Jump to content

Subways: Are They Possible?


IronTiger

Recommended Posts

And apparently 205,000 leave New York per year. Their net migration is only 18,000. FWIW, 110,000 more people leave NYC every year for other places in the US than move to NYC from other places in the US. (Negative domestic migration of 110,000)

In comparison, 55,000 more people moved to Houston from other places in the US than moved from Houston to other places in the US. (Positive domestic migration of 55,000)

0 people move from houston? Also this is a recent trend in houston, people come and left during booms and busts but people have been coming to New York for 100 years in huge numbers, a comparison of the population numbers shows that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 315
  • Created
  • Last Reply

0 people move from houston? Also this is a recent trend in houston, people come and left during booms and busts but people have been coming to New York for 100 years in huge numbers, a comparison of the population numbers shows that.

 

Where did I say 0 people moved from Houston?  I quite clearly stated the opposite.  55,000 is the net domestic migration.

 

While it might be strictly true, It was misleading (to put it nicely) to state that 223,000 people move to NYC every year and you know it (or should know it).  The fact is, NYC is only gaining about 18,000 people per year by migration (domestic + international) and is losing population to other places in the US (including Houston), to the tune of 110,000 people per year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By yalls logic, no subway, light rail or commuter rail should EVER be built in ANY city unless:

1) Its free to build and costs literally nothing

2) It takes no construction to build it and doesnt tear up any street or cause any traffic anywhere.

3) Literally every single citizen of the city will ride it, even the people with cars

4) There is absolutely ZERO opposition to the rail. Like EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CITY agrees to it and not one person is opposed to it.

Way to create a strawman and belittle arguments against it.

Good grief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say 0 people moved from Houston? I quite clearly stated the opposite. 55,000 is the net domestic migration.

While it might be strictly true, It was misleading (to put it nicely) to state that 223,000 people move to NYC every year and you know it (or should know it). The fact is, NYC is only gaining about 18,000 people per year by migration (domestic + international) and is losing population to other places in the US (including Houston), to the tune of 110,000 people per year.

For the third consecutive year, New York City last year gained more people than it lost through migration, reversing a trend that stretched to the mid-20th century.

For the year ending July 1, 2013, an influx of foreigners combined with a continuing decline in the loss of migrants to other states increased the population by more than 61,000, nudging it past 8.4 million for the first time, according to estimates to be released on Thursday by the United States Census Bureau.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/nyregion/population-growth-in-new-york-city-is-reversing-decades-old-trend-estimates-show.html?referrer=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the third consecutive year, New York City last year gained more people than it lost through migration, reversing a trend that stretched to the mid-20th century.

For the year ending July 1, 2013, an influx of foreigners combined with a continuing decline in the loss of migrants to other states increased the population by more than 61,000, nudging it past 8.4 million for the first time, according to estimates to be released on Thursday by the United States Census Bureau.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/nyregion/population-growth-in-new-york-city-is-reversing-decades-old-trend-estimates-show.html?referrer=

 

Yes, the census numbers are what I quoted from above.  Total net migration into NYC was 18,000.  That consists of international net migration 128,000 and domestic net migration of negative 110,000 (that is to say 110,000 more people chose to leave NYC for other US locations than chose to move to NYC from other US locations). 

 

Meanwhile, the much smaller and car-choked, unhealthy, unsustainable, undesirable Houston had total net migration of 81,000.  That consists of international net migration of 25,500 and net domestic migration of 55,600 (that is to say, 55,600 more people chose to move to Houston from other US locations than chose to move from Houston to other US locations.)

 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Houston builds a subway, it should be nothing less than a heavy rail subway.  Why spend billions on digging a tunnel for much lower capacity and slower light rail?  

 

Heavy rail has increasing returns, transit ridership jumps exponentially the more you build.  DC is a prime example, they built one of the best transit systems in the country from scratch 40 years ago.  Heavy rail's speed, ridership and coverage trumps light rail.  

 

Two things need to happen before Houston can build a subway: 1) more local money needs to go to transit (no more GM payments) and 2) powerful local politicians who's mission has always been to secure funds for subsidizing highway expansion need to do a complete 180 and push for funding transit.  

 

Since neither of those things are happening anytime soon, Houston won't have a subway in the near future.  

 

As the city grows denser, people's minds will change.  Look at LA, it can happen.  We might be decades off, but it will eventually happen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the census numbers are what I quoted from above.  Total net migration into NYC was 18,000.  That consists of international net migration 128,000 and domestic net migration of negative 110,000 (that is to say 110,000 more people chose to leave NYC for other US locations than chose to move to NYC from other US locations). 

 

Meanwhile, the much smaller and car-choked, unhealthy, unsustainable, undesirable Houston had total net migration of 81,000.  That consists of international net migration of 25,500 and net domestic migration of 55,600 (that is to say, 55,600 more people chose to move to Houston from other US locations than chose to move from Houston to other US locations.)

 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

Deal with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of logistical problems with running a subway through downtown, specifically, there's the interaction with the tunnel system as Iron Tiger mentioned as well as impact to underground infrastructure.  Also, from what I've read, there was pretty strong resistance to the longer timeline to build a subway and the length of the surface level disruption that it would have caused.

 

There's little to no disruption with a bored tunnel system that is deep enough to avoid all the infrastructure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an approx. 16 mile line at a conservative estimate of $500 million per mile.  $8 billion in construction cost with major construction disruption down Westheimer for years.

 

Not sure I would call that "a no brainer".

 

 

No disruption with a bored tunnel line. We should look to London for guidance here, not cities where cut and cover is a better choice due to bedrock and soil conditions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below are lists of the 2013 top daily ridership routes on Metro busses. It would make sense to me to look at these, or, at least, the top 3 if/when a subway or additional light rail is considered. Looks like we need to build a dang subway along Westheimer!! At least east of Sage or so. Fondren and Bellaire are probably wide enough to continue bus service, at least for the near future. 

 

One stat I found interesting is that the #18 Kirby (my favorite bus route) is amongst the "Highest Growth" for weekday ridership. Now that Buffalo Bayou Park is nearing completion, seems a light rail that ran along Allen Pkwy and Kirby that connected downtown to BB Park, Upper Kirby, Rice Village, West U, etc. would be pretty badass. And, most importantly, all dem River Oaks-ers could go slummin' it on their way to the opera!

 

WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP
      Route                     Boardings 
1.   163 FONDREN       7,964 
2.   2 BELLAIRE           7,795 
3.   82 WESTHEIMER   6,864 
4.   65 BISSONNET      6,195 
5.   52 SCOTT               6,001 
6.   25 RICHMOND       5,783  
7.   73 BELLFORT        5,402 
8.   46 GESSNER          5,277 
9.   33 POST OAK         4,941 
10.  81 WESTHEIMER-SHARPSTOWN 4,926 
 
SATURDAY RIDERSHIP
       Route                        Boardings 
1.    82 WESTHEIMER      5,252 
2.    2 BELLAIRE               5,046 
3.    163 FONDREN          4,346 
4.    56 AIRLINE                4,197 
5.    46 GESSNER             3,417 
6.    52 SCOTT                  3,416 
7.    65 BISSONNET          3,368 
8.    81 WESTHEIMER-SHARPSTOWN 3,354 
9.    73 BELLFORT            3,118 
10.  25 RICHMOND           3,081 

 

http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Documents/pdfs/Ridership%20Reports/2013/0313_Ridership_Report_FY13.pdf 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disruption with a bored tunnel line. We should look to London for guidance here, not cities where cut and cover is a better choice due to bedrock and soil conditions.

Fair enough, but deep bore construction comes with a proportionately higher cost. New York is using deep bore and it's $2 billion/mile. Assume Houston could do it for half and the proposed Westheimer line is $16 billion if you went underground the whole way.

I know that most people around here want to pretend that everything should get financed with no consideration of cost, but that's a staggering number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should've also included in my original post if it was feasible costwise. Digging a light rail line under Richmond may be possible, but not for miles out. Light rail as subway has significantly lower cost--a certain transit agency considered a 6 mile branch that had several miles of underground track and had a price tag of $700 million for the whole thing, considerably less than the $2 billion/mile NYC had done.

Given the soil conditions here, would building a subway be MORE expensive than other cities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the census numbers are what I quoted from above. Total net migration into NYC was 18,000. That consists of international net migration 128,000 and domestic net migration of negative 110,000 (that is to say 110,000 more people chose to leave NYC for other US locations than chose to move to NYC from other US locations).

Meanwhile, the much smaller and car-choked, unhealthy, unsustainable, undesirable Houston had total net migration of 81,000. That consists of international net migration of 25,500 and net domestic migration of 55,600 (that is to say, 55,600 more people chose to move to Houston from other US locations than chose to move from Houston to other US locations.)

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

Using the same factfinder I'm seeing net migration of 79,642 and 67,058 into NYC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One stat I found interesting is that the #18 Kirby (my favorite bus route) is amongst the "Highest Growth" for weekday ridership. Now that Buffalo Bayou Park is nearing completion, seems a light rail that ran along Allen Pkwy and Kirby that connected downtown to BB Park, Upper Kirby, Rice Village, West U, etc. would be pretty badass. And, most importantly, all dem River Oaks-ers could go slummin' it on their way to the opera!

 

 

i would just tunnel the post oak line through uptown, coming up to the surface for the portion that travels along and north of 610.

then have a line branch off of the 610 portion, through the south side of Memorial Park, before joining up with Memorial Dr and finally connecting into the green/purple lines under i45 at the Theater District, with minimal stops in between downtown and uptown (maybe one at Shepherd where a potential Upper Kirby subway would terminate/join tracks to head into downtown, and possibly one at Montrose).

it would be less than 2 miles of subway (say 1.75 billion), with 5 miles of surface rail (500 million), would be almost a billion cheaper than a line down Westheimer from just the segment from the Galleria to Main St (would still be 3 billion). and really the Post Oak line is already going to be built/could theoretically be subway one day. so that would already be paid for and the additional expenses you would be paying for an E/W line between uptown and downtown would only be the 500 million in surface rail between 610 and downtown, making the similar Westheimer stretch 6 times more expensive.

i completely agree.. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but deep bore construction comes with a proportionately higher cost. New York is using deep bore and it's $2 billion/mile. Assume Houston could do it for half and the proposed Westheimer line is $16 billion if you went underground the whole way.

I know that most people around here want to pretend that everything should get financed with no consideration of cost, but that's a staggering number.

You keep bringing up cost.

Can you tell me how much other cities are spending right now or recently on building rail or subway systems?

Do you think they are free?

Are you implying other cities build them for free?

If youre not implying that, then are you suggesting that Houston be the only city that should not spend equal amounts of money on a rail system as countless other cities have??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see things take about 3 pages to go from civil discussion on here to the usual bitching/moaning and then off topic discussions start... and this time I'm not the one who veered things!  Woot!

 

Personally a subway is more imporant than any of the tunnels.  People can - and do walk above ground in Downtown Houston.  In fact, many people MUST walk above ground since the tunnel system isn't comprehensive and covering of all major points in DT.  That said, of course a subway will be lower elevation than the tunnels, but I would suspect it needn't be that much lower if the system runs along a major road?  Although I believe the need for a subway in Houston would be because the major road can't support the addition of a train minus the subtraction of a few lanes.

 

I think people here would actually support it provided the lines run along heavy use roads.  Think Westheimer!  As long as it is a partial system of above and below ground and does in fact tie into other lines in Metro's plan then that would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should've also included in my original post if it was feasible costwise. Digging a light rail line under Richmond may be possible, but not for miles out. Light rail as subway has significantly lower cost--a certain transit agency considered a 6 mile branch that had several miles of underground track and had a price tag of $700 million for the whole thing, considerably less than the $2 billion/mile NYC had done.

Given the soil conditions here, would building a subway be MORE expensive than other cities?

 

richmond is still a good idea, and an even better one if you mix above and below, go under just before the midtown spur stay under till just past montrose, then stay above ground till weslayan and tunnel under the railroad tracks and that neighborhood of pooheads, then come back up once it's past post oak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/11/30/in-los-angeles-a-subway-system-grows/

Heres an article about L.A. spending $40 BILLION in 2010 just to expand their subway system, and explaining how Mayor Villaragosa did it.

So again I ask, to the posters who keep bringing up "cost", whats your point? You say it as though no other cities are spending that much on rail.

Is your point that Houston is just somehow inept and incapable of doing it?

Or is repeatedly bringing up "cost" just a red herring to get people to think "oh thats right, $16 billion is way too much money, that means its impossible to ever have rail in Houston"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the same factfinder I'm seeing net migration of 79,642 and 67,058 into NYC

 

I don't know where you came up with those numbers, but they are not the net migration numbers for the New York City metropolitan area for either the most recent year (2012-2013) or for the most recent 3.25 year period (2010-2013).  I accurately reported the Census Bureau's numbers for the most recent year in my earlier posts.

 

If you are now attempting to change the subject to just the city of New York City, rather than the metro area, you may have given a very misleading presentation of the net migration figures.  According to the article you linked earlier, in the most recent year (2012-2013) the city of New York City experienced net international migration of 73,000 and net domestic migration of -67,000 (67,000 more people left the city of New York City for other US locations than moved to NYC from other US locations).

 

 

And in case you were wondering, Census Data show that more people are moving from the NYC metro area to the Houston metro area than vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/11/30/in-los-angeles-a-subway-system-grows/

Heres an article about L.A. spending $40 BILLION in 2010 just to expand their subway system, and explaining how Mayor Villaragosa did it.

So again I ask, to the posters who keep bringing up "cost", whats your point? You say it as though no other cities are spending that much on rail.

Is your point that Houston is just somehow inept and incapable of doing it?

Or is repeatedly bringing up "cost" just a red herring to get people to think "oh thats right, $16 billion is way too much money, that means its impossible to ever have rail in Houston"

 

agreed^^^

 

I hate that Houston is fighting this losing battle with itself. We are already 30+ years behind. 

 

I would love to ride "real" rail/subway in my own city before I die. (i'm 30 years old) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/11/30/in-los-angeles-a-subway-system-grows/

Heres an article about L.A. spending $40 BILLION in 2010 just to expand their subway system, and explaining how Mayor Villaragosa did it.

So again I ask, to the posters who keep bringing up "cost", whats your point? You say it as though no other cities are spending that much on rail.

Is your point that Houston is just somehow inept and incapable of doing it?

Or is repeatedly bringing up "cost" just a red herring to get people to think "oh thats right, $16 billion is way too much money, that means its impossible to ever have rail in Houston"

 

I'll turn that question right back around at you.  How can you possibly look at a multi billion dollar project without considering cost?  LA is spending $40 billion to build 28 miles of subways.  Don't you think that its important to understand whether that's cost efficient?  Would you be ok with Houston spending $40 billion and only completing 10 miles of subway?  5 miles? 2 miles?  Are there other and better uses for that money that should be considered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm ok with at grade or elevated instead of subway. Something fast that goes through dense corridors is what counts

 

You can't get fast at grade. There are few places in Houston where anything other than light rail can be built on the surface without eliminating a huge number of properties. The steet rights of way here are generally too small for efficient rail without eliminating much of the automobile traffic, which is not a good solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll turn that question right back around at you. How can you possibly look at a multi billion dollar project without considering cost? LA is spending $40 billion to build 28 miles of subways. Don't you think that its important to understand whether that's cost efficient? Would you be ok with Houston spending $40 billion and only completing 10 miles of subway? 5 miles? 2 miles? Are there other and better uses for that money that should be considered?

La's traffic situation is such that it needs a desparate solution. As someone who cares about cost I'll throw this back at you, if it was done 30 years ago it would've been much cheaper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where you came up with those numbers, but they are not the net migration numbers for the New York City metropolitan area for either the most recent year (2012-2013) or for the most recent 3.25 year period (2010-2013). I accurately reported the Census Bureau's numbers for the most recent year in my earlier posts.

If you are now attempting to change the subject to just the city of New York City, rather than the metro area, you may have given a very misleading presentation of the net migration figures. According to the article you linked earlier, in the most recent year (2012-2013) the city of New York City experienced net international migration of 73,000 and net domestic migration of -67,000 (67,000 more people left the city of New York City for other US locations than moved to NYC from other US locations).

And in case you were wondering, Census Data show that more people are moving from the NYC metro area to the Houston metro area than vice versa.

New York City population

2010 8,175,136

2011 8,189,997

2012 8,336,697

2013 8,405,837

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't get fast at grade. There are few places in Houston where anything other than light rail can be built on the surface without eliminating a huge number of properties. The steet rights of way here are generally too small for efficient rail without eliminating much of the automobile traffic, which is not a good solution.

You couldn't have a fast rail go down highway 3 from galveston to downtown? I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROFL You are hilarious.

2.8% increase from 2010 to 2013, even taking people that leave into consideration. Even with the number of people leaving there are enough people for a positive migration plus if you include the births than the number is only jumping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


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


×
×
  • Create New...