Jump to content

Robert Moses and New York


livincinco

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Link to comment
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!

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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").

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon me while I laugh for a while. I-10 being ripped out and redeveloped into bustling cityscape from Taylor to 59? That's just too funny for words. That stretch of 10 runs along the White Oak Bayou floodway for most of that stretch, and is not even that close to Downtown. That will never, ever, be developed. If you take a look at how Houston freeways overlay the old streets, etc, you can see that, in general, the taking of land was minimized.

 

The Embarcadero freeway was a dead ended bad idea. It did nothing to improve car travel, and was no great loss when it was torn out. I suspect that Vancouver and Seoul are similar. If you think those are such great places, feel free to move. I like Houston just the way it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon me while I laugh for a while. I-10 being ripped out and redeveloped into bustling cityscape from Taylor to 59? That's just too funny for words. That stretch of 10 runs along the White Oak Bayou floodway for most of that stretch, and is not even that close to Downtown. That will never, ever, be developed. If you take a look at how Houston freeways overlay the old streets, etc, you can see that, in general, the taking of land was minimized.

 

The Embarcadero freeway was a dead ended bad idea. It did nothing to improve car travel, and was no great loss when it was torn out. I suspect that Vancouver and Seoul are similar. If you think those are such great places, feel free to move. I like Houston just the way it is.

 

"You don't agree with me, just move!"

 

Also, I would gladly move to Vancouver given the opportunity. At the same time I'd like to see Houston improve its mass transit as well. To me that is the one thing it's lacking from being a world class city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how removing the freeways would be good for downtown, unless they were removed farther back, and at that point, you may as well stop all the freeways at the loop.

 

Or just trench them around downtown and cover the trenches with roads and parking lots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

London's density is 13,466/sq mile.  Istanbul's is over 20,000/sq mile in the main parts of the city.  As mentioned before Houston is about 5,000/sq mile inside the loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Honestly, the problem isn't commuters.  The problem is freight.  All three of the freeways that run through downtown are major transportation corridors for trucks as well as outlets for the massive amount of goods that are brought in through the Port of Houston.  The expansion of the Panama Canal and the related expansion that's happening at the Port is only going to increase that.

 

You could arguably find ways to move the commuters, but you create a major logistical nightmare because there isn't a viable alternative on how to move the freight.  It would be a huge economic loss for the city and the port.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't most of the freight moved from the port done on trains?

 

besides, if freight is just moving through the town (not to a destination in town) wouldn't it be easy for the city to say you have to use 610? issue permits to trucks that have destinations inside the loop, and if they don't have it, they get a fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't most of the freight moved from the port done on trains?

 

besides, if freight is just moving through the town (not to a destination in town) wouldn't it be easy for the city to say you have to use 610? issue permits to trucks that have destinations inside the loop, and if they don't have it, they get a fine.

 

Depends on the distance that the freight is travelling.  The US has a great freight rail system, definitely the best in the world, but it's generally used for freight that travels over 750 miles.  If the distance travelled is less than 750 miles, its almost all by truck.

 

There's a couple of problems with routing everything through 610.  The first is that 610 would pretty quickly become heavily congested with the additional traffic because it would also have to absorb a lot of the commuter traffic from the current highways as well as the freight traffic.  The second concern, unrelated to the port, is that it would increase the amount of traffic that travels through neighborhoods on its way to businesses inside the loop.  There's a lot of freight that moves to downtown and midtown businesses every day, especially with the number of businesses increasing these days and that would all have to move from 610 on surface streets through neighborhoods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the distance that the freight is travelling.  The US has a great freight rail system, definitely the best in the world, but it's generally used for freight that travels over 750 miles.  If the distance travelled is less than 750 miles, its almost all by truck.

 

There's a couple of problems with routing everything through 610.  The first is that 610 would pretty quickly become heavily congested with the additional traffic because it would also have to absorb a lot of the commuter traffic from the current highways as well as the freight traffic.  The second concern, unrelated to the port, is that it would increase the amount of traffic that travels through neighborhoods on its way to businesses inside the loop.  There's a lot of freight that moves to downtown and midtown businesses every day, especially with the number of businesses increasing these days and that would all have to move from 610 on surface streets through neighborhoods.

 

I don't think closing or dismantling an inch of freeway in Houston is a good idea, it's a very bad idea, specifically for the reasons you stated, but if they could divert some of the through traffic to 610 that would be a boon for those who have to travel inside the loop. 610 east and 610 north have lots of ROW to expand into, hell, maybe even make a HOV like lane for truck traffic only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think closing or dismantling an inch of freeway in Houston is a good idea, it's a very bad idea, specifically for the reasons you stated, but if they could divert some of the through traffic to 610 that would be a boon for those who have to travel inside the loop. 610 east and 610 north have lots of ROW to expand into, hell, maybe even make a HOV like lane for truck traffic only.

 

 

I'm really shocked that they chose to convert US-59 to I-69 through downtown since it's part of the proposed NAFTA superhighway.  As you said, it makes much more sense to route inbound freight from Mexico around the city instead of through it.

 

That being said, I'm sure the trucking unions would fight routing around the city tooth and nail because of the additional time and miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...