METRO Street Plan

[Naviguessor]

I noted today that Metro's Street Plan includes increasing a portion of Clinton from a 60' ROW or an 80" ROW.  Does anyone have an idea about what might be behind this?  Also reclassification for Navigation.  See link.  Great interactive map. 

 

http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2013/07/street-plan-changes-include-metro-staking-a-claim-on-richmond/

[Slick Vik]

Sounds good

[Naviguessor]

It does sound good.  Perhaps preparing for KBR Site development...or just as good...the East End Streetcar proposal.  Eager to see whats going to happen over there. 

Has anyone heard any scoop?

[Slick Vik]

I think the university corridor is in preparation for university line. Where the funding comes from is anyone's guess but if ridership does well on the next three lines people will demand the critical link.

[Ross]

I think the university corridor is in preparation for university line. Where the funding comes from is anyone's guess but if ridership does well on the next three lines people will demand the critical link.

 

Buses would work fine. There's no reason to waste money on another rail project with minimal benefits.

[msteele6]

Money spent on rail projects isn't wasted, it's invested. The rail projects have so many potential benefits they're difficult to enumerate, however, for starters they have the potential to drastically reduce emissions, one of the most important challenges of this generation.

 

The status quo automobile society is soon going to be as dead as the dodo bird - and good riddance, after all the idea of a 4,000 lb car hauling around a 120 lb woman is as ridiculous as it is inefficient. I would respectfully suggest that anyone not wishing to share its fate start working on its replacement.  

 

JMO

 

P.S. I forgot to mention that the 4,000 lb car wouldn't be quite so absurd if our vanity didn't require it to accelerate to 60 mph in about 5 seconds.

 

[Slick Vik]

Buses would work fine. There's no reason to waste money on another rail project with minimal benefits.

 

Could say the same about highway expansion.

[livincinco]

Money spent on rail projects isn't wasted, it's invested. The rail projects have so many potential benefits they're difficult to enumerate, however, for starters they have the potential to drastically reduce emissions, one of the most important challenges of this generation.

 

The status quo automobile society is soon going to be as dead as the dodo bird - and good riddance, after all the idea of a 4,000 lb car hauling around a 120 lb woman is as ridiculous as it is inefficient. I would respectfully suggest that anyone not wishing to share its fate start working on its replacement.  

 

JMO

 

P.S. I forgot to mention that the 4,000 lb car wouldn't be quite so absurd if our vanity didn't require it to accelerate to 60 mph in about 5 seconds.

 

I agree that the status quo automobile society is going away, but that doesn't mean that the automobile goes away.  It just means that the nature of the automobile goes away.  I agree that a 4,000 lb car hauling a single individual is very inefficient, but I would argue that a 3,000 lb hybrid that's hauling 2-4 people is pretty efficient.

 

Rail is always positioned as having environmental benefits, but that's a byproduct of the method of propulsion, not the means of transit.  A diesel locomotive is not as efficient as an electric car and vice versa.

[Slick Vik]

I agree that the status quo automobile society is going away, but that doesn't mean that the automobile goes away.  It just means that the nature of the automobile goes away.  I agree that a 4,000 lb car hauling a single individual is very inefficient, but I would argue that a 3,000 lb hybrid that's hauling 2-4 people is pretty efficient.

 

Rail is always positioned as having environmental benefits, but that's a byproduct of the method of propulsion, not the means of transit.  A diesel locomotive is not as efficient as an electric car and vice versa.

 

What about electric rail?

 

Also I think rail's benefits tie more into how many people it takes at once. If demand is high, a rail carries much more people than any vehicle, especially if it's running with frequent intervals.

Also you have to look into the cost. What if you have a great transport system and you can get a monthly pass for $100? Think about the cost of a car, thousands of dollars to buy one, then maintenance, yearly inspection and registration, and that's if nothing goes wrong. It's a tremendous cost to bear, and people should have the option to have other avenues if they wish. Right now this is an auto-centric city. If you live in new york and still insist on buying a car, fine, deal with the consequences. But the situation shouldn't be like here where if you don't buy a car you're screwed unless you live in a small number of areas.

[samagon]

Money spent on rail projects isn't wasted, it's invested. The rail projects have so many potential benefits they're difficult to enumerate, however, for starters they have the potential to drastically reduce emissions, one of the most important challenges of this generation.

 

The status quo automobile society is soon going to be as dead as the dodo bird - and good riddance, after all the idea of a 4,000 lb car hauling around a 120 lb woman is as ridiculous as it is inefficient. I would respectfully suggest that anyone not wishing to share its fate start working on its replacement.  

 

JMO

 

P.S. I forgot to mention that the 4,000 lb car wouldn't be quite so absurd if our vanity didn't require it to accelerate to 60 mph in about 5 seconds.

 

the numbers are off.

 

the car weight should be about half again as much (I think that's the roundabout way of saying 6000lbs), and double the woman's weight, this is america after all.

 

as far as a 4000lb car that can accelerate to 60 in anything near 5 seconds, that doesn't exist. At any weight, there are a scant few that can accelerate to 60 in 5 seconds.

[livincinco]

What about electric rail?

 

Also I think rail's benefits tie more into how many people it takes at once. If demand is high, a rail carries much more people than any vehicle, especially if it's running with frequent intervals.

Also you have to look into the cost. What if you have a great transport system and you can get a monthly pass for $100? Think about the cost of a car, thousands of dollars to buy one, then maintenance, yearly inspection and registration, and that's if nothing goes wrong. It's a tremendous cost to bear, and people should have the option to have other avenues if they wish. Right now this is an auto-centric city. If you live in new york and still insist on buying a car, fine, deal with the consequences. But the situation shouldn't be like here where if you don't buy a car you're screwed unless you live in a small number of areas.

 

I agree with your points about the benefits of rail, but the same points tie into the drawbacks of rail.  If demand is low, rail is an extremely inefficient way to move people because you have a fixed cost and carbon footprint for running a train regardless of the number of people that are on it, whether that's one person or 100.   The problem with all transportation systems is that you have a high variation between normal capacity and peak capacity, and that's true with both cars and trains.

 

I'm not anti-rail by any means, I'm just not convinced that it works in Houston the way many people think it does and I don't think that building it because "everyone else has one" is a good reason.  Dallas has built a highly inefficient system and I'll bet you that an analysis of the costs and carbon footprint of that system would be pretty sobering.  It runs a lot of cars that are pretty close to empty and that is going to cause a significant impact.

[Slick Vik]

I agree with your points about the benefits of rail, but the same points tie into the drawbacks of rail.  If demand is low, rail is an extremely inefficient way to move people because you have a fixed cost and carbon footprint for running a train regardless of the number of people that are on it, whether that's one person or 100.   The problem with all transportation systems is that you have a high variation between normal capacity and peak capacity, and that's true with both cars and trains.

 

I'm not anti-rail by any means, I'm just not convinced that it works in Houston the way many people think it does and I don't think that building it because "everyone else has one" is a good reason.  Dallas has built a highly inefficient system and I'll bet you that an analysis of the costs and carbon footprint of that system would be pretty sobering.  It runs a lot of cars that are pretty close to empty and that is going to cause a significant impact.

 

Well that's why I think it should be built in certain corridors where there would be sufficient ridership; the HOV lanes already have the right of way, and also the westpark and fort bend right of way. But as far as streets, westheimer/richmond would seemingly make the most sense off hand.

 

As far as Dallas, they used abandoned right of way, the fast/easy way instead of taking the time and building tracks in the right areas. That being said, they got the money that Houston was supposed to have, so they had nothing to lose for a significant portion of the federal funds came their way based on a 1983 vote and Bob Lanier.

[august948]

The status quo automobile society is soon going to be as dead as the dodo bird - and good riddance, after all the idea of a 4,000 lb car hauling around a 120 lb woman is as ridiculous as it is inefficient. I would respectfully suggest that anyone not wishing to share its fate start working on its replacement.

The 4000 lb care hauling a 120 lb woman is infinitely more efficient if it gets her where she wants to go rather than where the transit system dictates. The personal automobile isn't going away. At best we'll see more 2000 lb cars hauling folks around.

[livincinco]

Well that's why I think it should be built in certain corridors where there would be sufficient ridership; the HOV lanes already have the right of way, and also the westpark and fort bend right of way. But as far as streets, westheimer/richmond would seemingly make the most sense off hand.

 

As far as Dallas, they used abandoned right of way, the fast/easy way instead of taking the time and building tracks in the right areas. That being said, they got the money that Houston was supposed to have, so they had nothing to lose for a significant portion of the federal funds came their way based on a 1983 vote and Bob Lanier.

 

They had and have plenty to lose, because they still have to deal with operating losses on lines that don't have sufficient ridership.  They still incur carbon footprint on trains that are running empty while not pulling cars off of the roads.

 

In regards to Houston building transit in 1983, it seems like you're discounting the economic conditions of the time, don't forget that Houston was running 9.1% unemployment in 1983 and was seeing tax revenues start to drop from the beginnings of the oil bust.  There was a lot of justified concern about spending the money necessary to build a rail system.

 

BTW, I do think that it's relevant to point out that Houston voters were so outraged by Bob Lanier's actions that they voted him mayor three times with an average of 88% of the vote.

[msteele6]

We build more roads to accomodate the cars - and then we build more cars because the roads are there. Meanwhile we eliminate public transport because, after all, everyone has a car don't they?

 

The U.S. has created a public transportation system that is wasteful in the extreme and not only in the fuel that it takes to run it but in the raw materials that are required to create it.

 

I have nothing against the automobile, I have one just like everyone else, it's just that the system that has been created cannot be sustained over the long run, and if we are to survive as a civilization it will have to be modified. I say HAVE to be modified because the alternative is the destruction of the civilization that we have created. The Earth itself is telling us this. If you don't believe it maybe you will be reminded the next time you're mowing your grass in November.

 

By the way, the most important thing we could do to increase the efficiency of the current transportation system would be to address the inefficiency of our traffic control system, sometime it seems to me that the traffic signal system that we now have in place is actually designed to IMPEDE traffic rather that facilitate it. If you don't believe it, think about the inefficiency of sitting at a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic in sight. The controls (those stainless steel boxes at the corner that are approximately the size of refrigerators) house a mechanism that is about as sophisticated as an common kitchen timer and still break down every time the dew gets a little deeper than normal. We can send a man to the moon using a computer smaller than the average traffic signal control box.

 

[HoustonMidtown]

the numbers are off.

 

the car weight should be about half again as much (I think that's the roundabout way of saying 6000lbs), and double the woman's weight, this is america after all.

 

as far as a 4000lb car that can accelerate to 60 in anything near 5 seconds, that doesn't exist. At any weight, there are a scant few that can accelerate to 60 in 5 seconds.

 

Im not sure if you were being sarcastic...but most cars weigh way less than 6000 lbs (a Camry for example is in the neighborhood of 3200lbs)

 

There are lots of cars that go 0-60 in 5 seconds (or under) these days -- a BMW 335, Camaro SS, Genesis coupe, etc....

[august948]

We build more roads to accomodate the cars - and then we build more cars because the roads are there. Meanwhile we eliminate public transport because, after all, everyone has a car don't they?

We build more roads to accommodate more cars, but we build more cars because there is demand for them and they are more efficient in getting us where we want to go than public transport.

Has public transport been eliminated here? Last time I checked it was expanding.

[Slick Vik]

The 4000 lb care hauling a 120 lb woman is infinitely more efficient if it gets her where she wants to go rather than where the transit system dictates. The personal automobile isn't going away. At best we'll see more 2000 lb cars hauling folks around.

 

So one car taking one person is more efficient than something that takes multiple people at the same time. Awesome logic.

[Slick Vik]

They had and have plenty to lose, because they still have to deal with operating losses on lines that don't have sufficient ridership.  They still incur carbon footprint on trains that are running empty while not pulling cars off of the roads.

 

In regards to Houston building transit in 1983, it seems like you're discounting the economic conditions of the time, don't forget that Houston was running 9.1% unemployment in 1983 and was seeing tax revenues start to drop from the beginnings of the oil bust.  There was a lot of justified concern about spending the money necessary to build a rail system.

 

BTW, I do think that it's relevant to point out that Houston voters were so outraged by Bob Lanier's actions that they voted him mayor three times with an average of 88% of the vote.

 

Do you know the reason Bob Lanier even won his first election?

We build more roads to accommodate more cars, but we build more cars because there is demand for them and they are more efficient in getting us where we want to go than public transport.

Has public transport been eliminated here? Last time I checked it was expanding.

 

Again how is it efficient to have one vehicle taking one person in comparison to something that can take dozens if not hundreds of people at once? That makes no sense.

[livincinco]

I can tell we're reaching the point where rational conversation regarding transit is no longer on the table so I'll be leaving.  Thank you for playing.

[mkultra25]

the numbers are off.

 

the car weight should be about half again as much (I think that's the roundabout way of saying 6000lbs), and double the woman's weight, this is america after all.

 

as far as a 4000lb car that can accelerate to 60 in anything near 5 seconds, that doesn't exist. At any weight, there are a scant few that can accelerate to 60 in 5 seconds.

 

Doesn't exist? Bentley is the first one that comes to mind. Most Bentleys are closer to 5000 than 4000 lbs, and most will do 0-60 in under 5 sec. 

 

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Bentley-0-60-mph-Times.html

[cloud713]

It does sound good.  Perhaps preparing for KBR Site development...or just as good...the East End Streetcar proposal.  Eager to see whats going to happen over there. 

Has anyone heard any scoop?

 

i really hope that happens. one of the proposed routes has a streetcar line going down Clinton. is there a thread for that proposal?

[samagon]

 

Im not sure if you were being sarcastic...but most cars weigh way less than 6000 lbs (a Camry for example is in the neighborhood of 3200lbs)

 

There are lots of cars that go 0-60 in 5 seconds (or under) these days -- a BMW 335, Camaro SS, Genesis coupe, etc....

Mostly.

Either way, if the comparison is weight of transport vs weight of passenger, I'm fairly certain that rail loses that ratio battle.

[Naviguessor]

Cloud...thank you for saving the conversation (almost).

I have seen the plan. But, I don't think that there is a dedicated topic. Hopefully there is cause for one. That could really define and build the East Side into a community.

[Ross]

Do you know the reason Bob Lanier even won his first election?

 

Again how is it efficient to have one vehicle taking one person in comparison to something that can take dozens if not hundreds of people at once? That makes no sense.

 

Bob Lanier won because he was the better choice.

 

A car with a single person in it is very efficient, in that it can take that passenger exactly where they want to go, without wasting huge amounts of time walking to transit, waiting for transit, transferring to more transit, getting off transit, and walking to the destination.

[RedScare]

Do you know the reason Bob Lanier even won his first election?

 

I do. I was here. Were you?

[Slick Vik]

Bob Lanier won because he was the better choice.

A car with a single person in it is very efficient, in that it can take that passenger exactly where they want to go, without wasting huge amounts of time walking to transit, waiting for transit, transferring to more transit, getting off transit, and walking to the destination.

I guess the environment means nothing to you.

I do. I was here. Were you?

Yes I just moved here from San Antonio at the time. Wayne delcefino slandered Sylvester turner who was on track to win and thus Lanier won.

[Ross]

I guess the environment means nothing to you.

 

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[LarryDierker]

What the hell happened to this thread?

I clicked to read about the east end and Clinton drive, but ended up reading numerous posts arguing about rail vs. cars.

 

who do I PM to complain?

[musicman]

So why did they ban Niche again?   Slick Vik seems to be way worse than Niche ever was.