Three commuter lines being studied

[arche_757]

You can add more lanes. Or double-deck the freeways.  A better solution, and one that is really already underway, is to distribute employment out of the city core. People and businesses will make their own decisions regarding acceptable commute times and will opt to work outside the loop and even outside the beltway.  We can see that already in motion in the energy corridor and westchase where there are buildings going up right and left.

 

And, yes, I do like driving.  I can get in my car and go anywhere I want in this great city we live in at any time, day or night.  Shop, go to restaurants, run errands, visit museums, fill up my trunk with whatever we need and return.  I can change my destinations and the order I go to them on a whim.  I can be heading to Katy Mills mall and figure, what the hell, let's just keep going to San Antonio (true story).  Rail is limited purpose transit.  I don't loath it, but I'm realistic enough to realize that dollars spent on roads are more useful than dollars spent on rail, particularly in this town where everything is spread out.

 

 

How much do you think it will cost to add a second tier to an existing freeway system?  Just curious.  How much did the Katy Freeway expansion cost?  Just curious.

 

I don't mind driving, but if when I'm going to work I had the ability to read a book or surf the web or some other form then that would be great.

 

I don't want to get into an argument about rail/freeways... the pro-roads people greatly outnumber the pro-alternative to driving everywhere crowd in this town.  Not saying that it is a bad thing, just saying there are two sides to this conversation in this town of 6.3 million and both are QUITE opinionated.

 

Personally I don't live or have to deal with anything in this particular area (Katy Freeway), though I would appreciate being able to take a train from say Baybrook to Katy Mills on occasion, or maybe to the Galleria or IAH?  Driving is nice when you need to be  flexible, but the other 95% of the time its confounding.  And autonomous cars won't alleviate traffic - if a road can only handle 10,000 cars and there are 35,000 on it then the computer aided cars may help, but only to a point.

[samagon]

Since I drive I10 on a regular basis, I can tell you from my personal experience that the widening did help even if it didn't totaly eliminate congestion during rush hour.  Thing is, a lane of highway can accomodate not just commuters in cars, but busses and even trucks that deliver goods to, let's say for example, east end neighborhoods.  And since it's part of a wider, interconnected system, that additional highway lane can be an integral part of trips from any destination to any destination. A rail line is a trip from a given destination through a limited number or destinations to a final destination and requires you change your mode of transportation at least a couple of times before reaching your destination unless both origin and destination for the trip are on the rail line.

 

So, I'm afraid, that dog does hunt, and quite well.

 

But, if they're going to do this, and I suspect they will at some point, I hope they are able to maximize the usefullness.  Last thing we need is Dallas' rail to nowhere. 

 

Too true on the buses and trucks.

 

It's reasonable also to state that if there is a commuter rail that people would switch their mode of transportation to use the rail instead, easing congestion on the freeway (unless more people decided to drive to fill in for those who don't), having the same overall benefit for trucks and buses.

 

How many minutes of your commute did the pre expansion and post expansion gain you? before construction your average commute time was x and after construction was completed your average commute time is y?

 

So why do you think that if a commuter rail was put in and was along a useful corridor no one would use it?

 

Assuming it was a useful line, what rail system ever in the history of man that goes from a useful location to another useful location is not successful in attracting riders?

 

Where do those riders come from do you think?

 

Do they just materialize out of no where? Certainly, you are all right, they are not going to be people who drive currently, that wouldn't be affected at all, no sir, people would never get out of their cars to take rail, maybe that's it, the riders would just materialize out of thin air, and the people in the cars would grumble about a system that their tax money paid for and only benefit the people who materialize out of thin air.

 

How is the connection not established that a successfully high ridership directly reduces the number of people using a freeway, thereby making it easier for those long haul trucks to get through town, offering the same benefit to them?

 

How is the connection not established that a successfully high ridership directly reduces the number of people using freeways, thereby reducing your commute time (or allowing more people to live in an area and use up that space again).

[august948]

How much do you think it will cost to add a second tier to an existing freeway system?  Just curious.  How much did the Katy Freeway expansion cost?  Just curious.

 

I don't mind driving, but if when I'm going to work I had the ability to read a book or surf the web or some other form then that would be great.

 

I don't want to get into an argument about rail/freeways... the pro-roads people greatly outnumber the pro-alternative to driving everywhere crowd in this town.  Not saying that it is a bad thing, just saying there are two sides to this conversation in this town of 6.3 million and both are QUITE opinionated.

 

Personally I don't live or have to deal with anything in this particular area (Katy Freeway), though I would appreciate being able to take a train from say Baybrook to Katy Mills on occasion, or maybe to the Galleria or IAH?  Driving is nice when you need to be  flexible, but the other 95% of the time its confounding.  And autonomous cars won't alleviate traffic - if a road can only handle 10,000 cars and there are 35,000 on it then the computer aided cars may help, but only to a point.

 

A buttload, in both cases I'm sure.

 

Being able to do something else rather (read, work, snooze) rather than pay attention to the road is a great benefit, no doubt.  That may eventually be possible in cars as well if automation really works out large-scale.  I'll probably be too old and set in my ways by that time to really be able to relax with a computer in control, though.

 

The fact that we're having this conversation is prima facie evidence that there are two sides to this issue and both have good enough points (and strong opinions) to keep it going.  All I'm saying, in my opinion, is that for a given dollar spent the greater value is gotten from spending it on road system improvements rather than rail.  I fully understand and respect that others have differing opinions based on their own personal circumstances and preferences.

 

Like I said earlier, I suspect that sooner or later we'll get commuter rail, just like we eventually got light rail.  I just hope they take every opportunity to do it in an efficient and effective way.  I won't get my hopes up too high, though, because it's a governmental process and I've been disappointed before (see Metro's history with regards to light rail).

[august948]

Too true on the buses and trucks.

 

It's reasonable also to state that if there is a commuter rail that people would switch their mode of transportation to use the rail instead, easing congestion on the freeway (unless more people decided to drive to fill in for those who don't), having the same overall benefit for trucks and buses.

 

How many minutes of your commute did the pre expansion and post expansion gain you? before construction your average commute time was x and after construction was completed your average commute time is y?

 

So why do you think that if a commuter rail was put in and was along a useful corridor no one would use it?

 

Assuming it was a useful line, what rail system ever in the history of man that goes from a useful location to another useful location is not successful in attracting riders?

 

Where do those riders come from do you think?

 

Do they just materialize out of no where? Certainly, you are all right, they are not going to be people who drive currently, that wouldn't be affected at all, no sir, people would never get out of their cars to take rail, maybe that's it, the riders would just materialize out of thin air, and the people in the cars would grumble about a system that their tax money paid for and only benefit the people who materialize out of thin air.

 

How is the connection not established that a successfully high ridership directly reduces the number of people using a freeway, thereby making it easier for those long haul trucks to get through town, offering the same benefit to them?

 

How is the connection not established that a successfully high ridership directly reduces the number of people using freeways, thereby reducing your commute time (or allowing more people to live in an area and use up that space again).

 

It's absolutely reasonable to state that some people will switch their commute from road to rail (or at least some part of it) if rail is available.  And no, those riders don't just materialize out of nowhere.  If they could do that we'd have no need for rail or roads, would we?  But how do they get to the rail station and how do they get from it?  I don't believe I stated anywhere that no one would use a rail system, particularly along a useful corridor.  The point is, though, that a train goes from a set destination, through a set of intermediary destinations, to a final destination.  As long as your starting point and ending point are on the rail line, it can be more efficient to use rail for your trip.  Once the starting and ending point for your journey starts to deviate from the set points and set schedule, its efficiency versus a road trip goes down dramatically. 

 

Since I don't commute regularly anymore, and so don't have to deal with begin and end times on I10, I can only offer my impressions.  I do, however, take I10 on an almost daily basis, sometimes during rush hour, sometimes not. During non-peak hours it's wide open in a way that I don't recall it being pre-expansion.  During rush hour jaunts I rarely slow to a stop, something that would happen pre-expansion.  I'm sure there are other regular commuters who can provide better numbers.

 

 

[arche_757]

Yep.  Transportation is very expensive!

 

Clearly both sides have very opinionated people - nothing wrong with that - I'm one of them!  We just need to remember that each side has valid points when discussing these items.

 

Personally I'm intrigued by the proposed HSR between Houston and Dallas.  If that is done properly it may spur on some interest in some well designed/run government funded rail options around?   hopefully

 

Frankly, I like the lightrail system *idea* that Metro has/is building.  I can certainly see where some would wish the system was a little different.  I think the idea that Metro took of "building the ribs FIRST, then adding the legs and spine to the system" was the right idea for a town like Houston.  The people who really want rail mostly live inside the Loop (or that immediate area), and they'll use it!  They can.  The commuter/heavy rail options much later down the road will need to connect properly to the existing light rail system or the whole thing won't work very well.

 

I've always been of the idea that we need rail alternatives; and believe that Houston would have a successful system realatively quickly.  I am however, of the mindset that it *must* be done correctly and would rather we plan things well before moving dirt.

[august948]

Yep.  Transportation is very expensive!

 

Clearly both sides have very opinionated people - nothing wrong with that - I'm one of them!  We just need to remember that each side has valid points when discussing these items.

 

Personally I'm intrigued by the proposed HSR between Houston and Dallas.  If that is done properly it may spur on some interest in some well designed/run government funded rail options around?   hopefully

 

Frankly, I like the lightrail system *idea* that Metro has/is building.  I can certainly see where some would wish the system was a little different.  I think the idea that Metro took of "building the ribs FIRST, then adding the legs and spine to the system" was the right idea for a town like Houston.  The people who really want rail mostly live inside the Loop (or that immediate area), and they'll use it!  They can.  The commuter/heavy rail options much later down the road will need to connect properly to the existing light rail system or the whole thing won't work very well.

 

I've always been of the idea that we need rail alternatives; and believe that Houston would have a successful system realatively quickly.  I am however, of the mindset that it *must* be done correctly and would rather we plan things well before moving dirt.

 

Actually, I've got a slightly opposite opinion on the HSR.  Since it is a private venture, if it is successful it may spur on more privately funded rail options. 

 

[arche_757]

Actually, I've got a slightly opposite opinion on the HSR.  Since it is a private venture, if it is successful it may spur on more privately funded rail options. 

 

 

Or that!  I almost typed that in my previous response...  Of course that would be a great thing if it did happen.

 

[IronTiger]

[Continued...]

By March 1991, METRO has spent $60,000 since 1985 to reinforce or to change minds about rail. This included sending two to see Atlanta's rail system in regards to a then-current plan about rail wouldn't destroy a neighborhood: the plan was to send rail down Richmond (gee, sounds familiar, doesn't it?) but it didn't work.

Hood and Seger, who this week learned they had convinced a majority of the Metro board to move a controversial segment of the rail line off Richmond Avenue, said the Atlanta trip did show them that rail can be successful. But the trip also gave them ammunition to fight rail in their neighborhood.

"If somebody perceives that Metro used that to change my mind on something, that's not the case," said Seger, who is an officer in the Afton Oaks Civic Club. "The most obnoxious pictures I brought back of the Atlanta system were where they had gone aerial on this thing and it looks terrible.

"The trip very much reinforced the no rail on Richmond situation."

This also included sending people to Orlando to see the then-current monorail plan which was in place in some areas like Disney World.

March 12 1991 - A bill that would force another election on the $1 billion is approved in the Texas Senate 28-0.

Toward the end of March, METRO has decided on a $1 billion rail system that will be monorail or another elevated system. The plan is highly controversial but is predicted to win 5-4 in favor. Lanier has "fallen out of favor with Houston's political power structure" due to his rail opposition ("Big vote looms for embattled city rail plan - Despite opposition, Metro board expected to vote yes", 3/25/91)

The vote passes. But...

Metro is taking a unique "turnkey" approach to the project, a method in which the transit authority turns much of the responsibility and risk over to the developer. It is the turnkey issue that has prompted questions from the district attorney.

On Wednesday, Holmes explained that his staff's inquiries began in December after receiving a complaint from Lanier . Prosecutors also received a similar complaint from an engineer involved with one of five groups bidding on the project but would not say who it was.

Holmes said when his staff's research left doubts about whether Metro's approach to design and construction of the rail system is legal, he decided to ask Attorney General Dan Morales to settle the question.

The district attorney's office agreed to investigate because of the possibility that the Metro board would violate the official misconduct statute, Holmes added.

Lanier said he discussed various issues with Holmes' office, and did not specifically recall raising the Metro issue as a complaint, but added, "It wouldn't bother me to have stimulated it."

It was under Lanier 's leadership that Metro decided to solicit rail system suggestions from private bidders.

But Lanier said Wednesday that when he left the board in December 1989 the plan on the table was to award a preliminary engineering contract to a private bidder and then open a construction contract to the regular bidding process.

A March 31 article, "Both sides of rail issue binding the ties" reveals some major contribution ties in the pro-rail set including Whitmire's five pro-rail METRO appointees who won the vote, which refutes an accusation of a pro-rail supporter accuses the anti-rail group with a conspiracy while denying there's anything with the pro-rail group.

April 1991 - The House hears several versions on what could be done with METRO. The compromise version is a bill that would give another vote for rail.

Whitmire's appointees to the Metro board prevailed 5-4 in a vote last week to begin designing the first phase of a $1.2 billion monorail system.

A bill that would force another rail election already has won approval in the Senate. But the version sponsored by Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, is viewed as the plan that, if approved in the House, ultimately will be adopted by the Legislature.

Members of the Harris County delegation in the House, however, are sharply divided on the issue.

The bill is a compromise between Turner and Rep. Debra Danburg, D-Houston, who initially took a hardline approach on the rail issue, proposing a bill that would force another election on rail .

But the Turner plan only would give voters the right to petition for a referendum on rail . The bill would require a vote if 5 percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election (or 30,000 people, whichever is less) signed a petition within a 90-day period.

In addition to giving Houston residents the chance to call for another vote on rail , Turner's bill also would give voters the authority to petition for a referendum on any Metroissue. But the threshold would increase to 10 percent of voters or 60,000 residents.

In an impassioned speech before the committee, Turner followed the lead of rail supporters such as Whitmire, saying support for his bill would allow the rail issue to be decided locally, rather than by the Legislature.

One of the rail opposition politicians cited a poll that a majority wanted another rail vote. It is important to note that the public was not given a choice on how much would be spent on rail or where it went. Whitmire said that a rail plan was "critical to solving Houston's traffic and environmental problems" while Lanier thought that the reason METRO doesn't want a second vote because they were afraid they'd lose.

Hall [METRO's new chairman and Lanier's replacement] countered that Whitmire has made her position on rail clear, and Houston residents continue to elect her. He rejected Turner's label of the bill as a compromise.

He'd be eating those words soon...

May 1991 - Another bit of compromise is proposed so that METRO would have to get 2/3 (6 out of 9) on votes. This is because the 5-4 split would win every decision whether rail or not.

Metro 's nine-member board hasn't been able to produce more than five votes on any major transit plan for the city. Five members are appointed by Mayor Kathy Whitmire, two more by Harris County commissioners and the last two are named by a committee of mayors from other cities served by Metro .

Cain's proposal would require six votes for any plan to survive past September. That not only would require the city to win a vote from outside committee members, it would force rail and anti- rail factions to cooperate before any mass transit plan could pass.

However, that proposal was halted by Ron Wilson on a technical problem. ("Metro board vote bill hits technical stoplight

"). The project is still controversial even within Houston. Many claim the plan was drastically altered from what they voted on and would rather spend it on roads. As an aside, this is the first mention of John Culberson, who did argue on the referendum. The bill ultimately ends up dying.

June 1991 - A bill affecting term limits is close to being completed, which would prevent Whitmire (and extension, her METRO appointees) from being re-elected. Lanier contributes, which would ultimately be his undoing as the same term limits created prevents him from being re-elected in '97. But that comes later.

July 1991 - A Houston Chronicle poll reveals that 56% want METRO to drop the billion dollar monorail plan (and focus on streets/roads/sidewalks), with another 17% wanting light rail. Only 16% wanted the go-ahead, which was Whitmire's position.

Among those who reject the monorail proposal, 25 percent favored Whitmire in the mayor's race while 21 percent favored Lanier and 16 percent favored Turner. Thirty-eight percent were undecided.

According to the Chronicle Poll, 52 percent of city voters want Whitmire replaced.

But asked about their preference in a Whitmire-Turner race, 35 percent chose Whitmire, 26 percent chose Turner, 34 percent were unsure, and the remainder said they would pick someone else or not vote.

With Whitmire, Turner and Lanier as the choices, Whitmire drew 30 percent, Lanier 18 percent, Turner 16 percent. The remainder were unsure or indicated another preference.

Wednesday: The Houston Chronicle Poll on Houston Councilman Ben Reyes.

............................................................. Chronicle Poll: the Metro rail debate.

Given the following options, which would you prefer?

Drop rail plans, improve roads and sidewalks....56 percent.

Drop monorail, build inner-city light rail ....17 percent.

Proceed with monorail.....16 percent.

Not sure, other opinion....11 percent.

Poll was conducted June 21-27 and includes the responses of 652 registered voters who expressed interest in local politics. Is has an error margin of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

("Most in poll don't want monorail

", July 2, 1991)

In July 1991, Tom DeLay manages to convince a House panel (national) to deny additional funding for a rail system until a " a reasonable consensus" was found.

Before anyone here says "I knew it!" keep in mind that...

The House panel did leave intact Houston's $146 million account from previous appropriations but specified the money "should remain unobligated" although it is earmarked for the monorail plan. The monorail plan calls for the federal government to pay half the $1.2 billion cost.

...and conversely, the first phase of DART would get $48 million while Honolulu, which was "also considering a monorail system similar to Houston's" got $28 million. Getting $500 million from the Feds would be a tall order even if the monorail plan had gotten better backing.

Meanwhile, Lanier decides to go against Whitmire in the next mayoral election. Lanier considers it a revenge move for the events of late 1989. Sylvester Turner was also running. ("A measure of revenge in mayor's race

", 7/21/91)

August 1991 - Lanier officially announces his candidacy. One of his main platforms is his anti-monorail stance.

October 1991 - After a vote, Congress gives $30 million to METRO in addition to the $147 million in rail appropriations. However, METRO can't spend it unless they can provide "strong consensus" on how it should be spent.

November 1991 - Crunch time. The candidates include Whitmire (who can still compete due to term limits, she was mayor throughout the entire 1980s and was going for a sixth two-year term, something no Houston mayor had done), Turner ("vying to become the city's first black mayor, set the tempo in June when he declared his candidacy on a "law and order" platform."), and Lanier, who managed to link crime and transportation issues when he announced his candidacy. Lanier wants to divert the monorail money to "beefing up the police force and rebuilding inner-city streets." Turner never liked the monorail project but wanted a new inner-city project.

It's a tight race.

Whitmire and Turner say Lanier 's plan to move monorail money to other projects would cripple Metro 's ability to meet future transit needs. Lanier denies that assertion and says his is the only crime-fighting plan that would provide immediate results without a tax increase.

Whitmire, Lanier and Turner each call for adding officers to the police force. But some of Whitmire's crime-fighting moves -- backing a juvenile curfew and increasing police patrols with overtime money -- seemed to come in reaction to ideas propounded by the challengers.

On economic development, Whitmire points to the George R. Brown Convention Center, the international terminal at Houston Intercontinental Airport and other projects as proof that she is best qualified to continue bringing business to the city.

The challengers highlight the failures of the city's Community Development program. They include the now-abandoned El Mercado del Sol marketplace.

Lanier says the key to economic development is neighborhood revitalization. He criticizes the city for getting involved in downtown development projects such as the proposed entertainment complex at the site of the Albert Thomas Convention Center.

In stark contrast, Turner calls for a city role in the creation of a world trade center, a convention center hotel and a new federal government center.

A debate about campaign ethics grew out of Whitmire's fund-raising and Lanier 's private land deals.

Turner and Lanier criticize Whitmire for accepting campaign contributions from businessmen who are either being sued by the city or who have submitted active bids for city contracts. They say the practice gives the appearance of influence-peddling.

The mayor has accused Lanier of using the chairmanship of the Texas Highway Commission, and then Metro , to promote road projects that enhanced the value of his land holdings. Her criticisms were based on Houston Chronicle articles describing some of Lanier 's votes on the public boards.

She made public her personal income tax returns for 1989 and 1990 and challenged her opponents to do the same.

Lanier says he violated no conflict-of-interest rules with his road project votes. And he accuses Whitmire of pursuing the issue to divert public attention from problems of crime and urban decay.

He also refuses to disclose his income taxes for the same years. Turner has said he would take the challenge under consideration.

While Whitmire and Lanier have gone head-to-head with television commercials attacking each other, Turner has portrayed himself as above the fray.

His ads emphasize his college degrees and progress in the law business -- factors that Turner says qualify him to lead the city.

A runoff will be conducted if no candidate gets a majority of the vote. Observers say a runoff is likely.

(The rigorous race for mayor - Challengers seek end to Whitmire rule

, November 3 1991). The result is a blowout loss for Whitmire, gaining 20% of the vote (a fourth candidate, a socialist refinery worker, got only less than .25% of the vote)

By the end of November, the monorail project is all but dead. With the biggest supporter and the person who installed the pro-monorail supporters out of the picture, and Lanier wanting any new mass transit system to be put to the public vote (which would be the case), rail wouldn't be seen in Houston until 2004. And while Lanier was anti-monorail, he wasn't anti-transit: both he and Turner wanted to build commuter rail using existing tracks, which he appended during the campaigns.

January 1992 - A year before "Marge vs. the Monorail" is released, METRO and the new Lanier-based team (Lanier replaced three of Whitmire's people) officially kill the monorail plan and was diverted to other sources, presumably with the "community support" granted earlier.

Work to create a commuter line using existing tracks (partially to take advantage of a $500 million option created by Congress in a large transit bill, but they'd have to act by March) in the early 1990s but goes nowhere, but a commuter rail system still is fascinating today over 20 years later...

So...what happened was far more complex than "Lanier killed the monorail plan approved by the people" because, first off, that's a lie (which I always suspected). The point is, Lanier was politically out of office for two years while the monorail plan collapsed under its own weight, and Whitmire and her appointees were dealt a crushing blow in the 1991 election.

DeLay, too, wasn't instrumental in killing it (not that he was supportive of it) either, and John "Scapegoat" Culberson wasn't functionally in the picture yet. If the "will of the people" had been that strong, they would've heartily backed METRO's monorail plan (which the City of Houston didn't vote on) or backed them up when DeLay was holding back funds, or re-elected Whitmire.

I hope that this timeline informs and educates (all sources from Houston Chronicle articles)

[mfastx]

I remember seeing something about the anti-rail folk bringing in guys from SF and DC in '83 to testify how much of a colossal failure heavy rail was in those cities.  

 

Knowing that those rail systems are great successes, I chuckled when I read that. 

[IronTiger]

Given that 1983 was before my time (and the 1980s were very tumultuous) there's no telling what the early 1980s heavy rail system would've really been like, especially since the recession in the 1980s put a damper on everyone's plans.

I wanted to seek the truth in my two-part timeline: I'm not sure if I'd like Lanier or not, but I was certain that didn't do anything illegal or threw out a vote because he didn't like it.

[samagon]

Or that!  I almost typed that in my previous response...  Of course that would be a great thing if it did happen.

 

 

I think, unfortunately, with metro, this might not be possible in the city of Houston.

 

It would be a great vote for the ballot though, allow private companies to compete against metro to install commuter rail. I imagine it would be too hard to coordinate.

 

While on the subject of private companies, why is it that Metro isn't allowed to put advertisement on the buses (inside or out)? Not that I'd want to see buses driving around with boards on the side advertising cash for gold places, or whatever, but it would be easier to look at knowing it was helping to pay for things.

[editor]

 I'm realistic enough to realize that dollars spent on roads are more useful than dollars spent on rail,

 

 

To you and your lifestyle.  Not everyone lives the same way you do. More and more people, even in Houston, are living less car-centric lifestyles. You shouldn't pretend that the solution that works best for you is the solution that works best for everyone.

[august948]

I think, unfortunately, with metro, this might not be possible in the city of Houston.

 

It would be a great vote for the ballot though, allow private companies to compete against metro to install commuter rail. I imagine it would be too hard to coordinate.

 

Or maybe some sort of public-private partnership.  It's probably a ways away, but if Texas Central is successful with the Houston to Dallas route, who knows what might spring up either directly by them or by new rail companies inspired by their success.  Of course, if they fail that might put a nail in the coffin of private rail passenger service.  I hope they succeed, though.

 

[august948]

To you and your lifestyle.  Not everyone lives the same way you do. More and more people, even in Houston, are living less car-centric lifestyles. You shouldn't pretend that the solution that works best for you is the solution that works best for everyone.

 

It may be true that more people are getting interested in, or exploring, less car-centric lives here and elsewhere, and if that's what they want to do more power to them.  I don't think we can assume that more and more means anything close to even a simple majority of Houston metro residents, 80 to 90% of whom live outside the loop and a good portion of that are also outside the beltway.

 

To be sure, not everyone lives the same way I do, but here, in Houston, I think we can safely say the vast majority do.  You also can't pretend that solutions that work best for a small demographic are the solutions that work best for everyone.

 

[arche_757]

To assume that 90% of Houstonian's do not want alternative transit is not accurate.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop610Website/population.html

 

The 610 Loop has around 440,000 residents.  Care to wager on how many more people will move into the Loop over the next 6 years?

 

*Figures used in that website were figures from before the current boom, and census figures from 2010.

[august948]

To assume that 90% of Houstonian's do not want alternative transit is not accurate.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop610Website/population.html

 

The 610 Loop has around 440,000 residents.  Care to wager on how many more people will move into the Loop over the next 6 years?

 

*Figures used in that website were figures from before the current boom, and census figures from 2010.

 

I'll wager that far more will move outside the loop and even outside the beltway than inside the loop.  I don't have the stats handy, but I've seen them posted on other threads.  You should bear in mind that the stats on the website you cite are for the city of Houston, not the greater Houston metro area.  The city itself is around 2m; while the metro area is closer to 6m.  That makes the loop about 7 or 8% of the total.

 

I'm not assuming that 90% of Houstonians don't want alternate methods of transit.  What I'm saying is the reality is that the demand for it isn't as high as you might assume.  People vote with their feet and their pocketbooks.  In the greater Houston area how often does access to alternate transit rate high in comparison to cost and school district, community ammenities, etc. when people actually go to sign mortgage documents and lease agreements?

 

[samagon]

I'll wager that far more will move outside the loop and even outside the beltway than inside the loop.  I don't have the stats handy, but I've seen them posted on other threads.  You should bear in mind that the stats on the website you cite are for the city of Houston, not the greater Houston metro area.  The city itself is around 2m; while the metro area is closer to 6m.  That makes the loop about 7 or 8% of the total.

 

I'm not assuming that 90% of Houstonians don't want alternate methods of transit.  What I'm saying is the reality is that the demand for it isn't as high as you might assume.  People vote with their feet and their pocketbooks.  In the greater Houston area how often does access to alternate transit rate high in comparison to cost and school district, community ammenities, etc. when people actually go to sign mortgage documents and lease agreements?

 

 

Probably about as often as the commute time to their normal job, so are you suggesting the city shouldn't make freeways wider because most people don't consider it as highly as the schools their kids attend?

[IronTiger]

I'll wager that far more will move outside the loop and even outside the beltway than inside the loop.  I don't have the stats handy, but I've seen them posted on other threads.  You should bear in mind that the stats on the website you cite are for the city of Houston, not the greater Houston metro area.  The city itself is around 2m; while the metro area is closer to 6m.  That makes the loop about 7 or 8% of the total.

 

I'm not assuming that 90% of Houstonians don't want alternate methods of transit.  What I'm saying is the reality is that the demand for it isn't as high as you might assume.  People vote with their feet and their pocketbooks.  In the greater Houston area how often does access to alternate transit rate high in comparison to cost and school district, community ammenities, etc. when people actually go to sign mortgage documents and lease agreements?

I read somewhere that the Inner Loop has 15% of Houston's area and 20% of its population (I may have those numbers flipped, but oh well). As for "people wanting alternate methods of transit", remember that a number of light rail initiatives passed, and unless there was some serious corruption going on, that means that people in the Outer Loop had to vote for light rail, even though there was slim to no chance that they would ever use it. Even if you account for people that worked in the Inner Loop, that still might not have necessarily given the green light for it. So clearly, the people DID want some sort of rail.

I believe that despite the "induced demand" theory promoted by pro-rail charlatans and/or people who slept through stat, widened freeways really are the better choice at reducing congestion (and there is data that proves that).

However, even TxDOT admits that freeways aren't expandable forever and you start becoming ineffective after a while. 6 lanes wide in any direction is about the limit as far as freeways go and the Katy Freeway pretty much is maxed out. Now, back to the subject: will rail help?

It may or may not, depending on the density and where the rails go (and building more rails to compensate for this also will start becoming ineffective as well, so building a highway-like network of rails isn't the best strategy). I personally detest the idea of transfers, and I think people do, too, which is why the light rails would need to go outside to the suburbs (less stops, in between, of course) or the commuter trains need to go into the loop.

[august948]

Probably about as often as the commute time to their normal job, so are you suggesting the city shouldn't make freeways wider because most people don't consider it as highly as the schools their kids attend?

 

What I'm suggesting is that we make the freeways wider and add expanded P&R service to help alleviate commute times for those interested in alternatives.  Such a plan would include HOV/HOT lanes kept clear enough that the P&R service can travel at highway speeds most of the trip.

 

[august948]

I read somewhere that the Inner Loop has 15% of Houston's area and 20% of its population (I may have those numbers flipped, but oh well). As for "people wanting alternate methods of transit", remember that a number of light rail initiatives passed, and unless there was some serious corruption going on, that means that people in the Outer Loop had to vote for light rail, even though there was slim to no chance that they would ever use it. Even if you account for people that worked in the Inner Loop, that still might not have necessarily given the green light for it. So clearly, the people DID want some sort of rail.

I believe that despite the "induced demand" theory promoted by pro-rail charlatans and/or people who slept through stat, widened freeways really are the better choice at reducing congestion (and there is data that proves that).

However, even TxDOT admits that freeways aren't expandable forever and you start becoming ineffective after a while. 6 lanes wide in any direction is about the limit as far as freeways go and the Katy Freeway pretty much is maxed out. Now, back to the subject: will rail help?

It may or may not, depending on the density and where the rails go (and building more rails to compensate for this also will start becoming ineffective as well, so building a highway-like network of rails isn't the best strategy). I personally detest the idea of transfers, and I think people do, too, which is why the light rails would need to go outside to the suburbs (less stops, in between, of course) or the commuter trains need to go into the loop.

 

You are correct on the stats, but that is city of Houston only.  When you take into account the greater Houston area the loop drops down to about 7 or 8% of the total population.  The thing about elections it that not everyone votes.  You don't normally even get a simple majority to vote in most referendums so it usually tips in favor of whoever has the most motivation to go to the polls.  That's all well and good and is how we do things, but I don't think that always correllates to the actual sentiment of the same percentage of total eligible voters.  As I said before, people vote with their feet and their pocketbooks daily so I think that provides a better indication of their priorities.

 

You are right about transfers and that is one thing that leads to a negative comparison vs using a private car.  It's the nature of the beast, though, that you will have transfers, perhaps several, plus having to drive to the starting point to begin a mass transit commute unless you happen to live within walking distance of a station and your destination is also within walking distance.  Thus people who live, work and play along the rail line will love it, but others further out not so much.

 

[IronTiger]

What I'm suggesting is that we make the freeways wider and add expanded P&R service to help alleviate commute times for those interested in alternatives.  Such a plan would include HOV/HOT lanes kept clear enough that the P&R service can travel at highway speeds most of the trip.

The big problem is the single lane of the HOV. If any cars go slow (or stop), it will screw up the entire system. A two lane system where both lanes switch will allow for breakdowns or cars traveling less-than-highway speeds.

[arche_757]

I posted the link - from the city of Houston - about the Loop and realize its only about 7-8% of greater Houston (though it could be argued its one of the few neighborhoods that will be able to hold double its population over the next few decades without much being done to it infrastructure-wise).

 

Metro primarily serves Houston.  Park'and Ride services extend to the suburban areas and smaller communities outside of Houston, but the primary focus of Metro is Houston proper.  This is something people should be able to consider if they want transit options.

 

Eventually we will start to see transit options from others outside of Metro (already a few exist).  Island Transit in Galveston County, The Woodlands Express in Montgomery County etc.

 

I need more coffee before I can continue these deep conversations!

[august948]

The big problem is the single lane of the HOV. If any cars go slow (or stop), it will screw up the entire system. A two lane system where both lanes switch will allow for breakdowns or cars traveling less-than-highway speeds.

 

I completely agree.  What I would suggest is that we make all the freeways like I10, including the beltway and perhaps hwy 6 and grand parkway.  5 or 6 lanes each direction, 4 lanes in the middle for HOV/HOT, and 3 lanes on each side as access roads.  Rebuild the connectors to smoothly handle transitions from one freeway to another and run P&R or long haul buses to connect major centers together.  Have local buses and circulators fan out from there to take you to nearby destinations.

 

EDIT:  I'll amend the above plan to say that engineering should be done on the HOV/HOT lanes, or at least somewhere within the footprint of the expanded freeways, during construction to allow for eventual upgrade to rail service if it's warrented.

[Houston19514]

To assume that 90% of Houstonian's do not want alternative transit is not accurate.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop610Website/population.html

 

The 610 Loop has around 440,000 residents.  Care to wager on how many more people will move into the Loop over the next 6 years?

 

*Figures used in that website were figures from before the current boom, and census figures from 2010.

 

How many more people do you think will move into the Loop over the next 6 years? 

 

Actually, since we don't really know how many people currently live in the Loop, let's make that, "How many people do you think will have moved into the Loop between the 2010 and 2020 censuses?

 

(BTW, thanks for Link.  Pretty interesting stuff.)

[arche_757]

Well... I'm just guessing - if growth continues as it is currently.  I expect the Inner Loop to add about 75,000 people between the 2010 census and the 2020 census.  That's a big number, and I believe it is easily possible.  I expect a fair % of Houston's overall growth between now and then to be inside the Beltway where dense projects are much more common.  Plus the infrastructure is mostly in place to handle that growth.  6 years is a long time.

 

I imagine that by 2040 the 610 Loop will hold about 1,000,000 people and fully expect Houston to have easily doubled its highrise residential during that time and replaces tract after tract of Inner Loop land with mid-rises throughout.  Places like the Heights, West U and River Oaks will be the rare acception to the rule when it comes to lower density residential.

 

The Loop has mostly held steady since the decline in the 1960s, but I think the Loop will grow to its potential over the course of the next 6 years or so.

 

And I must admit - I'm curious if the population figures include assumed numbers of undocumented immigrants?  If not then the *real number is likely quite a bit higher.  Would be interesting to know.

[samagon]

Well... I'm just guessing - if growth continues as it is currently.  I expect the Inner Loop to add about 75,000 people between the 2010 census and the 2020 census.  That's a big number, and I believe it is easily possible.  I expect a fair % of Houston's overall growth between now and then to be inside the Beltway where dense projects are much more common.  Plus the infrastructure is mostly in place to handle that growth.  6 years is a long time.

 

I imagine that by 2040 the 610 Loop will hold about 1,000,000 people and fully expect Houston to have easily doubled its highrise residential during that time and replaces tract after tract of Inner Loop land with mid-rises throughout.  Places like the Heights, West U and River Oaks will be the rare acception to the rule when it comes to lower density residential.

 

The Loop has mostly held steady since the decline in the 1960s, but I think the Loop will grow to its potential over the course of the next 6 years or so.

 

And I must admit - I'm curious if the population figures include assumed numbers of undocumented immigrants?  If not then the *real number is likely quite a bit higher.  Would be interesting to know.

 

The thing is, since traffic studies are required to ensure the roads can accept the additional traffic, and surface streets inside the loop can only get so big, the majority of density is going to grow around freeways, bigger streets, and mass transit. 

 

How those traffic study results are interpreted I'm sure are dependent on who is building where. Realistically though, how much traffic can areas between the Galleria area and Montrose really support? It's not as bad as trying to get from Dairy Ashford to BW8 on Bellaire on a Saturday or Sunday morning (so much fun), so it can hold more for sure.

[arche_757]

Well, I'm talking about 6, and then 26 years from now.  I'm sure surface streets will be reworked in some areas between now and then.

 

Additionally, if Houston densifies similar to say... San Francisco or denser parts of Chicago or LA, then we can assume the population will "bulge" in certain areas.  Add to the idea that transit options will be available by then (be it LR, subways or even better run bus systems) to ease vehicular traffic, and I think anything is quite possible.

 

Realistically surface streets can handle nearly constant traffic - like NYC or Beijing.  Constant gridlock is in Houston's future whether we like it or not, it is in some ways already here during working hours on certain roads.  Its just part of being a really big city.  I've come to accept it, though it is quite tedious at times.

 

Also, by 2040 more of the neighborhoods throughout town will be necessity have all the "needs" you could want within easy reach.  Sure there will still be trips to Montrose or Galleria or other places on ocassion (not unlike suburban enclaves currently experience), but most of the city will have services/goods/businesses within a reasonable distance to alleviate the need to sit in a car in July for 1.5 hours.

 

At least that is how I see things progressing.  This is particularly true if we do indeed grow to the "bigger" proposed population size of 14-15 million.  I'll see if I can dig up the website and pdf from the City regarding long term growth patterns and what we can expect.

[august948]

 

How those traffic study results are interpreted I'm sure are dependent on who is building where. Realistically though, how much traffic can areas between the Galleria area and Montrose really support? It's not as bad as trying to get from Dairy Ashford to BW8 on Bellaire on a Saturday or Sunday morning (so much fun), so it can hold more for sure.

 

If you've doing that drive recently, it's because of the widening of Bellaire.  I've been driving up and down it for the past 15 years and it's no big deal.  But maybe I have a greater tolerance for traffic.  I'd say the Galleria is worse on any given Friday or Saturday night.

 

[august948]

Well, I'm talking about 6, and then 26 years from now.  I'm sure surface streets will be reworked in some areas between now and then.

 

Additionally, if Houston densifies similar to say... San Francisco or denser parts of Chicago or LA, then we can assume the population will "bulge" in certain areas.  Add to the idea that transit options will be available by then (be it LR, subways or even better run bus systems) to ease vehicular traffic, and I think anything is quite possible.

 

Realistically surface streets can handle nearly constant traffic - like NYC or Beijing.  Constant gridlock is in Houston's future whether we like it or not, it is in some ways already here during working hours on certain roads.  Its just part of being a really big city.  I've come to accept it, though it is quite tedious at times.

 

Also, by 2040 more of the neighborhoods throughout town will be necessity have all the "needs" you could want within easy reach.  Sure there will still be trips to Montrose or Galleria or other places on ocassion (not unlike suburban enclaves currently experience), but most of the city will have services/goods/businesses within a reasonable distance to alleviate the need to sit in a car in July for 1.5 hours.

 

At least that is how I see things progressing.  This is particularly true if we do indeed grow to the "bigger" proposed population size of 14-15 million.  I'll see if I can dig up the website and pdf from the City regarding long term growth patterns and what we can expect.

 

San Francisco, Chicago and LA all have hard barriers to growth on at least one side, which tends to promote densification.  We don't really have that here so I don't think it will ever get that dense.  I'd guess that we'll see denser developments spread out fairly evenly, though maybe with a north and west bias, both inside and outside the loop, interspersed among single family homes.  That trend is already visible in the energy corridor.

 

[arche_757]

LA has a growth boundary on the west side, but the town sprawls for 80 miles to the east....

 

Houston will densify.  Its densifying now.  In 26 years I'll wager the Loop will be a lot denser than what it currently is.  Why?  Because of the want for living in a city for some - not all - but some residents.  If we add 6+ million (as we're projected to over those 20+ years) then why not see the Loop add the additional 400,000 ?  What is Katy going to be a city of 300,000?   Sugar Land a city of 500,000?