Hardy Toll Road Extension

[JClark54]

10 hours ago, Triton said:

Wow... wow...

So we're willing to spend billions on highways by taking people's homes, demolishing massive multi-family complexes like Lofts at the Ballpark, and tearing down businesses but as soon as you mention rail, we can't do it guys! There's just no way!

I'm telling you now, 40 years later, we'll be wishing we had made these investments now. The city is only growing denser by the month because people don't want to have to drive out an hour to their homes. And there comes a time where we can't have 30 lane highways coming into the city.... we will have needed to build commuter rail projects where suburban folk can park at a parking garage and hop on the train into the city. This is already done in other American cities and eventually we will have to do it here too.

If the commuter rail entity plans to build its lines, I imagine the idea is more than plausible. If piggy-backing on existing rail infrastructure is the plan, I find it unlikely to gain traction for both legal and practical reasons.

Legally, rail companies that control who uses their lines have recently shown reluctance to permit new players in the Houston complex. They are jointly suing to stop Canadian Pacific from gaining access to the complex through merging with KCS, which has trackage rights on the East Belt, West Belt, Galveston Sub, and Terminal Sub. They are also suing to block the expansion of Amtrak Sunset Limited service. In both suits, UP and BSNF claim they can't keep existing trains moving, so adding any more capacity would cause complex failure. 

Practically, using the one-time proposed Galveston County commuter line as an example, the congestion stated above would inhibit any sense of timely arrival. In that proposal, the UP Galveston subdivision was pitched as the route. It's ideal, connecting loosely to the Amtrak station and Galveston. Aside from a few double track sections, it's primarily single track. A train parked Wednesday on the Galveston Sub, from York to nearly Wayside, for 12 hours. All freight traffic in different areas of the subdivision also had to stop as a result. Assuming that line is used again, the commuter line would have to stop in those instances, too. 

Trains stopping in streets has grown incredibly in the last five years, and the railroads state they expect service demand to increase greatly in coming years. Without some change, stoppages will get worse. Any commuter rail would on them would be unreliable. 

Edited March 3 by JClark54

[JClark54]

In UPRR v. Amtrak, Amtrak claims UP's operating structure inhibits the passenger rail company's ability to operate.

"Many of the delays incurred by the Sunset are attributable to UP corporate decisions, operational practices, or failures that result in systemic violations of Amtrak preference rights and cause substandard customer on-time performance. Among those are that UP regularly runs freight trains longer than sidings along its route; when UP dispatches freight trains that do not fit into sidings, the Sunset Limited trains must follow that non-fitter, which can result in hours of passenger delay.

As you can see, the largest segment of late passengers is 181 minutes or more. This is on the Sunset Limited, which operates in Houston on a continuous double-tracked line. Other lines in the complex are single-tracked or a mix, which means delays would be exponentially greater. 

 

Edited March 3 by JClark54

[Amlaham]

14 hours ago, Triton said:

Wow... wow...

So we're willing to spend billions on highways by taking people's homes, demolishing massive multi-family complexes like Lofts at the Ballpark, and tearing down businesses but as soon as you mention rail, we can't do it guys! There's just no way!

I'm telling you now, 40 years later, we'll be wishing we had made these investments now. The city is only growing denser by the month because people don't want to have to drive out an hour to their homes. And there comes a time where we can't have 30 lane highways coming into the city.... we will have needed to build commuter rail projects where suburban folk can park at a parking garage and hop on the train into the city. This is already done in other American cities and eventually we will have to do it here too.

Completely agree. My favorite narrative is that "we're a sunbelt city that has and will always be car centric." 

Meanwhile, other sunbelt cities that have expanded their railway system

• Miami 
• Atlanta 
• LA
• San Diego 
• Charlette 
• Pheonix 
• Tempe 
• Salt Lake City 
• Tampa 
• Dallas (w/ silver line)

Its kind of embarrassing, we're the 4th largest city in America with a veryyyy subpar transit system. On top of that, we keep making the same excuses that "it is what it is." Yet, here are other car centric cities trying their best to diversify their transit portfolio.....while we're still focusing on highways. 

https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2022/01/24/openings-and-construction-starts-planned-for-2022/

 

 

Fun fact :) Houston and Kansas City are the ONLY World Cup US Host cities that do not have rail transit from/to the airport :)

 

Edited March 3 by Amlaham

[mattyt36]

On 3/1/2023 at 11:02 AM, NB_Brendan said:

More induced demand! Yay!

When it comes to the proposed highway projects in the region, I really don't think this one is a poster child for the induced demand argument.

[004n063]

19 hours ago, Amlaham said:

Completely agree. My favorite narrative is that "we're a sunbelt city that has and will always be car centric." 

Meanwhile, other sunbelt cities that have expanded their railway system

• Miami 
• Atlanta 
• LA
• San Diego 
• Charlette 
• Pheonix 
• Tempe 
• Salt Lake City 
• Tampa 
• Dallas (w/ silver line)

Its kind of embarrassing, we're the 4th largest city in America with a veryyyy subpar transit system. On top of that, we keep making the same excuses that "it is what it is." Yet, here are other car centric cities trying their best to diversify their transit portfolio.....while we're still focusing on highways. 

https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2022/01/24/openings-and-construction-starts-planned-for-2022/

 

 

Fun fact :) Houston and Kansas City are the ONLY World Cup US Host cities that do not have rail transit from/to the airport :)

 

As much as I agree and also wish we had more rail, let's not pretend the city is doing nothing to expand its rapid transit. The University Line and Inner Katy BRTs are significant projects that are actively progressing; the green and purple line extensions to Hobby are currently inactive but by no means dead.

I would also note that more miles of rail lines does not inherently equate to better transit. I think you could make the argument that the green and purple lines are as good as any line in any of those cities, and I'd argue that the red line is the best among them - possibly the best surface tram service level in the country.

That's not to say that I am all satisfied. I am not convinced BRT was the best call for the University Line. I think the green line should be extended down Washington to (at least) Memorial Park. I think the Purple line should be extended along Dallas to Shepherd. I think there should be a Greenbriar/Shepherd line from Rice Village to north of 610. I think there should be a Montrose/Studemont line from Main to North Main. I I think there should be a red line branch along North Main and Airline. I think the northmost segment of red line has weird stop locations. I think there should be a line along Leeland and Telephone to Hobby. I think Hillcroft/Voss should have a line. I think Bellaire Boulevard should have a line.

But I can guarantee you people in every one of those cities could come up with an "I think _____" list just as long and implausible as mine. At least what we have has the following:

1) Good peak and tolerable off-peak headways,

2) Apart from the park-and-ride-ish termini (which are all still bus hubs, mind you), stops within comfortable walking distance of a variety of worthwhile destinations,

3) Level boarding and ride-on bike access (we need to do everything possible to preserve this - it's a godsend), and-

4) Off-board payment.

You're certainly right in that Montrose, the Heights, River Oaks, Gulfton, and the Hobby area all have an inexcusable lack of high-quality transit access, given their densities, and you're right that a lot of that is due to oppositional car-centric attitudes (which are misguided even within that telos, given the demonstrable ways in which transit benefits drivers). 

But I don't think the right approach right now is to try to reach every corner of the city with rail; rather, we should focus on ensuring that the existing and planned rail and BRT corridors are able to densify and become more pedestrian-friendly, so that (among other benefits) we can induce demand for a more fiscally sustainable growth pattern.

And, to a greater extent than you're giving credit for, we are doing that.

[Amlaham]

58 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

As much as I agree and also wish we had more rail, let's not pretend the city is doing nothing to expand its rapid transit. The University Line and Inner Katy BRTs are significant projects that are actively progressing; the green and purple line extensions to Hobby are currently inactive but by no means dead.

I would also note that more miles of rail lines does not inherently equate to better transit. I think you could make the argument that the green and purple lines are as good as any line in any of those cities, and I'd argue that the red line is the best among them - possibly the best surface tram service level in the country.

That's not to say that I am all satisfied. I am not convinced BRT was the best call for the University Line. I think the green line should be extended down Washington to (at least) Memorial Park. I think the Purple line should be extended along Dallas to Shepherd. I think there should be a Greenbriar/Shepherd line from Rice Village to north of 610. I think there should be a Montrose/Studemont line from Main to North Main. I I think there should be a red line branch along North Main and Airline. I think the northmost segment of red line has weird stop locations. I think there should be a line along Leeland and Telephone to Hobby. I think Hillcroft/Voss should have a line. I think Bellaire Boulevard should have a line.

But I can guarantee you people in every one of those cities could come up with an "I think _____" list just as long and implausible as mine. At least what we have has the following:

1) Good peak and tolerable off-peak headways,

2) Apart from the park-and-ride-ish termini (which are all still bus hubs, mind you), stops within comfortable walking distance of a variety of worthwhile destinations,

3) Level boarding and ride-on bike access (we need to do everything possible to preserve this - it's a godsend), and-

4) Off-board payment.

You're certainly right in that Montrose, the Heights, River Oaks, Gulfton, and the Hobby area all have an inexcusable lack of high-quality transit access, given their densities, and you're right that a lot of that is due to oppositional car-centric attitudes (which are misguided even within that telos, given the demonstrable ways in which transit benefits drivers). 

But I don't think the right approach right now is to try to reach every corner of the city with rail; rather, we should focus on ensuring that the existing and planned rail and BRT corridors are able to densify and become more pedestrian-friendly, so that (among other benefits) we can induce demand for a more fiscally sustainable growth pattern.

And, to a greater extent than you're giving credit for, we are doing that.

Agree to disagree 😅 yes there is a lot "in the works" but not enough for a city our size. Our rail lines probably reach a fraction of neighborhoods in the loop, let a lone our city; they go down 3-4 streets max. Which in my opinion is another reason why a lot of people don't use it and have negative views of rail; its not very convenient since it doesn't reach most of Houstonians. Again, you made good points, but I stand my ground that theres always room for improvement, especially with a city our size.

[mattyt36]

On 3/4/2023 at 5:31 AM, Amlaham said:

Agree to disagree 😅 yes there is a lot "in the works" but not enough for a city our size. Our rail lines probably reach a fraction of neighborhoods in the loop, let a lone our city; they go down 3-4 streets max. Which in my opinion is another reason why a lot of people don't use it and have negative views of rail; its not very convenient since it doesn't reach most of Houstonians. Again, you made good points, but I stand my ground that theres always room for improvement, especially with a city our size.

Do you have any thoughts on how such improvements would be funded?

[Houston19514]

On 3/3/2023 at 12:24 PM, Amlaham said:

Completely agree. My favorite narrative is that "we're a sunbelt city that has and will always be car centric." 

Meanwhile, other sunbelt cities that have expanded their railway system

• Miami 
• Atlanta 
• LA
• San Diego 
• Charlette 
• Pheonix 
• Tempe 
• Salt Lake City 
• Tampa 
• Dallas (w/ silver line)

Its kind of embarrassing, we're the 4th largest city in America with a veryyyy subpar transit system. On top of that, we keep making the same excuses that "it is what it is." Yet, here are other car centric cities trying their best to diversify their transit portfolio.....while we're still focusing on highways. 

https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2022/01/24/openings-and-construction-starts-planned-for-2022/

 

 

Fun fact :) Houston and Kansas City are the ONLY World Cup US Host cities that do not have rail transit from/to the airport :)

 

 

On 3/4/2023 at 9:31 AM, Amlaham said:

Agree to disagree 😅 yes there is a lot "in the works" but not enough for a city our size. Our rail lines probably reach a fraction of neighborhoods in the loop, let a lone our city; they go down 3-4 streets max. Which in my opinion is another reason why a lot of people don't use it and have negative views of rail; its not very convenient since it doesn't reach most of Houstonians. Again, you made good points, but I stand my ground that theres always room for improvement, especially with a city our size.

I wonder how transit usage compare in that list of cities? I know Houston's is higher than Dallas.

[Amlaham]

33 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

I wonder how transit usage compare in that list of cities? I know Houston's is higher than Dallas.

Agree, our transit usage is pretty good compared to some of the other cities which kind of goes in hand with my point. There is a market for it here, so i feel like it should be more accessible to other parts of town. It would do well IMO. Little outdated info below but I'm a little too busy this week to do research

• Atlanta MARTA rail- 64 million riders per year in 2018
• LA Light Rail-  51 million riders per year in 2019
• San Diego Trolley/ Silver line- 38 million per year in 2019
• Portland MAX Light Rail- 38 million per year in 2019
• Dallas DART Light rail- 28 million per year in 2019 
• Minneapolis Light rail- 25 million per year in 2019
• Miami Metrorail- 19 million riders per year in 2019 
• Houston Light rail- 18 million riders per year in 2019 
• Salt Lake TRAX- 17 million riders per year in 2019
• Phoenix Valley Metro Rail- 15 million riders per year in 2020
• Tampa Rail- 1 million riders per year in 2020

So yeah, not bad but a lot of room for improvement, we actually have one of the highest riders per mile transit out of all these cities. Again, apologizes I don't have enough time for the sources/ research.

[Houston19514]

12 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

Agree, our transit usage is pretty good compared to some of the other cities which kind of goes in hand with my point. There is a market for it here, so i feel like it should be more accessible to other parts of town. It would do well IMO. Little outdated info below but I'm a little too busy this week to do research

• Atlanta MARTA rail- 64 million riders per year in 2018
• LA Light Rail-  51 million riders per year in 2019
• San Diego Trolley/ Silver line- 38 million per year in 2019
• Portland MAX Light Rail- 38 million per year in 2019
• Dallas DART Light rail- 28 million per year in 2019 
• Minneapolis Light rail- 25 million per year in 2019
• Miami Metrorail- 19 million riders per year in 2019 
• Houston Light rail- 18 million riders per year in 2019 
• Salt Lake TRAX- 17 million riders per year in 2019
• Phoenix Valley Metro Rail- 15 million riders per year in 2020
• Tampa Rail- 1 million riders per year in 2020

So yeah, not bad but a lot of room for improvement, we actually have one of the highest riders per mile transit out of all these cities. Again, apologizes I don't have enough time for the sources/ research.

I was referring more to the percentage of commuters who use transit for their commute.  This is from 2019:

• Miami    2.9%
• Atlanta    2.8%
• LA           4.8%
• San Diego    2.8%
• Charlotte      
• Phoenix     1.8%
• Tempe 
• Salt Lake City   
• Tampa 
• Dallas (w/ silver line)    1.3%
• Houston    2%

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/acs/acs-48.pdf

 

Edited March 9 by Houston19514

[Amlaham]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

Do you have any thoughts on how such improvements would be funded?

At the state or county level. Isn't TXDOT is responsible for all transportation methods in Texas? But only focuses on Highways? Maybe they can branch out a bit?

Harris county owns and operates the Harris County Toll Road Authority, which is funding this project on this forum which I commented on. Harris county also has Metro, but it's obvious which has priority. 

In conclusion, I think the state and county should be responsible for this kind of funding.  My opinion only, and I know there will be opposition to my statement since my opinion isn't a fact or "logical" :) 

[Amlaham]

You know..... not everything is about the raw numbers today. Not about how many people are riding the rail today. Not about the percentage compared to other cities. By that logic, there would never be change ANYWHERE. When rail was first introduced, its not like everyone just dropped their cars and immediately switched, it took years and years for it make sense. We always use Europe as an example of proper rail infrastructure, as if its been there for thousands of years. There was a time when car transportation were dominant in Europe. A lot of European cities actually have good rail AND car infrastructure. However, the second we mention rail in some of these threads, its as if we're threatening to ban cars all together. This is about having well rounded transportation methods BESIDES car transportation. These questions about "funding" and "ridership compared to other cities" kill me. As if these question haven't been answered in ANY OTHER city with better transportation methods. Its such a "be grateful for what we have" and "change is impossible" type attitude. 

 

Lastly, I want to remind my fellow Haifers that neither you or I have all the answers, but thats not to say that there is no answer/ solution :)

Edited March 9 by Amlaham

[mattyt36]

@Amlaham several things:

1) You are indeed correct on State/County funding being key to any major expansion of transit infrastructure.

2) In theory, absolutely you can reprogram State transportation funding away from highways and towards transit like commuter rail.  However, doing so would require legislative action.  So, with this in mind, how likely do you see the current State legislature voting to do such a thing?

3) The County's main source of revenues are property and sales taxes.  Any additional County contribution towards transit would be subject to a bond referendum that would require voters to agree to increase property taxes to pay for such infrastructure.  For the type of comprehensive system that people typically think about when they get all dreamy about these things (e.g., the immensely expensive "must-have" rail to the airport, which passengers DO NOT use widely in the U.S., with few exceptions), we're talking multiple billions of dollars in investment and probably a minimum of two decades' worth of construction.  Do you see Harris County voters volunteering to increase their property taxes to cover the multiple billions of dollars of investment in addition to the probably additional multiple millions of dollars for operating expenses?

The typical answer to the above is something to the effect of "other cities do it, so why can't we?"  The answer to that is that most of these places have legacy transit systems that they didn't rip up and they continued to fund along with highways.  North Texas has invested multiple billions into a rail system that seems to fit the criteria some on here are looking for, yet they have freeways that look little different from ours, and their ridership statistics per mile are dismal.  We literally can drive four hours up the road and see a real-world example of how what we think will work just doesn't.

Few seem to acknowledge that we have a pretty robust and reliable commuter bus system with decent headways.  Moreover, these systems can typically be improved at a fraction of the cost.  Which leads to a couple of other points:

1) Let's say there is a plan out there to build a comprehensive transit system and it is put to a vote.

2) Would your perspective change at all if the vote failed, which it almost certainly will when people see what it will do to their property tax bill?  Especially considering such a system won't directly benefit most of the people voting?  Sure, such a system could be a coup for Inner Loop neighborhoods where less than 1/10 of the MSA population lives, but to think you could have any meaningful coverage outside of there is a pipe dream.  And, sure, people in cars would benefit in theory from less vehicular traffic (although all transit boosters seem to universally acknowledge that if there is a square foot of concrete, it will be eventually occupied by a car, so I'm not sure how this theory really works, either, to be honest), but I'm sorry, voters just aren't that nuanced.

I suspect the answer to the question posed in (2) is your perspective would not change, which, at the end of the day, basically means that you want to impose your will on voters because you "know better."  Do you think voters would really take that attitude sitting down?

It seems to me the best and really only option for major investments in transit is for the State to increase funding.  And, I just don't see that happening.  I personally wouldn't be against it, but, yeah, anyone who thinks that is going to happen anytime soon is just living in La La Land considering the current composition of State government.  The lesson, though, should be that instead of blaming the County or the City for not doing something (seriously, neither can afford it--it's as simple as that), I think your efforts should be consolidated on achieving major reforms to State government.

Finally the comparison to toll roads is just totally unfair.  HCTRA literally can issue millions of dollars of bonds secured solely by the tolls paid by users.  There is no way in hell METRO (or any transit agency) could issue bonds to fund a project secured solely by fare revenues because no transit agency comes anywhere close to breaking even.  Believe me, if they could, they would.

I used to think in a similar way, we just need trains, and people will ride them and then Houston will become a "real city."  It's just such horrible logic. Well, stated better, wholly illogical, at least under the current system.  I love not having to use a car as much as the next guy, but I'm increasingly convinced that your typical transit promoter is simply just another person with a hobby (liked playing with trains as a kid, likes to travel to Europe without a car, etc.) happy to impose their hobby on others (I get why some anti-transiters call light rail "toy trains"), no matter how impractical--they have become irrationally convinced that you can just lay tracks down and it will somehow fix everything.  It's very juvenile, in a way.  Most enthusiasts don't even have the first clue as to how the funding works, and, more often than not, end up blaming the wrong people.  How is it the County's fault if the voters don't want to jack up their property tax bill for someone else's hobby and inferiority complexes about not being a "world city" (whatever that means) because you don't have a train to the airport?  If Harris County jacks up property taxes, it's not particularly difficult to move to Montgomery or Fort Bend, two counties that really haven't shown much interest in all in transit.  Is it the County's or the City's fault that the State does not provide near the level of funding that other states do?  Can't you see these challenges as the absolute "dealbreakers" they are?

Edited March 13 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

On 3/3/2023 at 12:24 PM, Amlaham said:

Fun fact :) Houston and Kansas City are the ONLY World Cup US Host cities that do not have rail transit from/to the airport :)

BTW, don't you think the waaaaaayyyyy more interesting "fun fact" here is which World Cup US Host cities don't have rail transit to the venue?  Do you think Dallas and Fort Worth are going to be scoring major points for their hour-long train rides from downtown to the DFW when the stadium is in the middle of nowhere?

Edited March 13 by mattyt36

[Ross]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

@Amlaham several things:

1) You are indeed correct on State/County funding being key to any major expansion of transit infrastructure.

2) In theory, absolutely you can reprogram State transportation funding away from highways and towards transit like commuter rail.  However, doing so would require legislative action.  So, with this in mind, how likely do you see the current State legislature voting to do such a thing?

3) The County's main source of revenues are property and sales taxes.  Any additional County contribution towards transit would be subject to a bond referendum that would require voters to agree to increase property taxes to pay for such infrastructure.  For the type of comprehensive system that people typically think about when they get all dreamy about these things (e.g., the immensely expensive "must-have" rail to the airport, which passengers DO NOT use widely in the U.S., with few exceptions), we're talking multiple billions of dollars in investment and probably a minimum of two decades' worth of construction.  Do you see Harris County voters volunteering to increase their property taxes to cover the multiple billions of dollars of investment in addition to the probably additional multiple millions of dollars for operating expenses?

 

Harris County does not collect sales taxes.

[mattyt36]

10 minutes ago, Ross said:

Harris County does not collect sales taxes.

Well METRO (aka the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County) certainly does, and at the maximum rate allowed by State law, which I assume is what he was referring to. Anything else? 

[Ross]

9 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Well METRO (aka the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County) certainly does, and at the maximum rate allowed by State law, which I assume is what he was referring to. Anything else? 

Harris County does not collect sales taxes.

[Luminare]

@mattyt36

All great points above. 

If someone wants to propose more rail, but doesn't even bother to bring up the fact that federal environmental reviews need to either be drastically reformed, or discarded then that has always been a clue to me that the person doesn't care seriously about the issue at hand, or isn't willing to do what it takes to actually get the job done. Environmental Review is a huge roadblock to getting any rail done because it at minimum adds 1-2 years planning which significantly adds to the cost of any project from day one. All the current giants in rail infrastructure didn't have to do that, and because of environmental review it ensures that any upstart into the market is so encumbered with ridiculous startup costs that it makes the project DOA, and Rail companies have very strong lobbies to keep it this way...huh I wonder why.

I certainly do not trust municipalities at this point construct a proper networks from scratch anyway. The process is too corrupt, the stakeholder process is too corrupt, and the process for generating a network devolves the moment one steps in office from "where do people want to go" to "how can I use this as a carrot to lock up a voter block in my district." Btw, this is politics, and its part of the game, but this doesn't create a transit network that works. Transportation network planning can not be placed at the feet of politicians because they aren't preoccupied everyday about where people need to go, but who is going to vote for them in the next election. You can't put it in a city planners hands because they won't actually take risks because if they do then they lose their cushy government jobs as nearly all city planners are state agents.

Rail was built buy people with vision. People who knew about economics, and peoples wants and needs. Rail was built by wild people who took risks, and were willing to show the way rather than hope their was a way. So why give these types of projects to people who are fundamentally risk adverse? Politicians, city planners, large transportation departments and agencies, and bureaucracies?

Today we have one of those people I was talking about, Elon Musk. But why do we only have one Elon Musk is the real question? If I had venture capital and ideas for transit I certainly wouldn't go to my local government to plead for an alternative...I'd just build the alternative. We have better technology, better economies of scale, better knowledge from past practice, yet we are supposed to be convinced that its actually more expensive today to build rail infrastructure. I mean this is a big problem across all industries is the fact that seemingly everything is getting more and more expensive when everything should be getting cheaper and easier to do. Take current inflation out of the picture for a moment, if everything regarding rail has gotten more expensive, and more tedious, and tougher to start than in an era where they were still placing calls on a telegraph, and hauling materials via covered wagon...then we have bigger problems than just not getting rail off the ground. You eliminate the bloat, and the corruption that has inflated the costs, and you will see reinvestment in the alternative.

[mattyt36]

On 3/17/2023 at 10:48 AM, Luminare said:

If someone wants to propose more rail, but doesn't even bother to bring up the fact that federal environmental reviews need to either be drastically reformed, or discarded then that has always been a clue to me that the person doesn't care seriously about the issue at hand, or isn't willing to do what it takes to actually get the job done. Environmental Review is a huge roadblock to getting any rail done because it at minimum adds 1-2 years planning which significantly adds to the cost of any project from day one. All the current giants in rail infrastructure didn't have to do that, and because of environmental review it ensures that any upstart into the market is so encumbered with ridiculous startup costs that it makes the project DOA, and Rail companies have very strong lobbies to keep it this way...huh I wonder why.

Indeed . . . there's a lot of "equity" built up in the large transit systems.  In fact, a not insignificant portion of the infrastructure was built by private companies!

On 3/17/2023 at 10:48 AM, Luminare said:

I certainly do not trust municipalities at this point construct a proper networks from scratch anyway. The process is too corrupt, the stakeholder process is too corrupt, and the process for generating a network devolves the moment one steps in office from "where do people want to go" to "how can I use this as a carrot to lock up a voter block in my district." Btw, this is politics, and its part of the game, but this doesn't create a transit network that works. Transportation network planning can not be placed at the feet of politicians because they aren't preoccupied everyday about where people need to go, but who is going to vote for them in the next election. You can't put it in a city planners hands because they won't actually take risks because if they do then they lose their cushy government jobs as nearly all city planners are state agents.

Yes, much has been said of the pathetic ridership statistics on the DART light rail lines, but the truth of the matter is DART has way more constituent jurisdictions than METRO does--member cities of DART include the cities of Dallas, Addison, Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Garland, Glenn Heights, Highland Park (!), Irving, Plano, Richardson, Rowlett, and University Park (!).  I believe voter approval for the DART light rail lines dates back to voter approval for the actual inception of the agency in 1983 so . . . guess what?  They had to design a rail system that touched every one of the member cities.  Thankfully the same dynamics (at least not to that degree) dictated the development of the METRO system.

(I disagree with the assessment of city planners, at least in Houston, as having "cushy government jobs."  Narrowly focused, pedantic, or entitled, I guess I can see.  Any City employee is a "state agent," as they should be, as they are charged with the execution of laws and policies--as written here it sort of implies some sort of cynical libertarian grand conspiracy theory . . . governments are capable of doing good, and do so every day, despite their failures elsewhere.  You can say the same thing about pretty much any institution, but I think U.S. history proves the system we have, despite its faults, has proven itself pretty successful in creating an environment in which one has at least some possibility of economic mobility based on merit.  In any case, I think the City of Houston planners are about as practical as you can get . . . this project for example, I think is inspired purely by what they're attempting to accomplish.  No pie in the sky, just somehow ease the connection between a dense population area and recreational areas: Gulfton to be target of new federal pilot program for reconnecting areas cut off by transportation barriers | Community Impact)

On 3/17/2023 at 10:48 AM, Luminare said:

Rail was built buy people with vision. People who knew about economics, and peoples wants and needs. Rail was built by wild people who took risks, and were willing to show the way rather than hope their was a way. So why give these types of projects to people who are fundamentally risk adverse? Politicians, city planners, large transportation departments and agencies, and bureaucracies?

Today we have one of those people I was talking about, Elon Musk. But why do we only have one Elon Musk is the real question? If I had venture capital and ideas for transit I certainly wouldn't go to my local government to plead for an alternative...I'd just build the alternative. We have better technology, better economies of scale, better knowledge from past practice, yet we are supposed to be convinced that its actually more expensive today to build rail infrastructure. I mean this is a big problem across all industries is the fact that seemingly everything is getting more and more expensive when everything should be getting cheaper and easier to do. Take current inflation out of the picture for a moment, if everything regarding rail has gotten more expensive, and more tedious, and tougher to start than in an era where they were still placing calls on a telegraph, and hauling materials via covered wagon...then we have bigger problems than just not getting rail off the ground. You eliminate the bloat, and the corruption that has inflated the costs, and you will see reinvestment in the alternative.

Hmmmm, well, there's been one privately financed transit project in the U.S. that I am aware of (the Las Vegas Monorail)--it went bankrupt twice and had some pretty major service interruptions.  Railroads were privately financed in the 19th century and made a bunch of people broke in the process.  In any case, one must acknowledge the high level of private sector involvement in any public infrastructure development--9 times out of 10, they are the ones doing the planning, design, and engineering and 10 times out of 10 they are doing the construction.  Under the direction of the public sector, of course, but let's not pretend this isn't a major profit center for private enterprise, either.

I also take issue with the statement that politicians are "risk-averse."  Local politicians have very real funding constraints (no one is going to buy debt to build an unfeasible system, or I guess stated better, you're not going to be able to issue debt at affordable rates for an unfeasible system), and we should all be glad that they generally do.  (I know the sense is they don't and just p*ss money away, but I think this is cynical and misinformed--to me, it's a miracle it actually works as well as it does.)

The truth of the matter is I think it's pretty clear that local transportation is a viable enterprise for the private sector.  Roadways work because it is a shared public-private investment.  The public builds and maintains the infrastructure, but individuals are responsible for buying the "rolling stock," which is no small capital outlay.  So the game should be, as you imply, to reduce development costs by relaxing onerous design requirements and minimizing operating costs (e.g., driverless trains).  Much has been written about this, as I'm sure you're aware:

Why do roads, rail, and infrastructure cost so much to build in the US? - Vox

NB: Elon not the greatest example of success in this regard:

Two of Elon Musk’s Terrible Ideas Have Both Flopped in Vegas (curbed.com)

Edited March 18 by mattyt36

[editor]

On 3/18/2023 at 2:07 PM, mattyt36 said:

NB: Elon not the greatest example of success in this regard:

Two of Elon Musk’s Terrible Ideas Have Both Flopped in Vegas (curbed.com)

I'm not sure it's correct to call Musk's Vegas project a flop.  It's just at its beginning, and there are articles in the Vegas newspapers every month about the progress of its expansion.  There was one just two days ago:

Quote

The next offshoot of the Boring Company’s Convention Center Loop is underway.

Crews are digging the tunnel between the Las Vegas Convention Center and the Westgate. The tunnel will surface at the convention center’s Riviera Station, located near the northwest corner of the facility’s parking lot near the west hall.

Tunneling on the Westgate portion is slated to wrap up next month, and operations are expected to begin this summer, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority

Sorry I don't have a link to the R-J article.  I subscribe to the dead tree edition.

[004n063]

Flop or not, I'm comfortable calling the Tesla tunnels idea dumb. 

I also disagree with the notion that individual visionaries are what we need to solve our various urban crises. 

When virtually all livability indices in our best cities (and while I love Houston and always will, we really don't compete in any domain that can be prefixed with the word "public") are decades behind the average city in The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, or Japan, maybe it's time to drop the pretense of exceptionalism and start copying stuff. The exemplars are out there.

[mattyt36]

On 3/19/2023 at 5:48 PM, editor said:

I'm not sure it's correct to call Musk's Vegas project a flop.  It's just at its beginning, and there are articles in the Vegas newspapers every month about the progress of its expansion.  There was one just two days ago:

Sorry I don't have a link to the R-J article.  I subscribe to the dead tree edition.

Somehow my reply got deleted, not sure why 🙄, but I did want to congratulate @editor for moving to Las Vegas if that is the case.  All the best!

Also see: Traffic jams build up in Elon Musk's 'Vegas Loop' tunnels while shuttling around CES attendees | Daily Mail Online

Not sure how "just the beginning" can correct for a tunnel width without redundancy and any way to get out.  Was Daddy Elon's "Phase 1" a certain tunnel width that he just intended to go back in and dig a bit wider 10 years later?  Give me a break.

[samagon]

On 3/20/2023 at 6:09 AM, 004n063 said:

Flop or not, I'm comfortable calling the Tesla tunnels idea dumb. 

I also disagree with the notion that individual visionaries are what we need to solve our various urban crises. 

When virtually all livability indices in our best cities (and while I love Houston and always will, we really don't compete in any domain that can be prefixed with the word "public") are decades behind the average city in The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, or Japan, maybe it's time to drop the pretense of exceptionalism and start copying stuff. The exemplars are out there.

being a visionary is only helpful if you are trying to fix freeways to make it where they might compete with other forms of mass transit.

we need historians who can look at what other cities have successfully done in the past to move massive amounts of people around their metro areas.

the problem there is that politics at various levels of government (which are lobbied heavily by the next group), and marketing from private companies are not interested in what's best for a city to thrive, they are interested whatever it takes to increase their own personal interests.

I'm sure some will say I'm crazy and that it's a wild conspiracy theory, but the problem is for this to be a conspiracy it would have to be secret and hidden. the donations and actions towards personal interests are not at all hidden.

[strickn]

11 hours ago, samagon said:

being a visionary is only helpful if you are trying to fix freeways to make it where they might compete with other forms of mass transit.

It's a type of problem that is called a prisoner's dilemma.

Suppose all Houston citizens and leaders, public and private, receive a passing grade of 70 if the current status quo civic growth continues for their next decade or two.  
 

We *all* make a 95 if we can cooperate together.  And any of us can take an 80 and make the next guy get a 65 if we can look out for ourselves and leave him to his fate.  Yet, if the next guy does the same thing that we did, then we all end up with a 50 (Houston losing its stride and hospitality in the future)... which is a lot worse than necessary.  
 

But because we can't keep the other guy from ditching us, citizens and leaders may figure it's better in the interest of risk management to cut our risk and just ditch him.  Lower-risk in the short run, perhaps, but a risk of a worse outcome for all participants as that trust is broken.  This is also why we generally don't want politicians who "move fast and break stuff," even if slow civic consensus carries its own risks of stifling our gifts.

[strickn]

On 3/21/2023 at 2:34 AM, mattyt36 said:

did want to congratulate @editor for moving to Las Vegas if that is the case.  All the best!

Also see:

I did want to also congratulate him on his subterranean extension of the Hardy Toll Road to his LV condo garage via Bastrop and Austin 

[editor]

On 3/21/2023 at 2:34 AM, mattyt36 said:

Somehow my reply got deleted, not sure why 🙄, but I did want to congratulate @editor for moving to Las Vegas if that is the case.  All the best!

Also see: Traffic jams build up in Elon Musk's 'Vegas Loop' tunnels while shuttling around CES attendees | Daily Mail Online

Not sure how "just the beginning" can correct for a tunnel width without redundancy and any way to get out.  Was Daddy Elon's "Phase 1" a certain tunnel width that he just intended to go back in and dig a bit wider 10 years later?  Give me a break.

Quote

but I did want to congratulate @editor for moving to Las Vegas if that is the case.

I did not move to Las Vegas.  I'm not sure why you would presume that, but you seem consistently eager to build a mental model about me and my personal life; as you do for other posters on this forum.  It's creepy and weird.

Quote

Also see: Traffic jams build up in Elon Musk's 'Vegas Loop' tunnels while shuttling around CES attendees | Daily Mail Online

Your link to the Daily Mail article is meaningless.  CES is the largest event in Las Vegas all year, so naturally any system — especially a novel one that appeals to the type of people who attend CES — will be bogged down.  Just like when Memorial Drive gets bogged down during the art festival.  It's one of those "No shit, Sherlock" moments.  More to the point, it's not surprising that Musk's tunnel system would get bogged down, because it's still not done.  Only one pair of stations have been completed. 

Unlike you, who bases everything he knows about the Vegas tunnel project on Googled links, I base what I know on my personal experience of having used the tunnel and reading the local newspaper accounts of its progress.   I am in no way defending the Musk tunnel project.  I think Vegas has far more pressing transportation needs, but since it's not public money, I'm OK with just watching to see what happens with it.  If nothing else, at least it's someone trying something.  People don't do that much anymore.

Quote

Not sure how "just the beginning" can correct for a tunnel width without redundancy and any way to get out.

"Just the beginning" actually can correct for inadequacies because on this planet, time moves forward, allowing for a thing called "change."   We are not stuck in a single moment in time where the tunnel can never be modified and additional tunnels never built.  What is it that makes you think it is immutable?

Quote

 Was Daddy Elon's "Phase 1" a certain tunnel width that he just intended to go back in and dig a bit wider 10 years later?

Does the phrase "Daddy Elon" have any meaning?  Is he your father?  Your pimp?  Or are you trying to imply that I'm a fan of Mr. Musk?  If so, you are gravely mistaken, as in other fora I am among his harshest critics.  Again, I am not the person you wish me to be.  I suggest you stop trying to mold people to your stereotypes, because you do not appear to be very good at it.

As for going back and digging more, he could if he wanted to.  Why shouldn't he?  It's his project. He's paying for it.  It's a private transit system, not a public transit system.  Let him throw away his money how he sees fit.  Or do you hate capitalism as much as you love inventing arguments against transit?

Quote

Give me a break.

I have no break to give you.  Do you require one? Perhaps now is a good time to take a break from HAIF.

[Twinsanity02]

What do all the above posts have to do with the Hardy Toll road extension?  What does Elon Musk have to do with the extension? Is it being built or not? I know several rail lines were moved in expectation of construction. 

I hope it is built. It will make exiting and entering the downtown easier, and I believe revitalize that region of the downtown. It will certainly speed access to IAH.

[editor]

8 hours ago, Twinsanity02 said:

What do all the above posts have to do with the Hardy Toll road extension?  What does Elon Musk have to do with the extension? Is it being built or not? I know several rail lines were moved in expectation of construction. 

I hope it is built. It will make exiting and entering the downtown easier, and I believe revitalize that region of the downtown. It will certainly speed access to IAH.

You are correct.  Once again @mattyt36 has steered a thread off-topic, and I've followed him.  Thank you for calling me out on it.  Now, back to Hardy Toll Road posts…

[samagon]

On 3/24/2023 at 8:05 AM, editor said:

Your link to the Daily Mail article is meaningless.  CES is the largest event in Las Vegas all year

I suspect that the F1 race later this year will pip CES for the #1 slot.

but that's far afield of the Hardy extension. perhaps I missed other posts, but are they going to wait and time this with the i45 realignment, or are they going to do 9/10ths, and when the i45 realignment is ready to be connected, then they do the other 1/10th?

Edited March 27 by samagon