lines to help quantify the return on light rail, but I think that we both agree that there is somewhat of a "leap of faith" involved in that investment.  I do think that it's reasonable to question whether further expenditures are warranted until there is more quantifiable data.

 

There's no question that both Houston and the US in general need to engage in massive infrastructure spending, but I think that there's a lot of room for reasonable discussion about the most effective ways for that money to be spent. 

[Slick Vik]

I'm very much in favor of massive infrastructure spending, especially if it benefits large segments of the population.  Using the example of the widening of I-10,massive government spending that has spurred extensive development in both Memorial City and the Energy Corridor and has led directly to economic growth for the region and an increase in tax revenue.  That's a win.

 

I'm not as convinced that light rail on Main Street was a win.  The mobility has improved some, but the economic development along the corridor has been marginal.  If you compare it to some of the other projects that the city has undertaken, I don't think it stands out.  For example, I'd argue that the parks initiative, Discovery Green, Market Square Park, etc. has had a much bigger impact/benefit than the rail system has when it comes to allocation of limited financial resources. 

 

The City government has also undertaken an expensive improvement of flood control infrastructure.  I would say that was a better investment than light rail as well.

 

The bottom line is that I'm very much sold on spending large amounts of money to improve mobility in Houston, I'm not nearly as sold that light rail is the right way to spend that money.  It's frequently mentioned on here, that light rail is a 50 year investment and I'm not at all convinced that it will be the preferred method of transit in 50 years.  That's why I think that it is absolutely the responsibility of the city to aggressively investigate the best options for the future.

 

If this was 60 years ago, you'd probably be against spending for highways as well, since they were an unproven commodity. The point of public transit is not development along the corridor, which unfortunately it is sold as, but it is to get people from point A to point B in an efficient, economical manner. Driving an automobile at this point in time is 55 cents per mile according to the IRS. An automobile itself is a significant expense in capital. Many of the new roads being built are toll roads, gas prices are much higher than they were ten years ago. What I see here is the Houston stubborn mindset that refuses to open its eyes. If the entire rest of the world sees something is right, are we smart or stupid to not see this?

[samagon]

If this was 60 years ago, you'd probably be against spending for highways as well, since they were an unproven commodity. The point of public transit is not development along the corridor, which unfortunately it is sold as, but it is to get people from point A to point B in an efficient, economical manner. Driving an automobile at this point in time is 55 cents per mile according to the IRS. An automobile itself is a significant expense in capital. Many of the new roads being built are toll roads, gas prices are much higher than they were ten years ago. What I see here is the Houston stubborn mindset that refuses to open its eyes. If the entire rest of the world sees something is right, are we smart or stupid to not see this?

 

56.5 cents this year

 

I'm not sure about the entire world moving on from cars, developing countries, China specifically, is buying more and more cars every year, they are investing heavily in their infrastructure for the automobile.

[Slick Vik]

This is categorically untrue, but before I actually call it out as an outright fabrication, I will give you the opportunity to post a link to proof of such. Keep in mind that it must be proof that free agents (the ones who buy ferraris and lamborghinis) refused to come to Houston because of our lack of rail transit, not because they like LA or Chicago or Miami better. Remember, your argument is that lack of rail ran them off.

 

You may begin...now.

 

I was talking about the attractiveness of the city as a whole to free agents. While rail is probably not a direct reason of this, cities with huge rail systems are usually densely populated, and more interesting cities. New York, Chicago, Washington DC, and Philadelphia come to mind.

[kylejack]

China is also investing half a trillion in rail over the next several years.

[totheskies]

I'm very much in favor of massive infrastructure spending, especially if it benefits large segments of the population.  Using the example of the widening of I-10,massive government spending that has spurred extensive development in both Memorial City and the Energy Corridor and has led directly to economic growth for the region and an increase in tax revenue.  That's a win.

 

I'm not as convinced that light rail on Main Street was a win.  The mobility has improved some, but the economic development along the corridor has been marginal.  If you compare it to some of the other projects that the city has undertaken, I don't think it stands out.  For example, I'd argue that the parks initiative, Discovery Green, Market Square Park, etc. has had a much bigger impact/benefit than the rail system has when it comes to allocation of limited financial resources. 

 

The City government has also undertaken an expensive improvement of flood control infrastructure.  I would say that was a better investment than light rail as well.

 

The bottom line is that I'm very much sold on spending large amounts of money to improve mobility in Houston, I'm not nearly as sold that light rail is the right way to spend that money.  It's frequently mentioned on here, that light rail is a 50 year investment and I'm not at all convinced that it will be the preferred method of transit in 50 years.  That's why I think that it is absolutely the responsibility of the city to aggressively investigate the best options for the future.

 

How can you not be convinced? 

 

Houston is currently a city of 2,160,860 people (as of the 2012 Census estimate) in a metropolitan area that is rapidly approaching 6 million people.  All indications point to continued growth of our city and region that is going to be much faster than most areas in the US.  Between 2011 and 2012, the city limits added 34, 625 people... or 95 people per day.  That's 95 more stresses on our road system.  95 more hinderances for all of the people in traffic which causes just a little longer of a wait for everyone else.  95 more chances of a traffic incident which would cause a significantly longer wait than everyone else.  ALL of these stresses are brought to bear on our roads and our HOV lanes currently. 

 

Sure, we widened the Katy Freeway a few years ago.  How much time did it actually save anyone?  Did it solve all of the issues for I-10 corridor commuters?  No... some would argue that the increased traffic just made it worse.  And of course Katy is currently our newest major corridor.  US 290, and parts of I-45 and US 59 have all those same stresses, plus they're falling apart. 

 

Need we be reminded that there are larger, similarly sprawled urban areas to Houston?  Ones that have fought similar struggles to the ones that we face today... a large land area, lax central organization, spread out development  that is rapidly coalescing into central nodes, massive amounts of urban parkland and the need to preserve it.  If one needed convincing that rail transportation is a necessary component of a metro's development, they need look no further than London.  It's a much more spread-out city than New York, Paris or even LA.  But the city took millenia of disparate development and linked them together through both arterial freeways and a sensible rail system.  There are no shortage of cars in London, but residents have transit options to make sure they can access different points of the city.  Both systems have to work in tandem... it's not an "either or" proposition. 

 

The Houston of 2013 may be getting by without it... hey we're only 6 million people, no big deal.  But before long, we are going to be 7, 8 and 10 million people.  We have to get ahead of these issues and we have to do it now.  Waiting until it's far too late is just unacceptable. 

[kylejack]

One thing is that you can only expand a freeway so far before it gets absurd. Katy Freeway is what, 20 lanes at the widest parts now? How many lanes are you going to have to cross to take that exit?