More Congestion On Interstate-10

[cloud713]

some of this sounds like it would be better suited in the Whats your ideal transit plan for Houston thread. i started to write a reply to some of those post but didnt want to derail this thread.

somewhat on topic, i have always wondered why they dont have a bus or streetcar network connecting the corporations in the Energy Corridor to the local P&Rs, like kdog suggested.

[Slick Vik]

I'm not convinced that those things are getting built because if the rail line by any means. It's really a stretch to credit a burst of activity to the rail line when that burst occurs 10 years after construction was completed. Apartment buildings have gone up all over Midtown without any real concentration on the rail line, so unless you're going to credit all development in Midtown to the rail line, which I would again find to be a stretch, then it's hard to find a pattern.

Regarding DART, we've already discussed that on another thread. I have questions about the investment figures provided by the study that DART commissioned to identify development along the rail lines because it doesn't consider subsidies provided to projects. That's going to skew results pretty heavily because it makes it very difficult to understand what was built because of incentives and what was built because of rail.

Regarding rail bias, I have no interest in transit for people that are too good for the bus. I'm interested in transit for people that need it because it's their only choice. Once those people have their needs covered, that's the time to consider transit for people that own cars, but don't want to drive them.

 

You question everything you don't agree with.

[IronTiger]

You question everything you don't agree with.

It takes one to know one, isn't it?

[Slick Vik]

It takes one to know one, isn't it?

It's pretty obvious projects popping up along the rail line is due to rail. The only thing that stopped this from happening earlier is the recession.

Also it's interesting to support projects that help people that think they're too good to ride mass transit but oppose those who ride it but prefer rail.

[IronTiger]

It's pretty obvious projects popping up along the rail line is due to rail. The only thing that stopped this from happening earlier is the recession.

 

The entire Inner Loop has been flourishing with projects, renovations, and remodels, with most of them nowhere near the rail line. The Susanne, the new H-E-B Montrose Market, the redevelopment of Archstone Apartments, a few new developments replacing garden apartment complexes (District at Greenbriar, 2530 Bissonnett, etc.), something at Las Palmas and Alabama, Weslayan and Alabama, Andover Richmond redevelopment, and much more. 

 

If you think that all this is "due to rail", you're not paying attention.

[Slick Vik]

The entire Inner Loop has been flourishing with projects, renovations, and remodels, with most of them nowhere near the rail line. The Susanne, the new H-E-B Montrose Market, the redevelopment of Archstone Apartments, a few new developments replacing garden apartment complexes (District at Greenbriar, 2530 Bissonnett, etc.), something at Las Palmas and Alabama, Weslayan and Alabama, Andover Richmond redevelopment, and much more.

If you think that all this is "due to rail", you're not paying attention.

You did not comprehend my post.

[IronTiger]

You did not comprehend my post.

^^ Also something that you yourself have done on a fairly consistent basis.

I read your post just fine and responded to it. I am merely pointing out that the Inner Loop has all sorts of projects going on besides the light rail. Also note that I did not say "rail had nothing to do with it" or anything along those lines.

[livincinco]

You question everything you don't agree with.

I question everything I agree with too. There's a large amount of data/studies that are biased to support a particular conclusion. Bad data leads to bad conclusions.

I'm not any rail by any means. I'm just pro-reality and I think that a large amount of the tranportation discussion that happens on this thread has no interest in reality. If you want the world to be exactly like you wish it would be, go play SimCity. Otherwise, you have to question your assumptions as to why things happen the way they do.

[Slick Vik]

^^ Also something that you yourself have done on a fairly consistent basis.

I read your post just fine and responded to it. I am merely pointing out that the Inner Loop has all sorts of projects going on besides the light rail. Also note that I did not say "rail had nothing to do with it" or anything along those lines.

My point was simply about the developments along the rail line.

[Slick Vik]

I question everything I agree with too. There's a large amount of data/studies that are biased to support a particular conclusion. Bad data leads to bad conclusions.

I'm not any rail by any means. I'm just pro-reality and I think that a large amount of the tranportation discussion that happens on this thread has no interest in reality. If you want the world to be exactly like you wish it would be, go play SimCity. Otherwise, you have to question your assumptions as to why things happen the way they do.

The reality is the city is gaining population daily and at some point we need an effective alternative to simply driving to handle what's ahead. Even LA figured this out. The longer we wait the more it will cost.

[IronTiger]

My point was simply about the developments along the rail line.

Yes, which you pointed out that the rail-side development was "obviously" because of the rail presence, to which I countered that the type of new development seen there is happening all over the Inner Loop.

[livincinco]

The reality is the city is gaining population daily and at some point we need an effective alternative to simply driving to handle what's ahead. Even LA figured this out. The longer we wait the more it will cost.

 

Agreed, but the big question is given that there is a finite amount of resource to be allocated to transportation in the foreseeable future, what is the appropriate way to allocate that resource?  As I've mentioned before (many many times), my opinion is that the primary need in the city of Houston is to provide usable mass transit to as high of a percentage of users as possible with a specific preference to ensuring that people with the highest need for mass transit (i.e. the most economically disadvantaged).  Rail is effective at moving a large number of people along a defined corridor and, in my opinion, that's a secondary need for the city of Houston right now.

 

My stance has continually been that Houston needs to focus resource to building the most effective bus system that it can prior to significant investment in rail because it will provide the largest benefit to the population that has the biggest need.  Once that's in place, then focus on specific corridors that generate sufficient demand for rail.

 

In my opinion, focusing METRO resource today on building 2-3 rail lines that will serve a very small portion of the overall population is not a good use of finite resource.

 

[Slick Vik]

Yes, which you pointed out that the rail-side development was "obviously" because of the rail presence, to which I countered that the type of new development seen there is happening all over the Inner Loop.

 

Yes but when it's hugging the rail, that's an effect of the rail line boosting development. Main was there a long time and without the light rail I doubt these apartments would be popping up along it.

[IronTiger]

Yes but when it's hugging the rail, that's an effect of the rail line boosting development. Main was there a long time and without the light rail I doubt these apartments would be popping up along it.

Of course Main was there for a long time. But US-59 was also rebuilt around that same time, and I'm not saying "we're seeing new redevelopments along US-59 like the redevelopment of Bissonnet Village and Greenbriar Chateau because they finished Southwest Freeway, herp derp". It's the great economy and investment in the Inner Loop as a whole.

[Slick Vik]

Agreed, but the big question is given that there is a finite amount of resource to be allocated to transportation in the foreseeable future, what is the appropriate way to allocate that resource?  As I've mentioned before (many many times), my opinion is that the primary need in the city of Houston is to provide usable mass transit to as high of a percentage of users as possible with a specific preference to ensuring that people with the highest need for mass transit (i.e. the most economically disadvantaged).  Rail is effective at moving a large number of people along a defined corridor and, in my opinion, that's a secondary need for the city of Houston right now.

 

My stance has continually been that Houston needs to focus resource to building the most effective bus system that it can prior to significant investment in rail because it will provide the largest benefit to the population that has the biggest need.  Once that's in place, then focus on specific corridors that generate sufficient demand for rail.

 

In my opinion, focusing METRO resource today on building 2-3 rail lines that will serve a very small portion of the overall population is not a good use of finite resource.

 

 

I agree and disagree with you. The bus system should be invested in but in combination with rail lines that go down heavily used corridors quickly. Unfortunately without a subway or elevated rail quickly is out of the question. However if at least the university line and uptown line are built, there is a base system for the dense part of the city, and with suburban lines feeding into it, and buses feeding into those stations, we would have a proper system. Now I guess if that's not an option and BRT must be built, it can be considered, but at the bare minimum the uptown, university, and a line down Washington should be built.

[livincinco]

I don't think it'll happen, either. I just want to connect the city to the suburbs with more options than driving. Like we were talking about earlier, a lot of people seem to care more about their community or their personal space than what's best for the masses, and "harsh" or not, that (and having 6 million of us) has largely brought us to this point. We can't keep going like this forever, and like I said the other day...it's a hell of a lot easier to manage this issue now while there are "only" 6 million, 300 million and 7 billion of us than when there are 10-20 million, 500-700 million and 20-50 billion of us. Future generations are being left with a bigger "load" (so to speak) every day we continue to look the other way.

 

 

 

If it was up to me, we would have subways all over this town and lots of covered moving walkways in the busier districts. A 100 mile network could make Houston the world-class city we aspire to be. We could have subway lines connecting areas such as:

 

- Hobby Airport, U of H, Downtown, Greenspoint, IAH and The Woodlands

- Reliant Park, TMC, Rice U/Hermann Park, Midtown, Downtown 

- TMC, Rice Village, GWP, Galleria area

- Midtown, Montrose, Upper Kirby/River Oaks, Galleria area, Westchase, Terry Hershey Park, Energy Corridor

- Energy Corridor, City Centre/Memorial City, Memorial Park, Allen Pkwy/Regent Square/Eleanor Tinsley Park, Downtown

 

I think that would be a great start to a new era in Houston. Add in a bullet train to D/FW and/or ATX/SA and we've got even more sustainable growth management over time.

 

***

 

I agree that the I-10 expansion helped the growth we are seeing out there today, but I'm not sure that the same kind of growth wouldn't have happened elsewhere in town if we didn't do I-10 the way we did. I wonder if it came down to "the Energy Corridor, or OKC/SA" for some of these companies. That's a very interesting take.

 

 

I'd rather be "overbuilt" if it means we're moving than "under built" if it means we're sitting in traffic. You're right, though that even some of the best mass transit systems we have are "massively crowded" during rush hour, too. That demonstrates their demand if they're planned and built right.

 

I'm not saying or advocating moving people from the suburbs closer in. I just want us to stop building any further out than we already have and build smarter in all phases of our transportation system.

 

Pretty much without exception in the US, a transit system becomes "massively crowded" when the functional "cost" (in either time or money), becomes so high that users find transit to be preferable.  Systems that are located in cities that don't have those constraints rarely generate large amounts of ridership, Dallas being a perfect case in point.

 

The other problem is that the idea that transit improves commute times is really not accurate.  Commute times generally highest in cities with extensive transit systems, not the other way around and that's due to the logistics of following a fixed network.  One of the big problem that I've personally experienced with rail networks is the hub and spoke design that most follow is not particularly suited to Houston.  Take the example of running commuter rail from Katy to downtown.  Nice in concept to run rail directly to downtown and then connect to a fully built out light rail network, however the actual logistics get pretty problematic.  If you live in Katy and work in Greenway Plaza would you take rail to downtown, transfer to the Main Street line and then transfer again to the University line in order to get to Greenway Plaza?  Probably not and that's the problem with rail in a decentralized city.  The network looks great on paper until you start to consider the transit times involved in getting from point to point if you're not moving to the hub.

 

Regarding I-10, I tend to disagree with you that businesses would have focused closer in.  A couple of assumptions here, first is that we've clearly seen that increased demand inside the loop has a dramatic impact on prices.  The appreciation of the last couple of years has clearly shown that.  The second is that the office market in Houston is price sensitive.  The last couple of years have shown that as well as a high percentage of businesses have chosen to locate in the periphery rather than centralize which I think can pretty directly be attributed to the difference in prices between those areas.

 

So let's assume for a moment that I-10 doesn't get widened and overall demand in the Houston market stays consistent.  Per your theory, more development gets concentrated in central areas which per our assumption will increase prices even more significantly than current trend.  Failure to built I-10 decreases the attractiveness of suburban areas because of the higher commute times associated with getting to jobs (both because they're concentrated in the urban core and because of decreased capacity), which drives the prices in the urban area another level higher.  In the meantime, competing markets do not suffer the price pressure that Houston does and are able to offer significantly lower prices for both office and residential. 

 

The question then becomes whether the companies that we're talking about are willing to absorb these additional costs to be in Houston.  I would argue that most of them wouldn't.  I don't think that Houston has the appeal to demand the kind of increased costs that San Francisco or New York does. 

[IronTiger]

Pretty much without exception in the US, a transit system becomes "massively crowded" when the functional "cost" (in either time or money), becomes so high that users find transit to be preferable. Systems that are located in cities that don't have those constraints rarely generate large amounts of ridership, Dallas being a perfect case in point.

I would consider that a "massively crowded" transit system would be almost as much of a failure as a success. When that happens, it means that both freeways and transit systems have reached critical mass, commuting is universally miserable, and quality of life suffers.

[livincinco]

I would consider that a "massively crowded" transit system would be almost as much of a failure as a success. When that happens, it means that both freeways and transit systems have reached critical mass, commuting is universally miserable, and quality of life suffers.

 

What city has the highest rail ridership in the US?  New York.

What city has the longest commute in the US?  New York.

 

This is not a coincidence.

 

[Slick Vik]

Pretty much without exception in the US, a transit system becomes "massively crowded" when the functional "cost" (in either time or money), becomes so high that users find transit to be preferable.  Systems that are located in cities that don't have those constraints rarely generate large amounts of ridership, Dallas being a perfect case in point.

 

The other problem is that the idea that transit improves commute times is really not accurate.  Commute times generally highest in cities with extensive transit systems, not the other way around and that's due to the logistics of following a fixed network.  One of the big problem that I've personally experienced with rail networks is the hub and spoke design that most follow is not particularly suited to Houston.  Take the example of running commuter rail from Katy to downtown.  Nice in concept to run rail directly to downtown and then connect to a fully built out light rail network, however the actual logistics get pretty problematic.  If you live in Katy and work in Greenway Plaza would you take rail to downtown, transfer to the Main Street line and then transfer again to the University line in order to get to Greenway Plaza?  Probably not and that's the problem with rail in a decentralized city.  The network looks great on paper until you start to consider the transit times involved in getting from point to point if you're not moving to the hub.

 

Regarding I-10, I tend to disagree with you that businesses would have focused closer in.  A couple of assumptions here, first is that we've clearly seen that increased demand inside the loop has a dramatic impact on prices.  The appreciation of the last couple of years has clearly shown that.  The second is that the office market in Houston is price sensitive.  The last couple of years have shown that as well as a high percentage of businesses have chosen to locate in the periphery rather than centralize which I think can pretty directly be attributed to the difference in prices between those areas.

 

So let's assume for a moment that I-10 doesn't get widened and overall demand in the Houston market stays consistent.  Per your theory, more development gets concentrated in central areas which per our assumption will increase prices even more significantly than current trend.  Failure to built I-10 decreases the attractiveness of suburban areas because of the higher commute times associated with getting to jobs (both because they're concentrated in the urban core and because of decreased capacity), which drives the prices in the urban area another level higher.  In the meantime, competing markets do not suffer the price pressure that Houston does and are able to offer significantly lower prices for both office and residential. 

 

The question then becomes whether the companies that we're talking about are willing to absorb these additional costs to be in Houston.  I would argue that most of them wouldn't.  I don't think that Houston has the appeal to demand the kind of increased costs that San Francisco or New York does. 

 

So when I took BART in San Francisco, or SkyTrain in Vancouver, I didn't save huge amounts of time avoiding traffic?

[livincinco]

So when I took BART in San Francisco, or SkyTrain in Vancouver, I didn't save huge amounts of time avoiding traffic?

 

San Francisco - #3 worst commute in the United States - http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/04/worst-traffic-cities/2127661/

 

Vancouver - worst traffic congestion in all of North America - http://globalnews.ca/news/949901/vancouver-has-worst-traffic-congestion-in-north-america-report/

[Slick Vik]

San Francisco - #3 worst commute in the United States - http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/04/worst-traffic-cities/2127661/

Vancouver - worst traffic congestion in all of North America - http://globalnews.ca/news/949901/vancouver-has-worst-traffic-congestion-in-north-america-report/

I can assure you taking BART from Dublin/Pleasanton to Embarcadero via BART was far faster than driving. Also taking skytrain from Bridgeport downtown instead of driving was as well. These are corridors which are heavily travelled and the commute is twice as fast via rail than driving and much less expensive as well.

Also those are probably two of the highest quality of life cities in the continent.

Also Vancouver has bad congestion but that's because it banned freeways which in turn increased the dynamism of the city.

[jt16]

I can assure you taking BART from Dublin/Pleasanton to Embarcadero via BART was far faster than driving. Also taking skytrain from Bridgeport downtown instead of driving was as well. These are corridors which are heavily travelled and the commute is twice as fast via rail than driving and much less expensive as well.

Also those are probably two of the highest quality of life cities in the country.

My brother in law and sister in law live in San Fran. My commute from west Houston to DT is three times as many miles as his commute via Bart, but they take the same amount of time. This is first hand real experience. Now, there is something less stressful about riding Bart vs driving down I10.

[IronTiger]

Also those are probably two of the highest quality of life cities in the continent.

Measuring quality of life I can imagine is pretty hard to do--typically people who don't like the city they live in are usually too poor to move out. That or they take some sort of hard statistic (park acreage, etc.) and extrapolate it. Either way, both SF and Vancouver fall into a category wherein the people there think that not only is the greatest city on earth (which in many ways is a positive attitude to have) but also ignore its flaws and attacks anyone who criticize it (both Vancouver and SF are guilty of this). It's like the worst type of nationalism, but on a much smaller scale.

[Ross]

Also Vancouver has bad congestion but that's because it banned freeways which in turn increased the dynamism of the city.

 

So banning freeways made congestion worse. I'm glad you have seen the light and will now support freeways

[Slick Vik]

So banning freeways made congestion worse. I'm glad you have seen the light and will now support freeways

But it made the city better.

[IronTiger]

But it made the city better.

How so, and what is it "improving" on?

[Slick Vik]

How so, and what is it "improving" on?

Look at Vancouver and look at Seattle. That gives you a good idea.

[IronTiger]

Look at Vancouver and look at Seattle. That gives you a good idea.

You're evading the question. And please don't say "It's more urban" because you and I both know that's not a good answer. (Also, there's no shame in admitting in that you were wrong about something, just throwing that out there)

[livincinco]

Look at Vancouver and look at Seattle. That gives you a good idea.

 

Vancouver - as described on their tourism website

 

Oceanside location...mountains 20 minutes north of downtown...temperate climate, surrounding snow-covered slopes for winter sports and breathtaking views of the city below.

 

Vancouver is one of the few places in the world where it's possible to ski in the morning and sail in the afternoon.

 

Gee!  Sounds just like Houston!  Clearly based on the above description there is no question that any difference in quality of life ranking is due to differences between the transit systems of the two cities.

 

 

Seattle - from the New York Times "36 hours in Seattle" - This is one of the rare American cities where you can be outdoors year-round without either shivering or sweating... stunning natural beauty...

 

Well that certainly wouldn't have anything to do with quality of life rankings.  I hear people talk about Houston's stunning natural beauty all the time.  Seattle must have higher rankings because of its transit system.

 

Since all quality of life rankings are based entirely on transit, I bet that Dallas has a really high rankings on all those quality of life rankings and cities like Austin and San Diego must do really, really bad because they have no transit.

 

Wait...these rankings must be wrong.  Austin and San Diego rank in the top 10 and Dallas doesn't.  Don't these people realize how bad transit is in Austin and San Diego????? 

[Texasota]

Sure, natural beauty and easy access to nature are a big part of "quality of life." 

 

Nevertheless, most of the cities mentioned have terrible freeway systems (Austin) or have actually starting removing existing freeways (Seattle).

 

Freeways are excellent at providing convenient connections between dispersed locations, but they are equally good at creating boundaries in the communities they cross.