Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
livincinco

Robert Moses and New York

Recommended Posts

I am not retracting my statement. Comparing a short paper to a book that was thoroughly researched and is lauded as one of the best books ever written is like comparing Matt Maloney to Michael Jordan. Again, please read the book so we can have a proper discussion on Robert Moses.

 

Secondly, Robert Moses is the reason the Dodgers, and thus the Giants left. There is no oversimplification here. O'Malley wanted the stadium at the location that the Barclays center is at now, because of its location, numerous subway lines stop there and the LIRR as well, but Moses refused to budge and wanted it where Shea Stadium ended up becoming. Years and years of not budging one but left O'Malley with no choice but to pack up and move. He didn't want to. Go read up on the history.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You're still missing the point.  You said that no halfway knowledgeable person disagreed.  You are therefore claiming that anyone that disagrees is not halfway knowledgeable about New York.  The author of that piece is clearly knowledgeable about New York and has critiqued several shortcomings that he found in the book.  That presents room for disagreement and refutes your statement that no halfway knowledgeable person disagreed.

 

The Power Broker is widely recognized as an extremely fine biography, but recognizing that does not mean that you accept every aspect of that book as being completely factual.  The author of this paper has chosen a particular aspect of The Power Broker and does not agree with the conclusions that the author of the book arrived at.  That's a legitimate topic of discussion.

 

Regarding the Dodgers, Moses refused to allow O'Malley to build on the location that O'Malley wanted to build on.  O'Malley then chose to move to Los Angeles because LA offered to build him a stadium in the location that he wanted.  O'Malley didn't have a choice to build the stadium where he wanted, but he always had a choice whether or not to move.  That determination was made strictly by the opportunities that the move presented vs. staying at Ebbets Field.

 

History is rarely as black and white as you would like to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to believe that in addition to the stadium issues that o'mally saw the potential of being the only team in town vs having to compete in the market against 2 other teams. At that time, there were no angels in Anaheim, or angels in Los Angeles that played in Anaheim, either way, no one was playing baseball in Anaheim, either for LA, or Anaheim. As well, when the Giants moved to SF, there was no one of athletic inclination in Oakland, Oakland didn't become an athletic city until 1968.

 

So they both moved from a multi city market into a captive market.

 

Anyway, I am sure that these reasons had a big influence on the decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point.  The population of the city of Los Angeles was comparable in size to the population of Brooklyn, but the population of Los Angeles was increasing rapidly at that time and the population of Brooklyn was decreasing (and was getting poorer).  They also had full access to the surrounding metro unlike in New York.

 

That's reflected in the Dodgers attendance numbers.  During the 1950's, the highest attendance that they had in Brooklyn was slightly under 1.3 million (1951) despite having a really competitive team for that entire period.  Their first year in LA, they drew over 1.8 million and attendance increased for the next five years until they drew over 2.7 million in 1962.

 

The other thing to consider is that O'Malley got an amazing deal from the city of LA.   He got a huge amount of land (over 300 acres) in Chavez Ravine as part of the deal and that land is still owned by the team.  It's a big part of the reason that the team has such a high valuation. 

Edited by livincinco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my post from the other thread...

 

"You say this as if it were a bad thing. By moving to Los Angeles, the Dodgers ended up becoming one of the most successful franchises in all of sports. You make it sound like being one of the most valuable teams in sports is terrible. 

 

Your value system makes no sense whatsoever. You think capitalism is bad. You think liberty is bad. You think everything except subways and tenements is bad. I want nothing of whatever you like.

 

And, I actually LIKE mass transit. I just don't like the communist version that you are pushing. I don't think the US was founded on forcing people to sell their cars and get on a train."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not retracting my statement. Comparing a short paper to a book that was thoroughly researched and is lauded as one of the best books ever written is like comparing Matt Maloney to Michael Jordan. Again, please read the book so we can have a proper discussion on Robert Moses.

 

Secondly, Robert Moses is the reason the Dodgers, and thus the Giants left. There is no oversimplification here. O'Malley wanted the stadium at the location that the Barclays center is at now, because of its location, numerous subway lines stop there and the LIRR as well, but Moses refused to budge and wanted it where Shea Stadium ended up becoming. Years and years of not budging one but left O'Malley with no choice but to pack up and move. He didn't want to. Go read up on the history.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You're still missing the point.  You said that no halfway knowledgeable person disagreed.  You are therefore claiming that anyone that disagrees is not halfway knowledgeable about New York.  The author of that piece is clearly knowledgeable about New York and has critiqued several shortcomings that he found in the book.  That presents room for disagreement and refutes your statement that no halfway knowledgeable person disagreed.

 

The Power Broker is widely recognized as an extremely fine biography, but recognizing that does not mean that you accept every aspect of that book as being completely factual.  The author of this paper has chosen a particular aspect of The Power Broker and does not agree with the conclusions that the author of the book arrived at.  That's a legitimate topic of discussion.

 

Regarding the Dodgers, Moses refused to allow O'Malley to build on the location that O'Malley wanted to build on.  O'Malley then chose to move to Los Angeles because LA offered to build him a stadium in the location that he wanted.  O'Malley didn't have a choice to build the stadium where he wanted, but he always had a choice whether or not to move.  That determination was made strictly by the opportunities that the move presented vs. staying at Ebbets Field.

 

History is rarely as black and white as you would like to make it.

 

Regarding the Dodgers, Moses refused to allow O'Malley to build on ANY location besides the one that ended up becoming Shea Stadium. O'Malley had a genius idea of building at the location of which is now Barclays Center. Numerous subway lines stop there as well as LIRR. That is some of the best real estate in all of NYC. If Moses gave in, Dodgers would have stayed in Brooklyn, at least stayed for a period of time.

 

Ebbets Field was falling apart and not a feasible place to play anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point.  The population of the city of Los Angeles was comparable in size to the population of Brooklyn, but the population of Los Angeles was increasing rapidly at that time and the population of Brooklyn was decreasing (and was getting poorer).  They also had full access to the surrounding metro unlike in New York.

 

That's reflected in the Dodgers attendance numbers.  During the 1950's, the highest attendance that they had in Brooklyn was slightly under 1.3 million (1951) despite having a really competitive team for that entire period.  Their first year in LA, they drew over 1.8 million and attendance increased for the next five years until they drew over 2.7 million in 1962.

 

The other thing to consider is that O'Malley got an amazing deal from the city of LA.   He got a huge amount of land (over 300 acres) in Chavez Ravine as part of the deal and that land is still owned by the team.  It's a big part of the reason that the team has such a high valuation. 

 

The location of what is now Barclays is/was a stop for numerous subway lines and also the Long Island Rail Road. So the fans that moved out of Brooklyn to Long Island could still very easily go to games, as well as many other people in New York City. That being said it worked out for the franchise but O'Malley did not want to leave, he left because he felt he had no choice. He was a New Yorker through and through. He gets a lot of hate for leaving but the real guy to blame in this case is Moses, who was as rigid a person as there was. He ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the scariest thing about Moses is the things he WANTED to do but wasn't able to.

 

The cross bronx expressway destroyed the bronx. Also he destroyed many nice areas up until westchester. He wanted to widen the Pelham Parkway and destroy more greenspace as a result as well. The Whitestone and Verrazano Bridges were designed to carry a mass transit line but Moses was against that.  At the beginning of the 1960s, he had a highway similar to the Cross-Bronx, known as the Bushwick Expressway, on the planning boards. He wanted to build an expressway from Long Island to Connecticut. He wanted an expressway to go straight through Brooklyn Heights. He wanted to run 5h avenue right through Washington Square Park, and a freeway through lower manhattan!

 

He was also a racist, he had bridges designed in a way which were built over the parkway had very low clearance to prevent mass transport -- buses -- bringing loads of city people to the beaches and parks. He refused to build parks and playgrounds in Harlem. He refused to clean Riverside Park above 125th street.

Basically he was someone who cared nothing about anyone else, and to me this is basically an evil person. Rest in hell Robert Moses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's more

 

For pools in East Harlem where he wanted to encourage white attendence, Moses reportedly authorized that the temperature of the water made colder -- because black people disliked cold water.

 

BRIDGE TO NOWHERE: Moses with a model of his Brooklyn Battery Bridge, which would have cut straight over New York Harbor, linking Battery Park with Red Hook, Brooklyn. To build this monstrosity would require turning Governor's Island into a gigantic anchorage and eradicating the New York Aquarium, housed in historic Castle Clinton.
 

Moses got his revenge -- on the New York Aquarium. He ripped it out of Castle Clinton and threw it out on Coney Island.
 

HIGHWAY CITY: Had Moses's ideas come to full fruition, an elevated highway would have cut through lower Manhattan at Broome Street, a mid-Manhattan version would have landed onto 30th Street, and the culture of Harlem's 125th Street would have been eliminated by a Cross Harlem Expressway. The two uptown extensions died quickly, but Moses was so close to making LoMaX (the Lower Manhattan Expressway) that one segment, at Chrystie Street, was actually built and abandoned.
 

SCANDAL: The drab structures at Park West Village belie the scandal of Manhattantown, a proposed development exposed as an elaborate development scam spawned from the federal government Slum Clearance Program -- a program overseen by Moses in New York.
 

http://theboweryboys.blogspot.com/2010/03/robert-moses-did-he-save-new-york-or.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to defend Robert Moses.  I'm just trying to bring the conversation back to a rational level.  Walter O'Malley wasn't exactly a saint either, by the way, so the portrait of poor Walter getting exploited by Robert Moses just doesn't fly.  Walter had one heck of an offer from LA, and I have no doubt that he was pushing hard for Brooklyn to match or exceed that offer.

 

I think that it's also very fair to allow Mr. Moses to defend the process is his own words as conveyed to Sports Illustrated in 1957.  Slick, I know that your mind is made up, but others might think that it's interesting.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1133383/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to defend Robert Moses.  I'm just trying to bring the conversation back to a rational level.  Walter O'Malley wasn't exactly a saint either, by the way, so the portrait of poor Walter getting exploited by Robert Moses just doesn't fly.  Walter had one heck of an offer from LA, and I have no doubt that he was pushing hard for Brooklyn to match or exceed that offer.

 

I think that it's also very fair to allow Mr. Moses to defend the process is his own words as conveyed to Sports Illustrated in 1957.  Slick, I know that your mind is made up, but others might think that it's interesting.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1133383/

 

I'm not sure about the part about having Brooklyn match the offer. I think if he got his stadium he would have stayed. Also wasn't it many years of arguing with Moses before he even got the LA offer? Either way yes he probably wasn't a saint himself but it was good that in the end Moses finally got the rightful blame insead of O'Malley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the scariest thing about Moses is the things he WANTED to do but wasn't able to.

 

The cross bronx expressway destroyed the bronx. Also he destroyed many nice areas up until westchester. He wanted to widen the Pelham Parkway and destroy more greenspace as a result as well. The Whitestone and Verrazano Bridges were designed to carry a mass transit line but Moses was against that.  At the beginning of the 1960s, he had a highway similar to the Cross-Bronx, known as the Bushwick Expressway, on the planning boards. He wanted to build an expressway from Long Island to Connecticut. He wanted an expressway to go straight through Brooklyn Heights. He wanted to run 5h avenue right through Washington Square Park, and a freeway through lower manhattan!

 

He was also a racist, he had bridges designed in a way which were built over the parkway had very low clearance to prevent mass transport -- buses -- bringing loads of city people to the beaches and parks. He refused to build parks and playgrounds in Harlem. He refused to clean Riverside Park above 125th street.

Basically he was someone who cared nothing about anyone else, and to me this is basically an evil person. Rest in hell Robert Moses.

 

and the result is that even though you have a massive transit system in New York, you have horribly long commutes and some of (if not) the worst traffic congestion in the country.  I know you love rapid transit, but it hasn't exactly fixed the traffic issues of New York.  You might want to give some thought to the fact that maybe Robert Moses recognized that.

 

The other thing that I've noticed you never consider in these conversations is freight.  One of the major purposes of the highway system is to carry freight and the Cross Bronx Expressway is a vital freight corridor into New York.  By contrast, one of the major drawbacks of rail is the difficulty of running freight and passenger on the same infrastructure.  For all realistic purposes, they have to run on separate lines.

 

In 1950, the city of New York had a population of almost 8 million people and the overwhelming percentage of food, materials, etc. comes from outside the city.  Any discussion of transportation systems has to include how those items are moved to a final destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about the part about having Brooklyn match the offer. I think if he got his stadium he would have stayed. Also wasn't it many years of arguing with Moses before he even got the LA offer? Either way yes he probably wasn't a saint himself but it was good that in the end Moses finally got the rightful blame insead of O'Malley.

 

Get real.  How many times in the last twenty years have we heard about owners claiming that they're going to move unless they get a new stadium?  It's happening right now in Sacramento.  Look at the population growth rate from the 1920's to the 1950's in California.  Every owner in baseball was evaluating that move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the result is that even though you have a massive transit system in New York, you have horribly long commutes and some of (if not) the worst traffic congestion in the country.  I know you love rapid transit, but it hasn't exactly fixed the traffic issues of New York.  You might want to give some thought to the fact that maybe Robert Moses recognized that.

 

The other thing that I've noticed you never consider in these conversations is freight.  One of the major purposes of the highway system is to carry freight and the Cross Bronx Expressway is a vital freight corridor into New York.  By contrast, one of the major drawbacks of rail is the difficulty of running freight and passenger on the same infrastructure.  For all realistic purposes, they have to run on separate lines.

 

In 1950, the city of New York had a population of almost 8 million people and the overwhelming percentage of food, materials, etc. comes from outside the city.  Any discussion of transportation systems has to include how those items are moved to a final destination.

 

You also have the highest property values in the country and the best public transportation system. Also is a commute on a train as bad as a commute in a car? I guess it's subjective but to me a system where you can go anywhere within the city for $112 isn't a bad deal.

 

I'm sorry but any defense of Robert Moses is unacceptable to me. We can argue about transit and agree to disagree and even once in a while agree but Moses to me was an evil person.

 

Robert Moses was full of himself and had dreams of grandeur that were borderline scary. Thank god people like Jane Jacobs and Eleanor Roosevelt stood up to him or he would've destroyed New York.

 

I'll admit I don't talk about freight but it's not what comes to mind either when I or others think of Moses. He was a megalomanic who disenfranchised millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get real.  How many times in the last twenty years have we heard about owners claiming that they're going to move unless they get a new stadium?  It's happening right now in Sacramento.  Look at the population growth rate from the 1920's to the 1950's in California.  Every owner in baseball was evaluating that move. 

 

I understand it would've set a bad precedent, but that precedent took hold anyway.

 

Also, Moses's idea of Shea Stadium was laughable as an alternative. That place was a dump (literally). Moses had his own ideas and I think O'Malley has been vindicated with the construction of Barclays Center. That location made sense then, and still does now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have the highest property values in the country and the best public transportation system.

 

In another thread, you chastised us for not being more considerate of the poor. Now, I ask you, what does having the highest property values in the country do for the poor who cannot afford them? You are extraordinarily inconsistent in your concern for the poor and your lack of concern for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it would've set a bad precedent, but that precedent took hold anyway.

 

Also, Moses's idea of Shea Stadium was laughable as an alternative. That place was a dump (literally). Moses had his own ideas and I think O'Malley has been vindicated with the construction of Barclays Center. That location made sense then, and still does now.

 

It wasn't the precedent.  The Boston Braves relocated to Milwaukee in 1953 and the St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore in 1954.  The Philadelphia A's moved to Kansas City in 1955.

 

How can you say that the idea of Shea Stadium was laughable when a facility broke ground in 1961 with a major league team already committed to it, yet O'Malley's location is considered vindicated because a basketball stadium broke ground there 50 years later?

 

That is just laughably biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't the precedent. The Boston Braves relocated to Milwaukee in 1953 and the St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore in 1954. The Philadelphia A's moved to Kansas City in 1955.

How can you say that the idea of Shea Stadium was laughable when a facility broke ground in 1961 with a major league team already committed to it, yet O'Malley's location is considered vindicated because a basketball stadium broke ground there 50 years later?

That is just laughably biased.

Because Shea stadium was a total joke and was built because of Moses while people still saw what o'malley saw 50 years later and built a stadium which has the best location of any in the country and possibly the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard that. But, I HAVE heard that Dodger Stadium is STILL one of the best in the world, 50 years after it was built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Shea stadium was a total joke and was built because of Moses while people still saw what o'malley saw 50 years later and built a stadium which has the best location of any in the country and possibly the world.

 

You don't get out much do you?  The terms "Brooklyn" and "best location in the country and possibly the world" should not be used in the same sentence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard that. But, I HAVE heard that Dodger Stadium is STILL one of the best in the world, 50 years after it was built.

 

I've been to most of the major baseball stadiums in the US and yes, Dodger Stadium is still top tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't get out much do you? The terms "Brooklyn" and "best location in the country and possibly the world" should not be used in the same sentence.

I meant from a practical perspective. As far as getting out I probably go to more countries in a year than you will in your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard that. But, I HAVE heard that Dodger Stadium is STILL one of the best in the world, 50 years after it was built.

It's a nice stadium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant from a practical perspective. As far as getting out I probably go to more countries in a year than you will in your life.

Well, then you might try opening your eyes a little more. As to my international travel, I can assure you that your statement is very much incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then you might try opening your eyes a little more. As to my international travel, I can assure you that your statement is very much incorrect.

I can say the same for you, though I give you some credit for your support of subways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant from a practical perspective. As far as getting out I probably go to more countries in a year than you will in your life.

 

Perhaps that is your problem. You seem to keep trying to compare the wealthiest country in the world to 3rd world hellholes. You fail to realize that we are not those countries, and, more importantly, we do not want to be those countries. Further, we do not even wish to be New York, here in our own country. You make remarks about Houston and its residents, thinking you will shame us. You don't. There is no shame in being the most economically thriving city in the United States. 

 

While you are complaining that we are not more like New York and Chicago, they are crying that they are not more like Houston!

 

:lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that is your problem. You seem to keep trying to compare the wealthiest country in the world to 3rd world hellholes. You fail to realize that we are not those countries, and, more importantly, we do not want to be those countries. Further, we do not even wish to be New York, here in our own country. You make remarks about Houston and its residents, thinking you will shame us. You don't. There is no shame in being the most economically thriving city in the United States.

While you are complaining that we are not more like New York and Chicago, they are crying that they are not more like Houston!

:lol:

Western Europe is not a third world hellhole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Western Europe is not a third world hellhole.

No, but it is significantly different enough to make the comparison pointless. I would suggest Madrid as a reasonably good comparison with Houston and I think Madrid reflects many of the transit ideals that you would like to see here.

Both are comparable in terms of the population of the metro - Houston is 6.2 million and Madrid is 6.3 million. Houston has a city population of 2.1 million and Madrid has a city population of 3.2 million.

It gets really different when you start talking about density though. Houston has its 2.1 million in 600 sq miles for a density of approx. 3200/sq mile. If you drop that down to just inside the loop Houston has approx. 500k people in a 94 sq mile area - a density of approx. 5000/sq mile. If you look exclusively at Midtown, the density gets up to about 8500/sq mile.

By comparison the entire city of Madrid has a density of approx 14,000/sq mile covering an area of 233 sq miles. That's about 3 times the current density of Houston inside the loop and almost double the density of Midtown - over an area that's 2 1/2 times the size of the area inside the loop.

For Houston to achieve those levels of density inside the loop, we would need to add 900,000 residents. During the last ten years of economic prosperity, we added 50,000 and that's using the most lenient numbers.

So my point is that the European comparison is irrelevant to any conversation about transit in Houston for the following reasons:

- Density in a city such as Madrid is at such a completely different scale than Houston that nothing close to it is going to be acheived in Houston within the next 50 years or even longer. Even the most dense parts of Houston are not likely to achieve average density for a European city in the near future.

- Older European cities have achieved this density due to constraints that don't exist in Texas. City walls, roads that were constructed before automobiles, historical residences with smaller footprints than exist in any new construction.

- European roads do not extend into city centers, but this is due to the historical constraints of old cities, not due to urban planning.

There's no reason to believe that Houston will achieve anything close to this level of density because of the lack of constraints discussed above and it just doesn't make any sense to compare them as a result. Houston and the other "new" cities in the US are just fundamentally different than European cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually though, Melbourne might be the most interesting comparison that I've seen. Similar in population and density, without the constraints of old cities and in a country that is aggressively pro-public transit and working to reduce carbon footprint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne

Melbourne grew in a similar pattern to Houston, but built an extensive transportation network. It's been called, the world's most livable city multiple times, but it has extensive issues with sprawl, commute times that average about 35 minutes each direction and it is having significant problems with low usage of the transportation network.

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but it is significantly different enough to make the comparison pointless. I would suggest Madrid as a reasonably good comparison with Houston and I think Madrid reflects many of the transit ideals that you would like to see here.

Both are comparable in terms of the population of the metro - Houston is 6.2 million and Madrid is 6.3 million. Houston has a city population of 2.1 million and Madrid has a city population of 3.2 million.

It gets really different when you start talking about density though. Houston has its 2.1 million in 600 sq miles for a density of approx. 3200/sq mile. If you drop that down to just inside the loop Houston has approx. 500k people in a 94 sq mile area - a density of approx. 5000/sq mile. If you look exclusively at Midtown, the density gets up to about 8500/sq mile.

By comparison the entire city of Madrid has a density of approx 14,000/sq mile covering an area of 233 sq miles. That's about 3 times the current density of Houston inside the loop and almost double the density of Midtown - over an area that's 2 1/2 times the size of the area inside the loop.

For Houston to achieve those levels of density inside the loop, we would need to add 900,000 residents. During the last ten years of economic prosperity, we added 50,000 and that's using the most lenient numbers.

So my point is that the European comparison is irrelevant to any conversation about transit in Houston for the following reasons:

- Density in a city such as Madrid is at such a completely different scale than Houston that nothing close to it is going to be acheived in Houston within the next 50 years or even longer. Even the most dense parts of Houston are not likely to achieve average density for a European city in the near future.

- Older European cities have achieved this density due to constraints that don't exist in Texas. City walls, roads that were constructed before automobiles, historical residences with smaller footprints than exist in any new construction.

- European roads do not extend into city centers, but this is due to the historical constraints of old cities, not due to urban planning.

There's no reason to believe that Houston will achieve anything close to this level of density because of the lack of constraints discussed above and it just doesn't make any sense to compare them as a result. Houston and the other "new" cities in the US are just fundamentally different than European cities.

I disagree with the second to last point but other than that good post. I think London is a decent comparison of a spread out city with a great transportation network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually though, Melbourne might be the most interesting comparison that I've seen. Similar in population and density, without the constraints of old cities and in a country that is aggressively pro-public transit and working to reduce carbon footprint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne

Melbourne grew in a similar pattern to Houston, but built an extensive transportation network. It's been called, the world's most livable city multiple times, but it has extensive issues with sprawl, commute times that average about 35 minutes each direction and it is having significant problems with low usage of the transportation network.

Discuss.

Here's the issue of melbourne's transport system from wiki

A Space Syntax Approach Multiple Centrality Analysis of Melbourne's public transport network (excluding buses which were deemed too inefficient) in 2009, found that approximately 8.8% of the greater urban area and approximately 448,000 residents were serviced within 30 minutes of anywhere in the greater Melbourne area. This concluded that only 10–15% of the residents in Melbourne are serviced by appropriate and timely public transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now being that 7% of trips use public transport that's actually an excellent usage rate for what it is. Another problem is stops are too close together especially tram stops which share road lanes with cars.

I think istanbul's expansion is a much better example of how metro systems should be expanded. They're expecting 25% of the population to use it once complete which is many millions of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that you continue to ignore my point, expertly expounded upon by livincinco, that Houston's layout is completely unlike any of the cities you wish to compare it to. As you continue to refuse to account for the vast differences in Houston's density versus these other cities, your attempts to compare transit systems are utterly meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will actually make it easier for you by narrowing the scope a bit. How do you propose to gain a 7% transit share for Houston? Make sure that you use actual numbers. None of this generic "build light rail everywhere" analysis that you like to use. Let's see actual numbers, routes and prices. You may use $100 million per mile for light rail pricing. If you wish to use a smaller number, please explain how you would achieve the savings.

 

Set. Go!

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 because black people disliked cold water.

 

Someone should have told him that no one likes cold water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that you continue to ignore my point, expertly expounded upon by livincinco, that Houston's layout is completely unlike any of the cities you wish to compare it to. As you continue to refuse to account for the vast differences in Houston's density versus these other cities, your attempts to compare transit systems are utterly meaningless.

I just said London and istanbul are huge cities with huge transit systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just said London and istanbul are huge cities with huge transit systems

 

 

 

As you continue to refuse to account for the vast differences in Houston's density versus these other cities, your attempts to compare transit systems are utterly meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So even though they are huge cities the fact that density isn't the same means we should spend nothing on mass transit. However we should spend billions on highways and highway expansion! That's what you want me to say but I'm not going to agree with that argument sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like for you to explain your extreme views, but you never seem to do so. One of your extreme views is that the millions of dollars METRO spends on its bus and Park&Ride service do not seem to count (since you suggested we "spend nothing on mass transit").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like for you to explain your extreme views, but you never seem to do so. One of your extreme views is that the millions of dollars METRO spends on its bus and Park&Ride service do not seem to count (since you suggested we "spend nothing on mass transit").

 

I guess you didn't read this

 

A Space Syntax Approach Multiple Centrality Analysis of Melbourne's public transport network (excluding buses which were deemed too inefficient)

 

I wonder why they thought buses are deemed too inefficient?

 

And please explain how asking for a thorough public transportation system is extreme? I think building 12 lane highways is extreme. Would you consider Vancouver an extremist city for banning highways through the city? Are San Francisco, Milwaukee, and Seoul extreme for tearing down freeways in downtown?

 

My ideal system would be a mix of commuter and inner city rail. We already have the right of way, so I'd put commuter rail down all the HOV lanes and eliminate park and ride service and HOV/HOT service. The current park and ride stops could be used as stops for now via walkway from the freeway, like chicago. Also I'd make it frequent (every 5 minutes, 10 minutes on nights and weekends). This would provide rail up and down 45 (woodlands to galveston), 59 (kingwood to sugar land), 10 (katy to budweiser factory), and 290 (to cypress). Also I'd have a people mover from Houston Hobby connect to the 45 line. The 45 line could have a walkway to Eastwood transit center, where people could get on the university line which would go to hillcroft via richmond. The other transfer stations would be northwest transit center to get from 290 commuter line as a terminus to uptown line or I-10 commuter line, and hillcroft transit center, where a commuter or light rail line down westpark to highway 6 could begin from using metro ROW. Also northline mall since that's where the north extension will go to. There would need to be some kind of central station in downtown, I guess burnet could work for now; Union Station would've been ideal but oh well. Amtrak could go through there as well. Also possibly a small extension from 45 and/or 59 line to IAH, probably 45 since it could stop in greenspoint as well. Also a fort bend commuter line from fannin south station to 90 where it could terminate at the same place as 59 line.

 

This system would give people in outlying areas a way to come into the city, and with a decent inner city light rail, a way to get around houston if coming in on commuter rail.

Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only additional light rail line I would make is one down Washington avenue or memorial and have it connect to northwest transit center.

Also would have a light rail extension from Fannin south to pearland, perhaps down almeda to pearland town center or as an extension of southeast line down Griggs and then mykawa, or both.

Also to help costs would get rid of the ridiculous rule that streets with rail need to be repaved.

Finally buses would feed into the rail stations so people would (gasp) be able to take buses to rail to get where they need to ago and sometimes possibly avoid driving altogether. Worse case is could park at major rail stations and hop on a rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the second to last point but other than that good post. I think London is a decent comparison of a spread out city with a great transportation network.

 

The vast majority of London's transport network was built over 100 years ago, and is largely underground for the rail portion. There are no major roads through London, and the cost of property and other factors mean there never will be. London's density is also far higher than Houston's. That doesn't stop anyone from owning a car in London, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most European cities don't have highways or freeways into city centers.  In part that is because of the density of development, but there is also very often a conscious desire to limit automobile access to centers to discourage non-transit-oriented suburban development.  Is that a totally successful strategy?  No, but it certainly makes suburban commuting by means other than car more attractive.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most European cities don't have highways or freeways into city centers. In part that is because of the density of development, but there is also very often a conscious desire to limit automobile access to centers to discourage non-transit-oriented suburban development. Is that a totally successful strategy? No, but it certainly makes suburban commuting by means other than car more attractive.

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most European cities don't have highways or freeways into city centers.  In part that is because of the density of development, but there is also very often a conscious desire to limit automobile access to centers to discourage non-transit-oriented suburban development.  Is that a totally successful strategy?  No, but it certainly makes suburban commuting by means other than car more attractive.

 

Does this European model mean that you advocate ripping out all freeways into inner city Houston in order to build commuter rail that people would be attracted to use?

This

 

I ask your opinion on the same question I posed to Subdude in post #44.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not advocate ripping out freeways in inner-city Houston, except for the Pierce Elevated which I do advocate ripping out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this European model mean that you advocate ripping out all freeways into inner city Houston in order to build commuter rail that people would be attracted to use?

 

I ask your opinion on the same question I posed to Subdude in post #44.

 

At this point I would tear down I-10 between taylor on the west and where it hits 59 on the east, the pierce elevated, and 59 between gray and I-10.

 

The commuter rail I would put where HOV lanes are now, and on the fort bend tollway, and westpark ROW that METRO owns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really 59 south where 288 starts that would be good. It would be similar to Vancouver then and give a chance for downtown to be a bustling area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I didn't advocate tearing out freeways, I don't think that doing so would be all that catastrophic either.  I've lived in places without downtown freeway connections, and it's not bad, just different.  Traffic can be quite adaptable.  The biggest perennial issue seemed to be routing of truck traffic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see taking out the Pierce and rerouting I-45 around where 59 is, or even tunneling it. Given that its current configuration provides daily stalled traffic, there is even a possibility of something being done.

 

Ripping out I-45 AND 59 AND I-10 is a different matter, however.I am curious how Slick would advocate paying for the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to rip out several freeways, and to reconfigure them to empty onto the street grid. I am also curious where he proposes to find the billions of dollars needed to build all of this rail that will be needed. I would also like to hear what Slick intends to do about cutting off one of the most important east-west interstates in the country. I won't even go into what Congress would say about it.

 

Guessing that ripping out a bunch of freeways will give downtown a "chance to be a bustling area" is laughable. However, if that is the stated reason for ripping out freeways, it will never happen, especially I-10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see taking out the Pierce and rerouting I-45 around where 59 is, or even tunneling it. Given that its current configuration provides daily stalled traffic, there is even a possibility of something being done.

 

Ripping out I-45 AND 59 AND I-10 is a different matter, however.I am curious how Slick would advocate paying for the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to rip out several freeways, and to reconfigure them to empty onto the street grid. I am also curious where he proposes to find the billions of dollars needed to build all of this rail that will be needed. I would also like to hear what Slick intends to do about cutting off one of the most important east-west interstates in the country. I won't even go into what Congress would say about it.

 

Guessing that ripping out a bunch of freeways will give downtown a "chance to be a bustling area" is laughable. However, if that is the stated reason for ripping out freeways, it will never happen, especially I-10.

 

I don't think it's as big a deal as you say, because 45 coming north already has a spur that goes into downtown, as does 59 coming north and south. 45 coming south has a mini spur that goes to pierce, and 10 coming east and west at least have downtown exits. If I had to leave one, I'd leave 10 since it doesn't have the big spur infrastructure built in yet, but you could simply route 10 east and west to 45 south into one giant exit into downtown if 10 was torn down.

 

As far as the money for ripping the freeways, the result of ripping out the freeways would make the land below and around it very attractive for developers and investors and even for public works and parks, giving back more money than what was put in to rip the freeways out in the first place.

 

It's not really a laughable idea. You should go to embarcadero in san francisco, or downtown Vancouver or Seoul, and see what happens when it's done. It greatly enhances street life. Also it would do wonders for buffalo bayou as well I think, it would look a lot nicer without giant freeway overpasses above it.

 

As far as the billions for commuter rail, if the feds match 50%, it could be done conceivably with a referendum. The costs wouldn't be as high since right of way is already there in each case, and suburban people may vote for it if it actually helps them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...