Cars Ruining Cities

[IronTiger]

1 minute ago, Houston19514 said:

 

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/TXMETRO/bulletins/c846e0

50 spaces doesn't seem like much, nor does it mention if it costs anything.

[Houston19514]

13 hours ago, IronTiger said:

 

Running some comparisons with Dallas, the most popular line is the Red Line, which largely runs on abandoned right of way to Plano, paralleling 75. The equivalent to that would be (if we were using 290 as a comparison) is FM 1960 as the terminus. As for improving public transit in Houston, one thing would be to have free parking at transit stations (Dallas does). I dread driving to downtown even though it's less than 7 miles away and most of that is on Main/North Main. An ideal solution would be just to drive east on Crosstimbers, and take the train down, even if it is slow. But unlike Fannin, which despite its isolated location still demands a parking fee (even on non-event days), Northline doesn't have parking at all.

 

2 hours ago, IronTiger said:

50 spaces doesn't seem like much, nor does it mention if it costs anything.

 

A few thoughts:

It appears they have at least doubled the number of spaces since 2014 and probably should add more. In any event, 50 is infinitely more than the zero you told us existed. ;-)   And they are free.

 

If we're trying to build an effective mass transit that is heavily used, DART is just about the last system we should be using as a model. And FWIW, Dallas also has higher fares. Even for the one lot on which Metro charges for parking (Fannin South), the parking plus round trip fare is only slightly more than just DART's round trip fare. Metro's approach at Fannin South strikes me as being more equitable than providing "free" parking.

[IronTiger]

9 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

 

A few thoughts:

It appears they have at least doubled the number of spaces since 2014 and probably should add more. In any event, 50 is infinitely more than the zero you told us existed. ;-)   And they are free.

 

If we're trying to build an effective mass transit that is heavily used, DART is just about the last system we should be using as a model. And FWIW, Dallas also has higher fares. Even for the one lot on which Metro charges for parking (Fannin South), the parking plus round trip fare is only slightly more than just DART's round trip fare. Metro's approach at Fannin South strikes me as being more equitable than providing "free" parking.

I was going by METRO's official website (should be noted that if their own website provides bad information, that should speak volumes about the transit they offer), which does not mention parking at the Northline location. Admittedly, I've never driven out that way, but if METRO won't say there's parking, why bother? I'm not saying DART is ideal or particularly efficient, but for a sprawling area like Dallas (or Houston) it makes more sense than the knuckleheads who think we should do Eastern Seaboard-style transit and have 2-3 distinct systems, all of which require transfers. And higher fares are worth it if it goes a longer distance at a higher speed, so that's a bit of a wash there.

[ADCS]

13 hours ago, IronTiger said:

Admittedly, I've never driven out that way, but if METRO won't say there's parking, why bother?

 

You do this a lot.

[Houston19514]

On 5/2/2018 at 11:21 PM, IronTiger said:

An ideal solution would be just to drive east on Crosstimbers, and take the train down, even if it is slow. But unlike Fannin, which despite its isolated location still demands a parking fee (even on non-event days), Northline doesn't have parking at all.

 

You might also be able to take the bus.  The  #36 provides frequent service along Crosstimbers, directly to the Northline Transit Center.

[IronTiger]

10 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

You do this a lot.

Point is (which seemed to be missed) is that METRO failed to transmit that information. If I can't get in contact with a restaurant (or find out online) what their hours actually are, I'm probably to go to a different restaurant, and not drive significantly out of my way to check at that restaurant.

 

10 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

You might also be able to take the bus.  The  #36 provides frequent service along Crosstimbers, directly to the Northline Transit Center.

I could in theory, but again, a transfer adds even more time and more money to the route (for instance, I could in theory take the bus to work, but it will take twice as long due to stops). It's only an alternative option, though--I have yet to see a city (at least in the U.S., as European cities are built completely differently) where public transportation is the more pragmatic choice for getting around (as a whole, and not just related to events) but without horrific cost of living or quality of life issues that make it that way (ruling out San Francisco, basically anything on the East Coast, etc.).

[mollusk]

A quick trip to Google Maps reveals waaaaay more than 50 parking slots around the Northline Transit Center.

[IronTiger]

1 hour ago, mollusk said:

A quick trip to Google Maps reveals waaaaay more than 50 parking slots around the Northline Transit Center.

That's parking for HCC, not METRO. It looks like the only ones for METRO are the blue-striped ones.

[ADCS]

On 5/4/2018 at 10:27 PM, IronTiger said:

It's only an alternative option, though--I have yet to see a city (at least in the U.S., as European cities are built completely differently) where public transportation is the more pragmatic choice for getting around (as a whole, and not just related to events) but without horrific cost of living or quality of life issues that make it that way (ruling out San Francisco, basically anything on the East Coast, etc.).

 

You have an aesthetic aversion to dense cities that outweighs any rational analysis. That's fine - there are a lot of people who share this aversion. However, I don't think it means you're best suited for determining what people who live in dense cities, and desire to do so, need in order to improve their own quality of life.

[dbigtex56]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:27 PM, IronTiger said:

I have yet to see a city (at least in the U.S., as European cities are built completely differently) where public transportation is the more pragmatic choice for getting around (as a whole, and not just related to events) but without horrific cost of living or quality of life issues that make it that way (ruling out San Francisco, basically anything on the East Coast, etc.).

If I recall correctly, Dr. Robert (Bob) Hartley lived in Chicago and unfailingly took the train.
Not sure how Emily got around. I get the impression she just stayed at home and drank a lot.

[IronTiger]

10 hours ago, ADCS said:

 

You have an aesthetic aversion to dense cities that outweighs any rational analysis. That's fine - there are a lot of people who share this aversion. However, I don't think it means you're best suited for determining what people who live in dense cities, and desire to do so, need in order to improve their own quality of life.

To each his own, but I imagine that post could be reworded without the obvious veiled insult(s).

[samagon]

On 5/3/2018 at 0:36 PM, Houston19514 said:

 

 

A few thoughts:

It appears they have at least doubled the number of spaces since 2014 and probably should add more. In any event, 50 is infinitely more than the zero you told us existed. ;-)   And they are free.

 

If we're trying to build an effective mass transit that is heavily used, DART is just about the last system we should be using as a model. And FWIW, Dallas also has higher fares. Even for the one lot on which Metro charges for parking (Fannin South), the parking plus round trip fare is only slightly more than just DART's round trip fare. Metro's approach at Fannin South strikes me as being more equitable than providing "free" parking.

 

The parking plus round trip cost of LR from Fannin is cheaper than the cheapest parking I know of downtown ($10).

 

I know it's the same for the medical center. I know a lot of people that live in Pearland and work in the medical center that drive to that lot and take the rail.

 

Metro needs to do the same at the terminus to the other LR lines.

[samagon]

On 5/4/2018 at 10:27 PM, IronTiger said:

I could in theory, but again, a transfer adds even more time and more money to the route (for instance, I could in theory take the bus to work, but it will take twice as long due to stops). It's only an alternative option, though--I have yet to see a city (at least in the U.S., as European cities are built completely differently) where public transportation is the more pragmatic choice for getting around (as a whole, and not just related to events) but without horrific cost of living or quality of life issues that make it that way (ruling out San Francisco, basically anything on the East Coast, etc.).

 

Don't forget cities in Asia. Central and South America too. Some of which are a heck of a lot newer than Houston (or other sunbelt cities). Pretty much every major city in other 'enlightened' countries has mass transit except the USA. Do we know something special that they don't? 

 

All these cities in all these other countries, and we are the most advanced country in the world and force people to take cars. Hell, even in the 'forward thinking' Austin the cars rule the day:

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/01/flock-electric-scooters-suddenly-descended-austin-now-city-scrambling-/

 

Quote

Estrada said the company chose Austin for expansion because it’s a leading tech city and because of its well-documented traffic congestion. He said Bird is trying to help solve what it calls the “last-mile problem” — how people can get from a bus or commuter train to their final destination when it’s too far to walk.

 

“The only way that we can solve this problem is if we have enough of this alternative public transportation on the road,” Estrada said. “This is the most promising solution we’ve seen, and if cities really want to solve traffic they need to embrace this type of solution. If we overly restrict it … we are choosing more cars. We need to choose less cars.”

 

I'm not entirely sure that electric scooters are the solution of the future, but this comment really does state the the problem succinctly.

 

What you say is true though, because Houston and other cities in the USA grew with the car, they aren't exactly laid out to just give up the car entirely, that would be impossible in a place like Houston, but I would love to be able to choose to commute via a reliable public transit system. 

 

No one is saying you have to imagine a Houston where no one is allowed to use a car at all. Instead...

 

Imagine a Houston where everyone wasn't forced to use a car for 90-100% of mobility. Imagine a Houston where everyone had the option to use reliable public transit for 60% of their mobility, and they could still use a car for the other 40%? Of course, if you like your car, the option is still there for you to use it 100% of the time, and obviously, for those that don't want a car, they could go 100% without, if they chose to do so.

 

Freedom and choice. Isn't that one of the cornerstones of our nation? Yet, you would box me into a car because it doesn't fit your fantasy?

[IronTiger]

There needs to be a future beyond cars, but I don't think mass transit is the answer. And bringing up Asia is irrelevant because of the whole quality of life issue. Hong Kong is notorious as housing prices continue to rise and apartments shrink. In Houston, an average 1BR apartment is $954 a month with 724 square feet, with a 500 square foot studio running at $764. But in Hong Kong, a 450 square foot flat (typical), is $1,910 a month. If you are very wealthy or really that enamored with big cities, this may not matter. But it goes to what I was saying that if you reach a point where mass transit really is preferred, QoL is generally going to be lower and cost of living much higher.

 

Bringing this back to Houston, I work in the Inner Loop and live just about a mile outside of it. I could easily get on a bus and go the exact same way to work, but it would take twice as long due to stops. The only way that mass transit would come to close to competing is if I had an express line just for my purposes (not happening, though you may get lucky with express lines) or if it took twice as long to get there with my car as it does now.

 

11 hours ago, samagon said:

 

Freedom and choice. Isn't that one of the cornerstones of our nation? Yet, you would box me into a car because it doesn't fit your fantasy?

 

No one said anything about forcing cars, and the delusions are strong from that article about scooters, sounds to me like the scooter companies are whinging about cars because the city is upset about random scooters being abandoned around town before they were able to start their program.

[samagon]

Our bus system is crap. It's unreliable. The hallmark of good public transit is reliability. I need to know, when my transit option is scheduled to be somewhere, that it will be there on time, every time. Not early, not late, not skipping a stop. Our bus system does not come close to delivering that.

 

I have a friend that lives in Pearland, he drives up Almeda every day and parks at Fannin south. Hops on the rail and finishes his journey into the medical center. The train is always there on time. It's slower than driving the rest of the way into a parking lot at the med center, but he pays a lot less. Less gas for that extra few miles in traffic, and way less for parking. If he had a commuter option that took him from Pearland to Fannin South, he'd absolutely use it instead of his car.

 

My office subsidizes my parking spot downtown (cost is roughly $400). I live about a mile from one of the stops in the east end. I can easily ride my bike to this stop without even breaking a sweat and take the rail the rest of the way. I drive into the office 3 days a week maximum. It takes a little longer when I ride, but there's less frustration and I don't have to deal with traffic, and I'm getting at least a little exercise. If I was on the hook for my own spot, I can promise you, pragmatically, I'd be on that rail 5 days a week.

 

Our rail system may not be the best, but it works. Demonstrably. To bring it back to the article, the billions spent in making our freeways larger need to be used to expand our rail network (commuter, light, etc), or add other options. The buses need to be used as a circulator for the last mile. Shorter trips would help make them more timely. People could still live out in the suburbs, but there'd be other transit options.

[IronTiger]

42 minutes ago, samagon said:

Our bus system is crap. It's unreliable. The hallmark of good public transit is reliability. I need to know, when my transit option is scheduled to be somewhere, that it will be there on time, every time. Not early, not late, not skipping a stop. Our bus system does not come close to delivering that.

 

I have a friend that lives in Pearland, he drives up Almeda every day and parks at Fannin south. Hops on the rail and finishes his journey into the medical center. The train is always there on time. It's slower than driving the rest of the way into a parking lot at the med center, but he pays a lot less. Less gas for that extra few miles in traffic, and way less for parking. If he had a commuter option that took him from Pearland to Fannin South, he'd absolutely use it instead of his car.

 

My office subsidizes my parking spot downtown (cost is roughly $400). I live about a mile from one of the stops in the east end. I can easily ride my bike to this stop without even breaking a sweat and take the rail the rest of the way. I drive into the office 3 days a week maximum. It takes a little longer when I ride, but there's less frustration and I don't have to deal with traffic, and I'm getting at least a little exercise. If I was on the hook for my own spot, I can promise you, pragmatically, I'd be on that rail 5 days a week.

 

Our rail system may not be the best, but it works. Demonstrably. To bring it back to the article, the billions spent in making our freeways larger need to be used to expand our rail network (commuter, light, etc), or add other options. The buses need to be used as a circulator for the last mile. Shorter trips would help make them more timely. People could still live out in the suburbs, but there'd be other transit options.

I definitely don't like most of the downtown freeways idea, and I think that parts of the US-290 rebuild have been a bit wasteful (not just in terms of bad contractors, but tearing up freeway that was only put down in 2004-2005); however, I don't like the idea of just diverting funds en masse due to the whole way of funding works, plus, it will be probably be eaten up in administrative costs and other overruns. If anything is put to a vote, there needs to be standards to make sure that exactly what is voted on in terms of transit is actually followed. I roll my eyes when I read about "we voted for the University Line / monorail / whatever" because voters actually didn't. On a related note, I think that this is what is often forgot about the Katy Freeway and the railroad, is even if it was saved/rebuilt, it didn't really go anywhere. The tight right of way of the inner city Union Pacific mainline (paralleling Washington Avenue) wouldn't really allow for another track (much less two) and trying to get UP to share would be difficult. The original Katy line was even worse with the very narrow right of way and curves.

[cspwal]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

Our bus system is crap. It's unreliable. The hallmark of good public transit is reliability. I need to know, when my transit option is scheduled to be somewhere, that it will be there on time, every time. Not early, not late, not skipping a stop. Our bus system does not come close to delivering that.

 

I have a friend that lives in Pearland, he drives up Almeda every day and parks at Fannin south. Hops on the rail and finishes his journey into the medical center. The train is always there on time. It's slower than driving the rest of the way into a parking lot at the med center, but he pays a lot less. Less gas for that extra few miles in traffic, and way less for parking. If he had a commuter option that took him from Pearland to Fannin South, he'd absolutely use it instead of his car.

 

My office subsidizes my parking spot downtown (cost is roughly $400). I live about a mile from one of the stops in the east end. I can easily ride my bike to this stop without even breaking a sweat and take the rail the rest of the way. I drive into the office 3 days a week maximum. It takes a little longer when I ride, but there's less frustration and I don't have to deal with traffic, and I'm getting at least a little exercise. If I was on the hook for my own spot, I can promise you, pragmatically, I'd be on that rail 5 days a week.

 

Our rail system may not be the best, but it works. Demonstrably. To bring it back to the article, the billions spent in making our freeways larger need to be used to expand our rail network (commuter, light, etc), or add other options. The buses need to be used as a circulator for the last mile. Shorter trips would help make them more timely. People could still live out in the suburbs, but there'd be other transit options.

 

From riding around both Houston's Metro and other cities, I've decided that buses are best at two things:

 - The short trips that you wouldn't want to walk, but could easily bike

- Dedicated express buses for longer trips

 

Heavy/light rail works much better for the bulk of trips, which are medium length - something that would take 20-30 minutes to drive, or where you'd be pretty tired once you rolled up on your bike.

 

The reason I think local buses both work for short trips and fall down for long ones is their stop frequency - being able to grab the bus every other block is convenient, but really slows down the average travel speed.

An example ride for local buses would be using the 82 Westhiemer to go to montrose from downtown - it takes a similar amount of time to driving, it's relatively frequent, and there's not too many stops in the way.  Where that doesn't work is taking it all the way to the Galleria - takes way longer than driving because it stops about 890 times.

 

The express busses work for the long commute trips - our express bus network to the participating suburbs is actually quite good, but where it falls down is weekend service or reverse commuting.

The advantages are you can more quickly open new express bus routes than commuter trains, but still pull in hundreds of people a day at rush hour.  An example is I can use the express bus to get to Kingwood from downtown in the same time as it would take to get to the Galleria from downtown.

[samagon]

58 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

I definitely don't like most of the downtown freeways idea, and I think that parts of the US-290 rebuild have been a bit wasteful (not just in terms of bad contractors, but tearing up freeway that was only put down in 2004-2005); however, I don't like the idea of just diverting funds en masse due to the whole way of funding works, plus, it will be probably be eaten up in administrative costs and other overruns. If anything is put to a vote, there needs to be standards to make sure that exactly what is voted on in terms of transit is actually followed. I roll my eyes when I read about "we voted for the University Line / monorail / whatever" because voters actually didn't. On a related note, I think that this is what is often forgot about the Katy Freeway and the railroad, is even if it was saved/rebuilt, it didn't really go anywhere. The tight right of way of the inner city Union Pacific mainline (paralleling Washington Avenue) wouldn't really allow for another track (much less two) and trying to get UP to share would be difficult. The original Katy line was even worse with the very narrow right of way and curves.

 

Obviously, some money should be used to maintain what we've got, I agree. But spending billions on freeway construction that nets us more cars driving isn't the answer. More options is.

 

Administrative costs and other overruns are something that happens regardless of the transit type that is being built out, or expanded. Freeways have their own cost overruns, 290 is a great example of a freeway project that has been wasteful.

 

We voted for the next phase which included 22 miles of track. http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_hou003.htm

 

I don't have a subscription to the chronicle to link the entire article, but the Richmond line was included in phase 1, so logically it was part of that bond referendum. 

 

I definitely don't know the solution, but throwing more money at freeways has shown to not be the solution. Maybe it takes another 20 or 30 years before a majority of people see that, and I just have to sit on my hands until then.

[samagon]

Here's a cool concept:

https://www.fastcompany.com/40568132/this-startup-wants-to-replace-cars-and-subways-with-elevated-solar-pods

 

I always am curious at these systems though, what if you want to turn?

[mkultra25]

7 hours ago, cspwal said:

Heavy/light rail works much better for the bulk of trips, which are medium length - something that would take 20-30 minutes to drive, or where you'd be pretty tired once you rolled up on your bike.

 

The reason I think local buses both work for short trips and fall down for long ones is their stop frequency - being able to grab the bus every other block is convenient, but really slows down the average travel speed.

An example ride for local buses would be using the 82 Westhiemer to go to montrose from downtown - it takes a similar amount of time to driving, it's relatively frequent, and there's not too many stops in the way.  Where that doesn't work is taking it all the way to the Galleria - takes way longer than driving because it stops about 890 times.

 

My wife works in the Galleria area, on Post Oak, and from time to time when her car is in the shop or temporarily unavailable (like when she got a nail in one of her tires last week), she will use both the rail and bus systems to get to the office - from our house, she can hop on the Red Line south to Wheeler, then transfer to a bus and head westbound down Richmond all the way to Post Oak. Traffic being typically godawful on the West Loop and anywhere in the vicinity of Post Oak during morning and evening rush hours, she can usually get to the office via rail/bus in about the same amount of time (or even less) than it takes to drive there at peak travel times. 

[IronTiger]

8 hours ago, samagon said:

 

 

We voted for the next phase which included 22 miles of track. http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_hou003.htm

 

I don't have a subscription to the chronicle to link the entire article, but the Richmond line was included in phase 1, so logically it was part of that bond referendum.

 

Well, that's interesting, LRN actually has a well-researched article that lines up with what actually happened. Before I sat down and read it, I was prepared to write a response about how they warped facts into something fundamentally dishonest, etc. etc., but notice that in LRN and METRO's own information about the 2003 vote, Richmond wasn't mentioned, it was Westpark, and METRO's map showed the Westpark right of way. That is not voting on the Richmond rail, granted you could make an argument for such since METRO did say that was a tentative plan but to say "we voted on Richmond rail in 2003" is factually false.

 

As for freeways themselves, comparison to rail is a false equivalence, especially since light rail does not carry freight traffic. Heavy rail does, but the economics of it make truck-based freight the better choice unless you were shipping mass quantities.

[HoustonIsHome]

On 5/8/2018 at 9:10 AM, samagon said:

 

The parking plus round trip cost of LR from Fannin is cheaper than the cheapest parking I know of downtown ($10).

 

Metro needs to do the same at the terminus to the other LR lines.

The purple and green lines end at strip center type areas that has lots of parking.

 

As for the people who make arguments that Houston is not San Francisco and people want homes with space, let's not forget there are many many vacant single family homes or lots within the city and many tracks of undeveloped land. You do not need to live in Katy to have a house with a yard. 

 

Whole subdivisions are still being built along 288 within the city limits with no consideration to mass transit. All these new residents added to the highway is going to make current expansion obsolete before it is even completed.

 

I am not a fan of driving, but to those of you who are, why would you be against a good chunk of knuckleheads taking transit instead of clogging up your path? I would think that if I was an avid driver I would want as many people on trains as possible so the road can be mine

[IronTiger]

17 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

The purple and green lines end at strip center type areas that has lots of parking.

 

As for the people who make arguments that Houston is not San Francisco and people want homes with space, let's not forget there are many many vacant single family homes or lots within the city and many tracks of undeveloped land. You do not need to live in Katy to have a house with a yard. 

 

 

Most of the single family houses in Houston, especially Inner Loop, are uneconomically expensive. The square footage, bed/bath, lot size, aren't remotely comparable. The price per square foot is more than twice as expensive (comparing 5364 Lincoln Green in Katy with 2526 Roy Circle in the Heights). I suppose that it doesn't matter if you're disgustingly rich, but...

[samagon]

On 5/9/2018 at 8:01 PM, IronTiger said:

 

Well, that's interesting, LRN actually has a well-researched article that lines up with what actually happened. Before I sat down and read it, I was prepared to write a response about how they warped facts into something fundamentally dishonest, etc. etc., but notice that in LRN and METRO's own information about the 2003 vote, Richmond wasn't mentioned, it was Westpark, and METRO's map showed the Westpark right of way. That is not voting on the Richmond rail, granted you could make an argument for such since METRO did say that was a tentative plan but to say "we voted on Richmond rail in 2003" is factually false.

 

As for freeways themselves, comparison to rail is a false equivalence, especially since light rail does not carry freight traffic. Heavy rail does, but the economics of it make truck-based freight the better choice unless you were shipping mass quantities.

 

we're talking at trivialities at this point, but once the vote was completed they changed the name to "University Line". 

 

And thanks for finding that PDF, I searched high and low for the actual proposition!