More Congestion On Interstate-10

[Slick Vik]

I hear you, but that's the way our democracy functions. Small groups have a lot of power to impact stuff that affects them locally regardless of whether the majority of the larger area wants it. What happened with the Richmond line is no different than the movement to stop the Ashby highrise. It's a well organized neighborhood that was able to make their voice heard.

Regarding corruption, the reason that I'm so dismissive of conspiracies is that corruption and conspiracies are two completely different things. Conspiracies are generally situations where a logical explanation exists and a convoluted explanation is created to explain why the logical explanation can't possibly be right, generally because the logical explanation doesn't match the beliefs of the party inventing the conspiracy. In those cases, I tend to believe that Ockham's razor still holds true.

The "streetcar" conspiracy is a perfect example of this (NOTE: This is not an invitation to further derail this thread. We have talked this to death and there are plenty of threads to discuss it further). There is a logical explanation of what happened that is supported by the business and historical record of the time. That doesn't support the belief system that certain elements would like to promote, so a conspiracy is created to explain why the logical explanation is wrong.

That's not a conspiracy; it's a set of facts that happened to promote a certain history. I think what angers people is that the government never really punished GM and with its policy of redlining supported it in a way.

[Ross]

After spending a couple of evenings in two suburbs, it seems to me that the real traffic problem is not here in town, but in the suburbs. Last weekend, my son wanted to go to a store off 249 and Louetta, so we made the trek out there. Coming back we drove Louetta from 249 to 45. For much of that drive, it felt like there is more density out there than there is here in the greater Heights Area. Friday, we were out in Katy, at Fry and Westheimer Parkway for an event. I drove to get some dinner at a Chick Fil-a on Westheimer Parkway past Grand Parkway, and, once again, it seemed pretty crowded, with lots of traffic. The Chick Fil-a was jam packed, with the drive through line out into the street, and upwards of 100 people inside. Assuming all  those people would be willing to live in apartments inside the Loop, the traffic here would be an order of magnitude worse than it is now. I am willing to bet that of all those families, an average of one family member might make the trek into town for work. The rest seldom, if ever, go inside the Loop.

 

My conclusion from this is that, for Houston, we have organically come up with the optimum growth pattern for our geography. Anything else would be artificial, and make for less than optimum conditions.

 

I should mention that we took the I-10 HOV to Katy. For a Friday evening, traffic on all lanes was moving rather well, with no waits.

[livincinco]

 

Friday, we were out in Katy, at Fry and Westheimer Parkway for an event. I drove to get some dinner at a Chick Fil-a on Westheimer Parkway past Grand Parkway

 

Right around the corner and didn't come to visit.  I'll just drink the rest of my beer by myself. 

 

[por favor gracias]

I hear you, but that's the way our democracy functions.  Small groups have a lot of power to impact stuff that affects them locally regardless of whether the majority of the larger area wants it.  What happened with the Richmond line is no different than the movement to stop the Ashby highrise.  It's a well organized neighborhood that was able to make their voice heard.

 

Regarding corruption, the reason that I'm so dismissive of conspiracies is that corruption and conspiracies are two completely different things.  Conspiracies are generally situations where a logical explanation exists and a convoluted explanation is created to explain why the logical explanation can't possibly be right, generally because the logical explanation doesn't match the beliefs of the party inventing the conspiracy.  In those cases, I tend to believe that Ockham's razor still holds true.

 

The "streetcar" conspiracy is a perfect example of this (NOTE: This is not an invitation to further derail this thread.  We have talked this to death and there are plenty of threads to discuss it further).  There is a logical explanation of what happened that is supported by the business and historical record of the time.  That doesn't support the belief system that certain elements would like to promote, so a conspiracy is created to explain why the logical explanation is wrong.

 

Agree 100% on your first point. I'd like to see more organization as a whole...but the more of us there are, the more difficult that becomes. Over 6 million in Houston, 300 million in America and 7 billion worldwide. This is why there is so little accountability out there.

 

If the University/Richmond rail line was not designed to interfere with street traffic like all of our other rail is (and perhaps if it ran underground and/or down Westheimer until the GWP area instead), I don't think it would be this big of an issue.

 

I agree that conspiracies and corruption are completely different things. "Conspiracies" happen any time there are two or more beings (and not just humans) who get together to plot a scheme in regard to at least one other party or issue. This is rampant in business and in local, state and federal governments. You could say that the Founding Fathers "conspired" to form our country and our Constitution. Packs of wild dogs in Africa "conspire" to kill unlucky gazelles. "Corruption" is basically acts of immorality. Corruption is often accompanied with conspiracy. That's what I consider "logical."

 

In regard to some of the common, high profile "conspiracy theories" that have been labeled as such in our media, I tend to think that the facts are more aligned with the "conspiracy theories" themselves than the "official stories." Actually, it's not even a matter of opinion, they just do.

 

I'm unfamiliar with the specific "streetcar conspiracy" you're referring to, but I generally agree with your notion that quite often, "conspiracies" are created to explain what's "wrong" with logic itself. It's obvious that a lot of our government and business "leaders" spend a lot of their time doing just that while "at work."

[por favor gracias]

After spending a couple of evenings in two suburbs, it seems to me that the real traffic problem is not here in town, but in the suburbs. Last weekend, my son wanted to go to a store off 249 and Louetta, so we made the trek out there. Coming back we drove Louetta from 249 to 45. For much of that drive, it felt like there is more density out there than there is here in the greater Heights Area. Friday, we were out in Katy, at Fry and Westheimer Parkway for an event. I drove to get some dinner at a Chick Fil-a on Westheimer Parkway past Grand Parkway, and, once again, it seemed pretty crowded, with lots of traffic. The Chick Fil-a was jam packed, with the drive through line out into the street, and upwards of 100 people inside. Assuming all  those people would be willing to live in apartments inside the Loop, the traffic here would be an order of magnitude worse than it is now. I am willing to bet that of all those families, an average of one family member might make the trek into town for work. The rest seldom, if ever, go inside the Loop.

 

My conclusion from this is that, for Houston, we have organically come up with the optimum growth pattern for our geography. Anything else would be artificial, and make for less than optimum conditions.

 

I should mention that we took the I-10 HOV to Katy. For a Friday evening, traffic on all lanes was moving rather well, with no waits.

 

Rush hour both starts and finishes early on Fridays. The Katy Freeway is still in the red (according to Houston Transtar) both inbound and outbound during hour, and "not in the green" for a large chunk of the average day.

 

The population density of the Heights is listed at 5,722 per square mile. I know "Katy" technically only applies to the city limits...but I'm inclined to think that Katy's "official" density of 1,248 per square mile isn't more than two or three times that when you factor in "the entire Katy area." I agree that we need to come up with an "optimum growth pattern" for sure.

 

There's no doubt that the "inner loop" would be much more crowded if people didn't move to the suburbs...but traffic wouldn't necessarily be worse. In fact, it may be better because if we would be more likely to have a real mass transit system (and one that wouldn't "require" going 25 or 30 miles outside the city).

[livincinco]

Agree 100% on your first point. I'd like to see more organization as a whole...but the more of us there are, the more difficult that becomes. Over 6 million in Houston, 300 million in America and 7 billion worldwide. This is why there is so little accountability out there.

 

If the University/Richmond rail line was not designed to interfere with street traffic like all of our other rail is (and perhaps if it ran underground and/or down Westheimer until the GWP area instead), I don't think it would be this big of an issue.

 

I agree that conspiracies and corruption are completely different things. "Conspiracies" happen any time there are two or more beings (and not just humans) who get together to plot a scheme in regard to at least one other party or issue. This is rampant in business and in local, state and federal governments. You could say that the Founding Fathers "conspired" to form our country and our Constitution. Packs of wild dogs in Africa "conspire" to kill unlucky gazelles. "Corruption" is basically acts of immorality. Corruption is often accompanied with conspiracy. That's what I consider "logical."

 

In regard to some of the common, high profile "conspiracy theories" that have been labeled as such in our media, I tend to think that the facts are more aligned with the "conspiracy theories" themselves than the "official stories." Actually, it's not even a matter of opinion, they just do.

 

I'm unfamiliar with the specific "streetcar conspiracy" you're referring to, but I generally agree with your notion that quite often, "conspiracies" are created to explain what's "wrong" with logic itself. It's obvious that a lot of our government and business "leaders" spend a lot of their time doing just that while "at work."

 

Excellent points.  The fact that the Houston metro area is more than 6 million people in nine different counties and an area of over 10,000 sq miles is a challenge.  The fact that the population is growing so rapidly and that the city is so organic in its development are additional challenges.  We're projected to add almost 1.5 million people to the region by 2025.  That's going to have profound impact on everything.

 

The rate of growth is a huge point of differentiation between Houston and static cities.  I know that many people in this forum like to talk about urbanization and it's importance.  I'm all in favor of the way that the inside the loop area is gentrifying, but that doesn't address the issues of the vast majority of the regional population and doesn't address how the region is going to deal with an additional increase of 1.5 million population of which a very small percentage is going to locate inside the loop. 

 

As I've pointed out before, the widening of I10 had everything to do with the continued dynamic growth of the Houston metro area.  There is no reason to believe that the construction that occurred in the Energy Corridor would have happened inside the loop if access to the Energy Corridor had been restricted.  This is not a zero sum game.  Cities like San Antonio and Oklahoma City compete just as hard for major companies to relocate there as Houston does and it's a pretty delicate tipping point.  It would only take 4-5 such companies relocating to OKC before it would be legitimate energy hub and a serious competitor in those kind of decisions.

 

[Ross]

Rush hour both starts and finishes early on Fridays. The Katy Freeway is still in the red (according to Houston Transtar) both inbound and outbound during hour, and "not in the green" for a large chunk of the average day.

 

The population density of the Heights is listed at 5,722 per square mile. I know "Katy" technically only applies to the city limits...but I'm inclined to think that Katy's "official" density of 1,248 per square mile isn't more than two or three times that when you factor in "the entire Katy area." I agree that we need to come up with an "optimum growth pattern" for sure.

 

There's no doubt that the "inner loop" would be much more crowded if people didn't move to the suburbs...but traffic wouldn't necessarily be worse. In fact, it may be better because if we would be more likely to have a real mass transit system (and one that wouldn't "require" going 25 or 30 miles outside the city).

 

I don't know that being in the red for some period od time is necessarily bad. Being "green" all the time owuld imply some level of overbuilding. And, it's not unusual for mass transit systems to be massively crowded during rush hour either, the difference being that the travelers aren't driving themselves. It's been my experience that mass transit is not at all comfortable during rush hour.

 

Keep in mind that the folks who live in Cinco Ranch and other suburbs would have to be forced into town at gunpoint. They like their lives in the suburbs, the yards, the pools, etc.

 

[livincinco]

Rush hour both starts and finishes early on Fridays. The Katy Freeway is still in the red (according to Houston Transtar) both inbound and outbound during hour, and "not in the green" for a large chunk of the average day.

 

The population density of the Heights is listed at 5,722 per square mile. I know "Katy" technically only applies to the city limits...but I'm inclined to think that Katy's "official" density of 1,248 per square mile isn't more than two or three times that when you factor in "the entire Katy area." I agree that we need to come up with an "optimum growth pattern" for sure.

 

There's no doubt that the "inner loop" would be much more crowded if people didn't move to the suburbs...but traffic wouldn't necessarily be worse. In fact, it may be better because if we would be more likely to have a real mass transit system (and one that wouldn't "require" going 25 or 30 miles outside the city).

 

I think that's an interesting point, but I generally find that no one is willing to provide reasons that this will occur.  It's great to speculate that people (and businesses for that matter) shouldn't move to the suburbs, but I've yet to hear tangible reasons that this is going to occur that consider economic realities.

 

As more people move and development occurs inside the loop, prices rise, which makes surrounding areas more attractive.  As more people move into the metro, demand continues to increase in surrounding areas which makes exurban areas more attractive.  Urban growth boundaries then increase prices across the region and decrease incentive for people and businesses to move into the metro.

 

I see no signs whatsoever that the Houston region has any interest in taking any measures that are going to reduce the attractiveness to people and businesses to move here, so I'm not sure why we would expect a major change in development patterns.

[IronTiger]

I don't know that being in the red for some period od time is necessarily bad. Being "green" all the time owuld imply some level of overbuilding. And, it's not unusual for mass transit systems to be massively crowded during rush hour either, the difference being that the travelers aren't driving themselves. It's been my experience that mass transit is not at all comfortable during rush hour.

 

Keep in mind that the folks who live in Cinco Ranch and other suburbs would have to be forced into town at gunpoint. They like their lives in the suburbs, the yards, the pools, etc.

Good point. If Katy Freeway was busy (which it is) people are going to start yapping about how expansion didn't help and "induced demand", yadda yadda. If it wasn't busy, then people will complain about how it took out buildings for useless concrete. If it wasn't done at all, then people will complain about how Houston's highway system is stuck in the 1960s.

[kdog08]

Not sure that I buy the argument that Chicago was planned around automobile use and really don't buy you're grouping the city planning of Chicago with the city planning of Houston and Dallas.  Houston and Dallas are both post-war cities that were clearly built around the automobile, but Chicago has had local rail for more than 100 years and had an extensive rail system well before the rise of the automobile in the 1950's.  Unlike other cities, that rail system was never removed and has operated continuously for that time.  Additionally, it has a well-established and vibrant downtown.

 

In short, Chicago illustrates everything that rail/urban advocates wish Houston had historically, yet it doesn't seem to have materially impacted the way that the city and the job base has developed.

 

The problem is that most rail systems just don't work particularly well in a decentralized job environment.  The places where rail works best in the US is where there is a highly centralized job core (New York, San Francisco, DC, Boston), a dense central population, and quite honestly, where traffic and parking costs are so bad that transit becomes a viable option.

 

I have no doubt that there are some corridors that make sense for rail in Houston in the next 15-20 years, but I don't see an extensive network working any better here than it has in Dallas.

 

Full disclosure - I'm just not a fan of light rail in pretty much any form.  BRT is much more functional for Houston in my opinion with potentially heavy rail in certain locations if increased density occurs.

 

 

The problem is implementation and funds. I think a lot of cities (in particular sun-belt cities) try to stick that type of Chicago, NYC, etc doctrine of trying to make a centralized city. Houston just needs LRT connecting it's largest and densest employment and activity centers (DT, Uptown, Greenway Plaza, TMC, our 4 professional sports stadiums and our educational and cultural institutions) which happen to all be within 8 miles of each other. Not to mention, actually have enough money left over to make sure it doesn't happen at the expense of our bus network and P&R expansion. 

 

Furthermore, while Houston is decentralized, our rush our traffic is heavily inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. A great investment would be in doubling our P&R system that could feed commuters into the core and start building ridership in places like Greenway, Woodland Town Center/Exxon, Energy Corridor, and Westchase with express bus service. . 

 

As far as BRT vs LRT; I would argue that BRT couldn't do what the Main St line accomplished and BRT should be used instead of LRT for the current expansion. 

 

Lastly, all this would ideally be done while simultaneously rebuilding our roads and highways. 

[kdog08]

As far as a creative and relatively inexpensive solution to congestion on I10:

 

A public-private partnership between METRO/any other sort of governmental group from Katy and beyond and the Energy Corridor Management District would be formed. P&R service would be expanded in Katy, along I10, and 99 and new routes would be added that would drop off all Energy Corridor passengers off at the P&R location at Hwy 6 and I10. From there, the EC District would work with all the companies and we'd have Shell buses picking up Shell workers, BP buses picking up BP workers, etc, etc. It could work many different ways. They could just have one private bus company that serves as the "last mile". Point is, once the passengers are dropped off the "private" side of the partnership would take over. 

[livincinco]

The problem is implementation and funds. I think a lot of cities (in particular sun-belt cities) try to stick that type of Chicago, NYC, etc doctrine of trying to make a centralized city. Houston just needs LRT connecting it's largest and densest employment and activity centers (DT, Uptown, Greenway Plaza, TMC, our 4 professional sports stadiums and our educational and cultural institutions) which happen to all be within 8 miles of each other. Not to mention, actually have enough money left over to make sure it doesn't happen at the expense of our bus network and P&R expansion.

Furthermore, while Houston is decentralized, our rush our traffic is heavily inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. A great investment would be in doubling our P&R system that could feed commuters into the core and start building ridership in places like Greenway, Woodland Town Center/Exxon, Energy Corridor, and Westchase with express bus service. .

As far as BRT vs LRT; I would argue that BRT couldn't do what the Main St line accomplished and BRT should be used instead of LRT for the current expansion.

Lastly, all this would ideally be done while simultaneously rebuilding our roads and highways.

Agreed that an expansion of P&R would be beneficial including increasing the size of the parking lots in the outlying regions.

Regarding BRT vs. LRT, recent studies have found that BRT provides the same development benefits of LRT and I really question how much of the development in the Main Street corridor can be credited exclusively to LRT. Development along the line has been concentrated pretty heavily in the vicinity of Market Square Park and really didn't take off until that park was completed. Given the amount of development that Discovery Green has driven (with no proximity to rail) and the development of the Market Square area, I think that there's a pretty credible case that can be put forward regarding how much development parks have driven downtown.

Once you get out of that area, development along the Main Street line has been pretty sparse and I think that it's questionable to consider either Main Street Square or Houston Pavilions a transit success story.

To me the question of LRT vs. BRT though comes down to a question of scarce dollars. Given that there's an extremely large area to cover with transit and given that LRT costs approx 4x as much as BRT per mile. My personal opinion is that the city would be better served at this point with a 100 mile BRT network than a 25 mile LRT network. I'm sure that the immediate response is going to be that the city would be better served with a 100 mile LRT, but I'm personally of the opinion that in about 5 years we're going to start reading a lot about the financial problems that DART is suffering from based on the massive long term debt problem that they've created. Houston has enough problems related to METROs past mismanagement already to add that layer.

[Slick Vik]

Agreed that an expansion of P&R would be beneficial including increasing the size of the parking lots in the outlying regions.

Regarding BRT vs. LRT, recent studies have found that BRT provides the same development benefits of LRT and I really question how much of the development in the Main Street corridor can be credited exclusively to LRT. Development along the line has been concentrated pretty heavily in the vicinity of Market Square Park and really didn't take off until that park was completed. Given the amount of development that Discovery Green has driven (with no proximity to rail) and the development of the Market Square area, I think that there's a pretty credible case that can be put forward regarding how much development parks have driven downtown.

Once you get out of that area, development along the Main Street line has been pretty sparse and I think that it's questionable to consider either Main Street Square or Houston Pavilions a transit success story.

To me the question of LRT vs. BRT though comes down to a question of scarce dollars. Given that there's an extremely large area to cover with transit and given that LRT costs approx 4x as much as BRT per mile. My personal opinion is that the city would be better served at this point with a 100 mile BRT network than a 25 mile LRT network. I'm sure that the immediate response is going to be that the city would be better served with a 100 mile LRT, but I'm personally of the opinion that in about 5 years we're going to start reading a lot about the financial problems that DART is suffering from based on the massive long term debt problem that they've created. Houston has enough problems related to METROs past mismanagement already to add that layer.

I guess you're not aware of the many apartments going up all along the line and the midtown and the super block and MATCH. Also regarding BRT vs LRT the costs aren't as drastic if there is a all of tunneling and bridges. Also the FTA strongly prefers LRT and thus if a city wants federal funds it would be wise to stick with rail. As far as DART there has been quote a bit of development along the line. And finally a lot of people have "rail bias." Unfortunately buses just aren't attractive to many people.

[por favor gracias]

Excellent points.  The fact that the Houston metro area is more than 6 million people in nine different counties and an area of over 10,000 sq miles is a challenge.  The fact that the population is growing so rapidly and that the city is so organic in its development are additional challenges.  We're projected to add almost 1.5 million people to the region by 2025.  That's going to have profound impact on everything.

 

The rate of growth is a huge point of differentiation between Houston and static cities.  I know that many people in this forum like to talk about urbanization and it's importance.  I'm all in favor of the way that the inside the loop area is gentrifying, but that doesn't address the issues of the vast majority of the regional population and doesn't address how the region is going to deal with an additional increase of 1.5 million population of which a very small percentage is going to locate inside the loop. 

 

As I've pointed out before, the widening of I10 had everything to do with the continued dynamic growth of the Houston metro area.  There is no reason to believe that the construction that occurred in the Energy Corridor would have happened inside the loop if access to the Energy Corridor had been restricted.  This is not a zero sum game.  Cities like San Antonio and Oklahoma City compete just as hard for major companies to relocate there as Houston does and it's a pretty delicate tipping point.  It would only take 4-5 such companies relocating to OKC before it would be legitimate energy hub and a serious competitor in those kind of decisions.

 

 

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.

[por favor gracias]

I don't know that being in the red for some period od time is necessarily bad. Being "green" all the time owuld imply some level of overbuilding. And, it's not unusual for mass transit systems to be massively crowded during rush hour either, the difference being that the travelers aren't driving themselves. It's been my experience that mass transit is not at all comfortable during rush hour.

 

Keep in mind that the folks who live in Cinco Ranch and other suburbs would have to be forced into town at gunpoint. They like their lives in the suburbs, the yards, the pools, etc.

 

 

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.

[por favor gracias]

I think that's an interesting point, but I generally find that no one is willing to provide reasons that this will occur.  It's great to speculate that people (and businesses for that matter) shouldn't move to the suburbs, but I've yet to hear tangible reasons that this is going to occur that consider economic realities.

 

As more people move and development occurs inside the loop, prices rise, which makes surrounding areas more attractive.  As more people move into the metro, demand continues to increase in surrounding areas which makes exurban areas more attractive.  Urban growth boundaries then increase prices across the region and decrease incentive for people and businesses to move into the metro.

 

I see no signs whatsoever that the Houston region has any interest in taking any measures that are going to reduce the attractiveness to people and businesses to move here, so I'm not sure why we would expect a major change in development patterns.

 

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.

[por favor gracias]

Good point. If Katy Freeway was busy (which it is) people are going to start yapping about how expansion didn't help and "induced demand", yadda yadda. If it wasn't busy, then people will complain about how it took out buildings for useless concrete. If it wasn't done at all, then people will complain about how Houston's highway system is stuck in the 1960s.

 

That may be true, but they're being idiots if they "complain" about being able move faster.

 

Can't let that get in the way of decision making of this magnitude.

[por favor gracias]

The problem is implementation and funds. I think a lot of cities (in particular sun-belt cities) try to stick that type of Chicago, NYC, etc doctrine of trying to make a centralized city. Houston just needs LRT connecting it's largest and densest employment and activity centers (DT, Uptown, Greenway Plaza, TMC, our 4 professional sports stadiums and our educational and cultural institutions) which happen to all be within 8 miles of each other. Not to mention, actually have enough money left over to make sure it doesn't happen at the expense of our bus network and P&R expansion. 

 

Furthermore, while Houston is decentralized, our rush our traffic is heavily inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. A great investment would be in doubling our P&R system that could feed commuters into the core and start building ridership in places like Greenway, Woodland Town Center/Exxon, Energy Corridor, and Westchase with express bus service. . 

 

As far as BRT vs LRT; I would argue that BRT couldn't do what the Main St line accomplished and BRT should be used instead of LRT for the current expansion. 

 

Lastly, all this would ideally be done while simultaneously rebuilding our roads and highways. 

 

I agree on connecting the business and arts/entertainment centers (and universities and airports), but I would go with faster trains/subways...and considering the growth we're seeing north and west of town, I would connect with those areas too.

 

We need to fix our streets, too. I need alignments, balances, suspension work, etc. every year in this town.

As far as a creative and relatively inexpensive solution to congestion on I10:

 

A public-private partnership between METRO/any other sort of governmental group from Katy and beyond and the Energy Corridor Management District would be formed. P&R service would be expanded in Katy, along I10, and 99 and new routes would be added that would drop off all Energy Corridor passengers off at the P&R location at Hwy 6 and I10. From there, the EC District would work with all the companies and we'd have Shell buses picking up Shell workers, BP buses picking up BP workers, etc, etc. It could work many different ways. They could just have one private bus company that serves as the "last mile". Point is, once the passengers are dropped off the "private" side of the partnership would take over. 

 

I like the idea, but it wouldn't reduce the congestion inside the EC. And of course, I would prefer train...

 

I really like the idea of the "last mile" bus.

[por favor gracias]

Agreed that an expansion of P&R would be beneficial including increasing the size of the parking lots in the outlying regions.

Regarding BRT vs. LRT, recent studies have found that BRT provides the same development benefits of LRT and I really question how much of the development in the Main Street corridor can be credited exclusively to LRT. Development along the line has been concentrated pretty heavily in the vicinity of Market Square Park and really didn't take off until that park was completed. Given the amount of development that Discovery Green has driven (with no proximity to rail) and the development of the Market Square area, I think that there's a pretty credible case that can be put forward regarding how much development parks have driven downtown.

Once you get out of that area, development along the Main Street line has been pretty sparse and I think that it's questionable to consider either Main Street Square or Houston Pavilions a transit success story.

To me the question of LRT vs. BRT though comes down to a question of scarce dollars. Given that there's an extremely large area to cover with transit and given that LRT costs approx 4x as much as BRT per mile. My personal opinion is that the city would be better served at this point with a 100 mile BRT network than a 25 mile LRT network. I'm sure that the immediate response is going to be that the city would be better served with a 100 mile LRT, but I'm personally of the opinion that in about 5 years we're going to start reading a lot about the financial problems that DART is suffering from based on the massive long term debt problem that they've created. Houston has enough problems related to METROs past mismanagement already to add that layer.

 

I'm pretty sure I've read some quotes from the developers mentioning the rail line down Main Street in regards to their choice for location. I wish it wouldn't interfere with the streets like it does, but that corridor was a great choice for light rail IMO.

[IronTiger]

I really like the idea of the "last mile" bus (for now).

San Francisco isn't too fond of the "Google bus" but part of the problem with that is they see it as a reason of the loss of affordable housing in San Francisco, but the issue of affordable housing (or rather, lack of it) in San Francisco has resulted from decades of misguided practices to "keep things as they were".

That may be true, but they're being idiots if they "complain" about being able move faster.

Can't let that get in the way of decision making of this magnitude.

I was mostly referring to people who were/are against the Katy Freeway expansion.

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

Now there's a reasonable idea! I hate to say it, but the ideas of linking the employment centers with a sort of "belt" rail system (I think someone said it, or at least that's what I inferred) is a terrible idea. It's a great idea on paper--major employment centers linked together, but it fails otherwise. It's very similar to a plan I saw in which someone on a College Station forum mentioned: a great example of a bad idea. In College Station-Bryan, one of the main arterials is College Avenue, which historically connected downtown Bryan to Texas A&M's campus, a distance of a few miles. The problem is that while Downtown is a popular destination, with bars, specialty shops, and restaurants, and the campus is definitely very popular, the two never interact. You go to Texas A&M, or you go to campus. Likewise, if you work at the TMC and live in Pearland (as I'm sure many do), why would you need to go to the Energy Corridor?

[Slick Vik]

The rail to suburbs would be good after university line and uptown because once people get into town they have a way to get around. That's the issue with DART it's just a suburban feeder system.

[por favor gracias]

San Francisco isn't too fond of the "Google bus" but part of the problem with that is they see it as a reason of the loss of affordable housing in San Francisco, but the issue of affordable housing (or rather, lack of it) in San Francisco has resulted from decades of misguided practices to "keep things as they were".

I was mostly referring to people who were/are against the Katy Freeway expansion.

Now there's a reasonable idea! I hate to say it, but the ideas of linking the employment centers with a sort of "belt" rail system (I think someone said it, or at least that's what I inferred) is a terrible idea. It's a great idea on paper--major employment centers linked together, but it fails otherwise. It's very similar to a plan I saw in which someone on a College Station forum mentioned: a great example of a bad idea. In College Station-Bryan, one of the main arterials is College Avenue, which historically connected downtown Bryan to Texas A&M's campus, a distance of a few miles. The problem is that while Downtown is a popular destination, with bars, specialty shops, and restaurants, and the campus is definitely very popular, the two never interact. You go to Texas A&M, or you go to campus. Likewise, if you work at the TMC and live in Pearland (as I'm sure many do), why would you need to go to the Energy Corridor?

 

A network like the one I just "proposed" would connect all of the main business centers not only with each other, but also the main shopping, dining and entertainment districts around town...as well as the TMC, Memorial/Hermann/Terry Hershey Parks, Rice U, U of H and both airports. I'm not suggesting subways to Pearland...at least not for the time being.

 

It would be nothing at all like Bryan/College Station.

[kdog08]

Agreed that an expansion of P&R would be beneficial including increasing the size of the parking lots in the outlying regions.

Regarding BRT vs. LRT, recent studies have found that BRT provides the same development benefits of LRT and I really question how much of the development in the Main Street corridor can be credited exclusively to LRT. Development along the line has been concentrated pretty heavily in the vicinity of Market Square Park and really didn't take off until that park was completed. Given the amount of development that Discovery Green has driven (with no proximity to rail) and the development of the Market Square area, I think that there's a pretty credible case that can be put forward regarding how much development parks have driven downtown.

Once you get out of that area, development along the Main Street line has been pretty sparse and I think that it's questionable to consider either Main Street Square or Houston Pavilions a transit success story.

To me the question of LRT vs. BRT though comes down to a question of scarce dollars. Given that there's an extremely large area to cover with transit and given that LRT costs approx 4x as much as BRT per mile. My personal opinion is that the city would be better served at this point with a 100 mile BRT network than a 25 mile LRT network. I'm sure that the immediate response is going to be that the city would be better served with a 100 mile LRT, but I'm personally of the opinion that in about 5 years we're going to start reading a lot about the financial problems that DART is suffering from based on the massive long term debt problem that they've created. Houston has enough problems related to METROs past mismanagement already to add that layer.

 

I was referring to Main St.'s ridership when I talked about its accomplishments. BRT wouldn't be able to duplicate this line's success when it comes to moving large groups of people as the LRT cars allow a larger capacity of people. How many buses and space would it take to transport, load and unload two train full of people at METRO's most busiest stations? For me, Main St, Uptown, and University Line would form a great backbone for our transit network, while the rest should have been BRT and P&R feeding into it..

 

As far as development is concerned, there has been steady growth in a 1/2 to 1/4 mile radius of the Main St Line (north of the TMC) and the planned University and Uptown line over the past decade. 

[kdog08]

I agree on connecting the business and arts/entertainment centers (and universities and airports), but I would go with faster trains/subways...and considering the growth we're seeing north and west of town, I would connect with those areas too.

 

We need to fix our streets, too. I need alignments, balances, suspension work, etc. every year in this town.

 

I like the idea, but it wouldn't reduce the congestion inside the EC. And of course, I would prefer train...

 

I really like the idea of the "last mile" bus.

 

I would just like to the LRT go underground at key intersections of the proposed University and Uptown Lines such as Shepard, Kirby, Westheimer, and Post Oak. Our core is about 10 miles from end to end by the proposed and current rail so the distances are far and most folks don't ride it end to end. I think Houston's LRT model serves it well and requires an additional investment in local bus, BRT, and P&R feeding commuters and locals into the LRT in order for the city to truly have a transit system.

[livincinco]

I guess you're not aware of the many apartments going up all along the line and the midtown and the super block and MATCH. Also regarding BRT vs LRT the costs aren't as drastic if there is a all of tunneling and bridges. Also the FTA strongly prefers LRT and thus if a city wants federal funds it would be wise to stick with rail. As far as DART there has been quote a bit of development along the line. And finally a lot of people have "rail bias." Unfortunately buses just aren't attractive to many people.

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.

[IronTiger]

A network like the one I just "proposed" would connect all of the main business centers not only with each other, but also the main shopping, dining and entertainment districts around town...as well as the TMC, Memorial/Hermann/Terry Hershey Parks, Rice U, U of H and both airports. I'm not suggesting subways to Pearland...at least not for the time being.

It would be nothing at all like Bryan/College Station.

BCS isn't a great comparison to Houston, admittedly (especially in terms of traffic), but the microcosm of where people are and where people want to go still holds merit.

[por favor gracias]

I was referring to Main St.'s ridership when I talked about its accomplishments. BRT wouldn't be able to duplicate this line's success when it comes to moving large groups of people as the LRT cars allow a larger capacity of people. How many buses and space would it take to transport, load and unload two train full of people at METRO's most busiest stations? For me, Main St, Uptown, and University Line would form a great backbone for our transit network, while the rest should have been BRT and P&R feeding into it..

 

As far as development is concerned, there has been steady growth in a 1/2 to 1/4 mile radius of the Main St Line (north of the TMC) and the planned University and Uptown line over the past decade. 

 

LRT is a more efficient and cleaner source of transportation than buses. I just wish we would have built our current line without the interference with street traffic.

I would just like to the LRT go underground at key intersections of the proposed University and Uptown Lines such as Shepard, Kirby, Westheimer, and Post Oak. Our core is about 10 miles from end to end by the proposed and current rail so the distances are far and most folks don't ride it end to end. I think Houston's LRT model serves it well and requires an additional investment in local bus, BRT, and P&R feeding commuters and locals into the LRT in order for the city to truly have a transit system.

 

I largely agree. What do you think about having a subway network servicing those areas?

[por favor gracias]

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 could say the same regarding freeway expansions, also. The Eastex Freeway expansion hasn't really led to any new development over there...and other places like Pearland and League City have grown by leaps and bounds with little to no freeway expansion. A lot of development has to do with a number of factors ranging from location to feasibility to economics and where developers/businesses want to build. I mentioned earlier that I'm pretty sure I've heard the rail line on Main Street being a factor with some of this new development...but it's most likely not the "end all-be all" of reasoning for it.

 

I don't think that most people think they're "too good" for the bus...maybe some (and some of those people may consider it more of a safety issue, right or wrong), but rail is generally cleaner and more efficient, and it doesn't have to interfere and/or be a part of our street traffic situation. I wish our "only choice" was by train when we starting building our cities...that way we may not be in this position in the first place. Now everything is much more of a challenge and millions of people are "comfortable" with their ways of life (not that there's anything "wrong" with that in itself). Think of how much smaller and differently Houston would be laid out without roads, parking lots, parking garages, driveways, auto dealerships, parts stores, repair shops, gas stations, etc.

[por favor gracias]

BCS isn't a great comparison to Houston, admittedly (especially in terms of traffic), but the microcosm of where people are and where people want to go still holds merit.

 

I hear you...we are so spread out that there is nothing close to a "perfect" solution to any of this. I'd just like for us to implement a rail/subway system like that to build on and around for the future...and then hope we are wise enough to base future development around it and the extent of future development itself.

[JJxvi]

After spending a couple of evenings in two suburbs, it seems to me that the real traffic problem is not here in town, but in the suburbs. Last weekend, my son wanted to go to a store off 249 and Louetta, so we made the trek out there. Coming back we drove Louetta from 249 to 45. For much of that drive, it felt like there is more density out there than there is here in the greater Heights Area. Friday, we were out in Katy, at Fry and Westheimer Parkway for an event. I drove to get some dinner at a Chick Fil-a on Westheimer Parkway past Grand Parkway, and, once again, it seemed pretty crowded, with lots of traffic. The Chick Fil-a was jam packed, with the drive through line out into the street, and upwards of 100 people inside. Assuming all  those people would be willing to live in apartments inside the Loop, the traffic here would be an order of magnitude worse than it is now. I am willing to bet that of all those families, an average of one family member might make the trek into town for work. The rest seldom, if ever, go inside the Loop.

 

My conclusion from this is that, for Houston, we have organically come up with the optimum growth pattern for our geography. Anything else would be artificial, and make for less than optimum conditions.

 

I should mention that we took the I-10 HOV to Katy. For a Friday evening, traffic on all lanes was moving rather well, with no waits.

 

It's not population density, which is WAY lower, but the fact that road density is all WAY lower.  In a suburban area you have vast tracts of developed residential land developed along what is typically only 1 major artery.  The neighborhoods, in general, don't want to have streets cutting through them, so there are a limited number of entrances, and everybody gets a cul-de-sac lot on the interior streets which go nowhere.  There is usually one major road or maybe two in the area, so basically the decision literally EVERYONE who lives in the entire area makes when they need to go somewhere is "How do I get to the major rd and which way do I turn on it"

 

An area like the Greater Heights/Timbergrove/Lazybrook area is bounded by major interstate highways 610, 45, and 10.  It contains major cross streets cutting through it particularly in the N/S direction (Yale, Shepherd, TC Jester, etc) plus many smaller streets that cut through the entire area without ending (streets like the E/W numbered streets in the Heights).  So basically one can get on a major freeway at any boundary, and in addition the location is such that people within the area might all be going different directions, different people may choose to go West on 10, East on 10, North on 45 south on 45, northwest on 290, traffic is funneled many directions whereas in a suburban space which is the same size as the Heights/TG/LB area all traffic is funneled to just a handful of major streets where you can go one way or the other that everybody has to use.   The area bounded by Louetta, Champions Forest Dr, Kuykendahl, and 1960 is basically the same size as the are bounded by the North Loop, West Loop, I-10, and I-45, but the transportation options are basically limited to those streets on the boundaries, plus Cypresswood Dr which cuts through. You have a large land area with low density, but also very few real roads or highways (and the highways that do exists get farther apart as you go outward from town whereas they are very close where they meet in the cities).

 

So basically, although the inner loop has higher density, it also has many more roads to take people many more possible directions. As an added bonus, much of the infrastructure around the area is designed to handle rush hour through traffic, which means at non-peak times there are many ways to get where you are going on arteries designed to handle a lot more traffic.  Getting to the department store by getting on the freeway and driving 5 miles on I-10 is a lot easier than getting to the department store by getting on FM 1960 and driving 5 miles.