Rail To Uptown In Time For The Super Bowl?

[RedScare]

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.

 

Do you realize that rail was built in those cities because they are very densely populated, not the other way around? You seem to believe rail caused the density. I recommend that you read up on the settlement patterns of American cities pre- and post-World War II. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of why cities developed the way they did.

 

 

By the way, it is good to see that you retracted your statement about free agents. It was rather silly to think that pro athletes don't come here because of rail. They follow the benjamins, not rail.

[RedScare]

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. 

 

This is the most salient point out of all 6 pages. Putting aside those posters who think athletes care about rail, and those who think rail is a waste of money, and all of the other silly arguments for and against rail, the above point is the core of the issue. We have gotten by without rail so far, given the cities layout and density. But, it won't work forever. There are in fact people working on these issues. We will gain more rail in time, but it is likely to be rail that serves the suburbs, as that is where the problems will be. Inner loop traffic is not bad, and generally will not be fixed by rail. Suburban traffic is bad and only getting worse.

[Slick Vik]

This is the most salient point out of all 6 pages. Putting aside those posters who think athletes care about rail, and those who think rail is a waste of money, and all of the other silly arguments for and against rail, the above point is the core of the issue. We have gotten by without rail so far, given the cities layout and density. But, it won't work forever. There are in fact people working on these issues. We will gain more rail in time, but it is likely to be rail that serves the suburbs, as that is where the problems will be. Inner loop traffic is not bad, and generally will not be fixed by rail. Suburban traffic is bad and only getting worse.

 

Don't you think it should be a mix of inner loop and suburban rail? Otherwise we would end up like Dallas which has rail into the suburbs but low ridership for the amount of miles built. We have a phony version of commuter rail with metro park and ride already but that ridership is only 38,000 a day for a billion dollars of right of way expenditure.

[august948]

Don't you think it should be a mix of inner loop and suburban rail? Otherwise we would end up like Dallas which has rail into the suburbs but low ridership for the amount of miles built. We have a phony version of commuter rail with metro park and ride already but that ridership is only 38,000 a day for a billion dollars of right of way expenditure.

 

Were those billions (2.2 billion as I understand it) just for the expansion of right of way for park and ride?  Funny, I travel I-10 all the time and I get the impression that those additional lanes were accessible to cars and trucks as well.  It would be more accurate to express it as 2.2 billion for multi-modal improvements.

[august948]

Economic development along the corridor has been significant.

 

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

 

Economic development along I10 has also been significant, moreso I'd guess than what's happened along the red line.

[august948]

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?

 

It's actually not that bad.  With 10 lanes to a side, 2 are seperated as HOV/toll and 3 are actually the feeder road.  That leaves only 5 lanes for regular through traffic.  By comparison Westheimer is 4 lanes wide outside the loop.  I rarely have trouble crossing from the inside lane to an exit I want to take.

[august948]

Don't you think it should be a mix of inner loop and suburban rail? Otherwise we would end up like Dallas which has rail into the suburbs but low ridership for the amount of miles built. We have a phony version of commuter rail with metro park and ride already but that ridership is only 38,000 a day for a billion dollars of right of way expenditure.

 

Ask some Dallas suburbanites why they don't take the train.  I'd guess they'll tell you it's not flexible enough and takes too long.  Unless you live on line and are going to a destination near the line it's going to take additional connections to make your trip.  If it takes 45 mins by car but an hour and a half by transit, most people are going to drive.

[kylejack]

Economic development along I10 has also been significant, moreso I'd guess than what's happened along the red line.

 

Well, I would expect there to be more development along a highway that is 2,460 miles long.

 

I wouldn't describe development along the rail corridor as "marginal", however, and I don't think running 20 lanes down the place where Red Line lies right now would be sound planning.

[kylejack]

It's actually not that bad.  With 10 lanes to a side, 2 are seperated as HOV/toll and 3 are actually the feeder road.  That leaves only 5 lanes for regular through traffic.  By comparison Westheimer is 4 lanes wide outside the loop.  I rarely have trouble crossing from the inside lane to an exit I want to take.

 

But we're not talking about the status quo, we're talking about continual expansion of the freeways instead of looking into some other alternatives to share the burden.

[august948]

But we're not talking about the status quo, we're talking about continual expansion of the freeways instead of looking into some other alternatives to share the burden.

 

At only 5 lanes for regular through traffic, I'd say there's more expansion that could be done.  Problem on I-10 is they've pretty much used up the existing ROW and would have to take additional property from numerous owners along the way.  Non-rush hour, though, I-10 is a breeze.  The problems only come during rush hour and until someone comes up with a more flexible system than the personal auto to get people from point a to point b more lanes is going to be the natural solution.  As for alternate flexible systems, I'd put bus up near the personal auto because at least it can be rerouted without a 10 year billion dollar project.  Until you can solve the transit time problem, though, you might as well keep building lanes because only a minority of people are going to choose transit for the commute.  Those who advocate reduced spending on highways are essentially trying to solve the transit time problem by causing the travel time for personal vehicles to go up to a point where mass transit is more competitive.  I don't think this is the right way to solve the problem.

[kylejack]

At only 5 lanes for regular through traffic, I'd say there's more expansion that could be done.  Problem on I-10 is they've pretty much used up the existing ROW and would have to take additional property from numerous owners along the way.

 

They had to take a lot of property for the last expansion, and I'm sure the dealerships and etc won't take kindly to another 40 feet or whatever.

 

 

As for alternate flexible systems, I'd put bus up near the personal auto because at least it can be rerouted without a 10 year billion dollar project.  Until you can solve the transit time problem, though, you might as well keep building lanes because only a minority of people are going to choose transit for the commute.

 

I think I missed why it is that we need a majority to ride transit for it to be a worthwhile endeavor. Why would that be?

[august948]

They had to take a lot of property for the last expansion, and I'm sure the dealerships and etc won't take kindly to another 40 feet or whatever.

 

 

 

I think I missed why it is that we need a majority to ride transit for it to be a worthwhile endeavor. Why would that be?

 

I suspect you are correct, so even though I10 could theoretically be expanded further as a practical and political matter it probably won't happen.

 

As I see it, the main problem we have is rush hour traffic.  That's why I think the city's priorities are backward in trying to develop more transit options inside the loop.  That's not where the worst transit problems are.  As it stands now, there is already extensive bus service inside the loop and pretty good service out to the limits of the Metro service area as well.  To mitigate the rush hour problem you either need more lanes or more use of rapid mass transit to employment centers.  Or you need to distribute the employment out to the suburbs (a trend that's already happening) and away from the inner core.

[Slick Vik]

I suspect you are correct, so even though I10 could theoretically be expanded further as a practical and political matter it probably won't happen.

 

As I see it, the main problem we have is rush hour traffic.  That's why I think the city's priorities are backward in trying to develop more transit options inside the loop.  That's not where the worst transit problems are.  As it stands now, there is already extensive bus service inside the loop and pretty good service out to the limits of the Metro service area as well.  To mitigate the rush hour problem you either need more lanes or more use of rapid mass transit to employment centers.  Or you need to distribute the employment out to the suburbs (a trend that's already happening) and away from the inner core.

 

Well, university line would have connected two more employment centers in Galleria and Greenway plaza.

 

And again a suburban feeder system already exists in p&r, a commuter rail would probably get increased ridership somewhat, but you need an inner city system as well to get around once you get into the city.

 

And the suburbs voted to not end the 25% GMP payments so they have only themselves to blame that transit improvements are not coming their way.

[Slick Vik]

Ask some Dallas suburbanites why they don't take the train.  I'd guess they'll tell you it's not flexible enough and takes too long.  Unless you live on line and are going to a destination near the line it's going to take additional connections to make your trip.  If it takes 45 mins by car but an hour and a half by transit, most people are going to drive.

 

I have, they are stubborn. They'd rather sit in hellacious traffic instead of taking a train, it's just not part of the mindset here.

Were those billions (2.2 billion as I understand it) just for the expansion of right of way for park and ride?  Funny, I travel I-10 all the time and I get the impression that those additional lanes were accessible to cars and trucks as well.  It would be more accurate to express it as 2.2 billion for multi-modal improvements.

 

Traveling by road is ONE mode.

[Slick Vik]

At only 5 lanes for regular through traffic, I'd say there's more expansion that could be done.  Problem on I-10 is they've pretty much used up the existing ROW and would have to take additional property from numerous owners along the way.  Non-rush hour, though, I-10 is a breeze.  The problems only come during rush hour and until someone comes up with a more flexible system than the personal auto to get people from point a to point b more lanes is going to be the natural solution.  As for alternate flexible systems, I'd put bus up near the personal auto because at least it can be rerouted without a 10 year billion dollar project.  Until you can solve the transit time problem, though, you might as well keep building lanes because only a minority of people are going to choose transit for the commute.  Those who advocate reduced spending on highways are essentially trying to solve the transit time problem by causing the travel time for personal vehicles to go up to a point where mass transit is more competitive.  I don't think this is the right way to solve the problem.

 

The city has tried your solution for the last 60 years, and it hasn't stopped rush hour traffic at all. When will you admit that expanding roads is not the only solution?

 

Also those who advocate reduced spending on highways also have other reasons. I advise you to see what's happened in Seoul after a freeway was torn down downtown, and see how Vancouver's insistence on not building highways downtown have made it a dynamic place. The more highway you have, the more the city is ruined, if you even care about that.

[kylejack]

That's disingenuous Vick, rush hour traffic will never stop. That's the whole point of a rush hour, lots of people are trying to get home. Highway expansions have alleviated traffic  problems, such as the major problems on I-10 circa 2001.

[Slick Vik]

That's disingenuous Vick, rush hour traffic will never stop. That's the whole point of a rush hour, lots of people are trying to get home. Highway expansions have alleviated traffic  problems, such as the major problems on I-10 circa 2001.

 

So how come it's okay to spend billions on highways to help alleviate congestion but not on light and commuter rail which would also help the problem, if neither can fully solve it?

[samagon]

It's actually not that bad.  With 10 lanes to a side, 2 are seperated as HOV/toll and 3 are actually the feeder road.  That leaves only 5 lanes for regular through traffic.  By comparison Westheimer is 4 lanes wide outside the loop.  I rarely have trouble crossing from the inside lane to an exit I want to take.

 

It makes for a fun challenge too, see how long you can stay in the center most lane before you get to your exit, then bolt over at the last second leaving not only everyone that has been sitting behind you going 5 mph under the speed limit (and incidentally slumped over on their horn) in the left lane, but everyone in the other lanes will instantaneously slump over on their horns too.

 

Coincidentally, the same game can be played on the rail, sit as far away from an exit as possible and wait until the last second to jump out of your chair and run for the exit. This is especially fun when the cars are full.

 

I've never personally participated in either of these games, but I see people playing them all the time, and they appear to like the challenge.

[kylejack]

So how come it's okay to spend billions on highways to help alleviate congestion but not on light and commuter rail which would also help the problem, if neither can fully solve it?

 

It's okay to spend on both, and we are.

[Slick Vik]

It's okay to spend on both, and we are.

 

The percentages in comparison are drastic. Also TXDOT doesn't seem to pay much attention to rail funding.

[august948]

I have, they are stubborn. They'd rather sit in hellacious traffic instead of taking a train, it's just not part of the mindset here.

Seriously? You've talked to a lot of Dallas commuters and they all claimed stubbornness as the reason they don't take the train? Nobody mentioned they prefer the flexibility of driving? Nobody mentioned it takes longer for the whole trip? Nobody even mentioned they don't like sitting near strangers. They ALL claimed stubbornness?

Traveling by road is ONE mode.

Traveling by private auto is one mode and traveling by bus is another mode. TWO modes using a single infrastructure. See how flexible that is? The only way you'll get that on rail is if you happen to have one of these...

[kylejack]

Traveling by private auto is one mode and traveling by bus is another mode. TWO modes using a single infrastructure. See how flexible that is? The only way you'll get that on rail is if you happen to have one of these...

 

Sometimes I travel on rail by foot, and sometimes I travel on rail by bus.

[Slick Vik]

Seriously? You've talked to a lot of Dallas commuters and they all claimed stubbornness as the reason they don't take the train? Nobody mentioned they prefer the flexibility of driving? Nobody mentioned it takes longer for the whole trip? Nobody even mentioned they don't like sitting near strangers. They ALL claimed stubbornness?

Traveling by private auto is one mode and traveling by bus is another mode. TWO modes using a single infrastructure. See how flexible that is? The only way you'll get that on rail is if you happen to have one of these...

They are used to their way of doing things and don't want to change. The busway to me is one mode of travel either way you're going by road.

[RedScare]

How many Dallas commuters were included in your transit survey?

[Houston19514]

So how come it's okay to spend billions on highways to help alleviate congestion but not on light and commuter rail which would also help the problem, if neither can fully solve it?

 

Because rail projects generally don't help to alleviate congestion enough to even move the needle.  There are a number of (at least arguably) good reasons to build rail transit.  Alleviating congestion is one of the weaker arguments.

[livincinco]

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?

Spending for highways was designed to support the state of the art transportation at the time and the interstate highway system was a visionary accomplishment that has defined the economic growth of the United States over the last 50 years. It enabled interstate commerce at a level that had never been seen before.

Building rail is not that kind of project. It's old technology. It's effective in places where existing infrastructure could be leveraged and/or systems were put in at the point that it was current technology and then expanded. It's an entirely different conversation when you have to build all of that infrastructure from scratch. Low density US cities that have built from scratch, such as Dallas, have had really questionable results.

Yes, I know that you're going to once again bemoan that the rails were torn out years ago. If they were still here, it might make more sense, but they aren't. The costs to rebuild them are real.

I'm kind of surprised to hear that you're an actuary, because I would expect an actuary to be much more cognizant of the costs involved in projects like this.

[livincinco]

So how come it's okay to spend billions on highways to help alleviate congestion but not on light and commuter rail which would also help the problem, if neither can fully solve it?

Highways have a number of advantages that rail does not. Highways can be used for either individual or mass transit. They connect to a vast network of feeder roads which can be accessed seamlessly by the same vehicles. They can be utilized for moving cargo for both short and long distances. There is a huge amount of existing highway that is accessible to the forms of transit described above.

Light and commuter rail can only be used for station to station transit. It is not capable of providing point to point transportation without the reliance on other forms of transit. It cannot carry freight.

[mfastx]

Spending for highways was designed to support the state of the art transportation at the time and the interstate highway system was a visionary accomplishment that has defined the economic growth of the United States over the last 50 years. It enabled interstate commerce at a level that had never been seen before.

Building rail is not that kind of project. It's old technology. It's effective in places where existing infrastructure could be leveraged and/or systems were put in at the point that it was current technology and then expanded. It's an entirely different conversation when you have to build all of that infrastructure from scratch. Low density US cities that have built from scratch, such as Dallas, have had really questionable results.

Yes, I know that you're going to once again bemoan that the rails were torn out years ago. If they were still here, it might make more sense, but they aren't. The costs to rebuild them are real.

I'm kind of surprised to hear that you're an actuary, because I would expect an actuary to be much more cognizant of the costs involved in projects like this.

 

I'm going to have to disagree here and say that building inter-city HSR is most certainly that kind of project in many respects. 

 

And low density cities have to pick their spots with rail, in Houston, for example, rail is really only feasible in certain corridors within the city.  If it were up to me, I'd have a line connecting  both airports to downtown, then one connecting downtown, Greenway Plaza, and the Galleria.  Perhaps a stub for the TMC.  That's about it honestly, I don't think that it's worth it to build rail anywhere else. 

[livincinco]

I'm going to have to disagree here and say that building inter-city HSR is most certainly that kind of project in many respects.

And low density cities have to pick their spots with rail, in Houston, for example, rail is really only feasible in certain corridors within the city. If it were up to me, I'd have a line connecting both airports to downtown, then one connecting downtown, Greenway Plaza, and the Galleria. Perhaps a stub for the TMC. That's about it honestly, I don't think that it's worth it to build rail anywhere else.

I think that inter city high speed rail makes a lot of sense in that 200-500 mile range where it can be competitive or advantageous to flight times. The Texas triangle is a good example.

[Slick Vik]

Spending for highways was designed to support the state of the art transportation at the time and the interstate highway system was a visionary accomplishment that has defined the economic growth of the United States over the last 50 years. It enabled interstate commerce at a level that had never been seen before.

Building rail is not that kind of project. It's old technology. It's effective in places where existing infrastructure could be leveraged and/or systems were put in at the point that it was current technology and then expanded. It's an entirely different conversation when you have to build all of that infrastructure from scratch. Low density US cities that have built from scratch, such as Dallas, have had really questionable results.

Yes, I know that you're going to once again bemoan that the rails were torn out years ago. If they were still here, it might make more sense, but they aren't. The costs to rebuild them are real.

I'm kind of surprised to hear that you're an actuary, because I would expect an actuary to be much more cognizant of the costs involved in projects like this.

Interstate highways were built for evacuation and defense purposes not economics. I'm sure that many people against high speed rail today would be just as against interstate highways at that time.