yaga

Metro Next - 2040 Vision

Recommended Posts

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 8:04 PM, Some one said:

If other cities are saying "enough" with light rail then why did cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles approve for a referendum to build more light rail (and other forms of transit)? And yes, there were huge voter support for it and here's proof. 

 

Voting for transit and riding transit are not the same thing. Just ask Los Angeles' metropolitan transit authority. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-ridership-20180124-story.html

 

The data is there. Light rail in America has just not lived up to the hype. Houston has a choice to make. Houston can be brave and cut it's loses or it can double down on more light rail, thinking light rail will be different in Houston if we just spend more billions and spend more time on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 11:53 PM, 102IAHexpress said:

 

Voting for transit and riding transit are not the same thing. Just ask Los Angeles' metropolitan transit authority. 

LA Metro's recent line, the Expo Line, garners a daily boarding of about 61,957 riders. I'd say that's a pretty good thing. Heck there's even people who wish that the expo line is a subway. LA Metro light rail is also the most used light rail system in the United States by ridership (67,921,600 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership).  As for the declining numbers, like someone else said, when gas prices are at an all times low, it's no wonder that more people are buying cars. Will it last forever? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Who knows? These articles on LA acknowledges the problem with light rail and what we can do to fix it.

https://www.citymetric.com/transport/los-angeles-metro-great-so-why-aren-t-people-using-it-2742

https://www.planetizen.com/node/86714/light-rail-successes-draw-attention-la-metros-rail-problems

 

On 1/23/2019 at 11:53 PM, 102IAHexpress said:

 

The data is there. Light rail in America has just not lived up to the hype. Houston has a choice to make. Houston can be brave and cut it's loses or it can double down on more light rail, thinking light rail will be different in Houston if we just spend more billions and spend more time on it. 

If Houston wants to build more light rail and not end up like Dallas or Los Angeles, then we're gonna have to start densifying our neighborhoods and build light rail in places where it actually makes sense (and not on old right of ways). Also, METRO is going to have to find a way to speed up transit time and solve the first/last mile issues.

Edited by Some one
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 11:27 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I think he was missing the point of how rail is important to lay down as a spine for a transit system for buses to feed off of. Even if that system is BRT. And I also think he fails to realize that commuters would rather have a simpler way to travel than worry about how many stops there are. I surely didn’t think that when I was in Seattle. I was just happy I didn’t need my car. As long as people can conveniently get to their destination, they’ll figure it out. 

 

true.

 

another article I found regarding the slowing pace of automated cars:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/tech/apple-autonomous-vehicle-reshuffle/index.html

 

Apple blames their layoff and reshuffling on poor iPhone sales, but the truth is, this is an excuse to slow down, they have so much cash, they don't need to slow down.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to bring this up now, but this has been bothering me for a while. I'm sure Mr. Gattis is a nice guy, but I can't stand his op-eds on public transportation. They all boil down to nothing but "rail bad, highway good, self-driving car future." The notion that we should stop building rail because self-driving cars are the future is kind of laughable in of itself. Sorry, but I can't buy the whole "self-driving cars and ubers will make traffic better" thing. Nevermind the fact that there's been studies that shows that Uber and Lyft have been shown to make traffic worse, but self-driving cars are something that likely won't come in about 15-20 years (maybe even later, considering the malfuctions that have been happening as of late). Why would we abandon rail expansions for something that isn't even a guarentee. Plus, he seems to forget about the fact that self-driving trains are a thing (heck, some transit agencies already have them). Wouldn't it be better to have self-driving trains than cars?

Edited by Some one
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Some one said:

Sorry to bring this up now, but this has been bothering me for a while. I'm sure Mr. Gattis is a nice guy, but I can't stand his op-eds on public transportation. They all boil down to nothing but "rail bad, highway good, self-driving car future." The notion that we should stop building rail because self-driving cars are the future is kind of laughable in of itself. Sorry, but I can't buy the whole "self-driving cars and ubers will make traffic better" thing. Nevermind the fact that there's been studies that shows that Uber and Lyft have been shown to make traffic worse, but self-driving cars are something that likely won't come in about 15-20 years (maybe even later, considering the malfuctions that have been happening as of late). Why would we abandon rail expansions for something that isn't even a guarentee. Plus, he seems to forget about the fact that self-driving trains are a thing (heck, some transit agencies already have them). Wouldn't it be better to have self-driving trains than cars?

 

I think the best of both worlds would be self-driving buses, wouldn't it?  Trains are nice and all, but they can't take you 5 blocks over from where the rail line is.  A self-driving bus or self-driving car can take you anyplace there's a road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

I think the best of both worlds would be self-driving buses, wouldn't it?  Trains are nice and all, but they can't take you 5 blocks over from where the rail line is.  A self-driving bus or self-driving car can take you anyplace there's a road.

Not that I disagree with you, but I think buses (and eventually self-driving buses) work best as feeder for rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Some one said:

Sorry to bring this up now, but this has been bothering me for a while. I'm sure Mr. Gattis is a nice guy, but I can't stand his op-eds on public transportation. They all boil down to nothing but "rail bad, highway good, self-driving car future." The notion that we should stop building rail because self-driving cars are the future is kind of laughable in of itself. Sorry, but I can't buy the whole "self-driving cars and ubers will make traffic better" thing. Nevermind the fact that there's been studies that shows that Uber and Lyft have been shown to make traffic worse, but self-driving cars are something that likely won't come in about 15-20 years (maybe even later, considering the malfuctions that have been happening as of late). Why would we abandon rail expansions for something that isn't even a guarentee. Plus, he seems to forget about the fact that self-driving trains are a thing (heck, some transit agencies already have them). Wouldn't it be better to have self-driving trains than cars?

 

Follow the money. He's got ties to Joel Kotkin and the Manhattan Institute. Gattis' new think-tank does as well. That means funding from sources like the Koch Brothers and other dark money groups. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A visual aid:

 

image.png.b7c9ac8d73dabaf972cdecd449a1d51b.png

 

edit:  You can tell they're in Texas because of the dominos.

Edited by mollusk
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a question of recourses. There are only so many transportation dollars. How much can we afford to throw at expensive slow speed trains at the expense of more useful alternatives? Once those dollars are gone, they are gone. Houston is not the federal government where it can print its own money.

The bigger question becomes, do you want to invest your limited dollars  in old technology or the future? Trains are old technology. They just are. Those in the pro train debate should acknowledge that. Now, instead if we're talking about investing billions in a 200mph regional mag lev, or high speed train instead of a 30mph light rail then I could get on board with that. But investing billions in a technology that travels as fast at it did when it originally debuted powered by steam is a complete waste of tax payer money. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these use ancient technology - even maglev when starting and stopping.  Another visual aid:

 

image.png.beef5b822f1cfb2d77ec81920fd12b29.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mollusk said:

All of these use ancient technology - even maglev when starting and stopping.  Another visual aid:

 

image.png.beef5b822f1cfb2d77ec81920fd12b29.png

 

The first Segway!

 

From my perspective, the biggest transportation problem isn't getting people around inside the loop.  The biggest problem is getting people in and out of the city mornings and afternoons on weekdays.  For that reason I'd favor commuter rail or enhanced park and ride over extending the light rail much further.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cars, buses, BRT, light rail, and heavy (commuter) rail are all resources.  No single one of them can take care of all the transportation needs.  Personally, I think the most heavily used park and ride routes would make good candidates for heavy rail.  IAH would make a good stop on a heavy rail route, too.  Hobby's in a dense enough area that extending it down Griggs/Long Drive and Telephone Road to get there would likely add ridership to the entire route, which wouldn't prevent it from also being a heavy rail stop on the way to points south.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mollusk said:

edit:  You can tell they're in Texas because of the dominos.

 

Yeah, but they're not smoking. When I was a kid, I became convinced through direct observation that cigarettes were almost as important as dominoes when folks sat down to play a few hands of 42.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mollusk said:

Cars, buses, BRT, light rail, and heavy (commuter) rail are all resources.  No single one of them can take care of all the transportation needs.  Personally, I think the most heavily used park and ride routes would make good candidates for heavy rail.  IAH would make a good stop on a heavy rail route, too.  Hobby's in a dense enough area that extending it down Griggs/Long Drive and Telephone Road to get there would likely add ridership to the entire route, which wouldn't prevent it from also being a heavy rail stop on the way to points south.

 

Agreed.  So my metronext plan would be to make all highways (45, 610,10 east, 59/69, 8, 99, 288, maybe a few others like 249) be like the katy freeway west of 610 (26 lanes at it's widest inclusive of mainlanes, feeders, and hov)  Add commuter rail down the middle either by taking an hov lane or (preferably) elevating it with hubs at each highway junction.  Buses and light rail can spoke out from those hubs.  Or, in a cheaper version, scrap the commuter rail and run park and ride style buses on the hov between the hubs all day long. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, august948 said:

 

Agreed.  So my metronext plan would be to make all highways (45, 610,10 east, 59/69, 8, 99, 288, maybe a few others like 249) be like the katy freeway west of 610 (26 lanes at it's widest inclusive of mainlanes, feeders, and hov)  Add commuter rail down the middle either by taking an hov lane or (preferably) elevating it with hubs at each highway junction.  Buses and light rail can spoke out from those hubs.  Or, in a cheaper version, scrap the commuter rail and run park and ride style buses on the hov between the hubs all day long. 

 

I think most of them will be more like the 290 hov lanes. 

Honestly my preferred vision (which is like yours) would be that you can take the park and ride and commuter rail from the surburbs to the city and from there take the light rail and buses around the city.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you put 26 lanes on every freeway there won't be any room left for people to live. I don't want Katy style freeways everywhere.The Katy is already reaching the saturation point where it was before Culbertson pushed for its widening. In ten years they'll want to make it wider. That's not a solution. 

We need 21st century solutions that  include less concrete. I want commuter trains, bullet trains,  light rail, BRT, more bike paths, and better sidewalks.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I live in the core of Houston I’m all for light rail. I wish they’d put a rail line down West Dallas. I think it would enhance my property value. Since there’s usually some federal funding for these kinds of transit projects, the people who live in urban areas that receive these investments are essentially being subsidized by the people who live in rural areas. I’ll gladly let other people pay to enhance infrastructure of the area I live in. It’s the same situation as the downtown living initiative. The entire city pays for subsidized housing for the middle und upper middle class in downtown. As long as the corruption and pork belly spending are helping my property value and enhance my neighborhood I say keep it coming. Convince me that heavy rail to Katy would make my property more valuable and I’ll be for that too. That might be the case. Heavy rail to the suburbs could make it cheaper to do business in downtown which could keep companies from moving to the suburbs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 7:22 PM, august948 said:

 

I think the best of both worlds would be self-driving buses, wouldn't it?  Trains are nice and all, but they can't take you 5 blocks over from where the rail line is.  A self-driving bus or self-driving car can take you anyplace there's a road.

 

 

c7NJRa2.gif

 

trains and buses that is, and heck, cars too.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bobruss said:

If you put 26 lanes on every freeway there won't be any room left for people to live. I don't want Katy style freeways everywhere.The Katy is already reaching the saturation point where it was before Culbertson pushed for its widening. In ten years they'll want to make it wider. That's not a solution. 

We need 21st century solutions that  include less concrete. I want commuter trains, bullet trains,  light rail, BRT, more bike paths, and better sidewalks.

 

 

 

I don't know...just looked at google satellite of the west half of the city and I can't really tell a difference between I10 west and the other highways in the view.  You sure there won't be any room left for people to live?  Looks like there's plenty left to me.  And we'll need plenty of room, and a high-bandwidth transportation network to handle the 4 million on their way.  I'm pretty sure they won't all be moving inside the loop.

3 hours ago, samagon said:

 

 

c7NJRa2.gif

 

trains and buses that is, and heck, cars too.

 

Don't forget bikes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jgriff said:

Now that I live in the core of Houston I’m all for light rail. I wish they’d put a rail line down West Dallas. I think it would enhance my property value. Since there’s usually some federal funding for these kinds of transit projects, the people who live in urban areas that receive these investments are essentially being subsidized by the people who live in rural areas. I’ll gladly let other people pay to enhance infrastructure of the area I live in. It’s the same situation as the downtown living initiative. The entire city pays for subsidized housing for the middle und upper middle class in downtown. As long as the corruption and pork belly spending are helping my property value and enhance my neighborhood I say keep it coming. Convince me that heavy rail to Katy would make my property more valuable and I’ll be for that too. That might be the case. Heavy rail to the suburbs could make it cheaper to do business in downtown which could keep companies from moving to the suburbs.

 

Forget all these silly proposed light rail extensions and run rail down Richmond to West Oaks Mall!  I'll get behind that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you could make the same slideshow called "Tales of Highway Hell" in Houston and have equivalent scenes and stats.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it make you glad you can take your own private vehicle, as clean as you want it with a/c and radio to listen to instead of being stuck in an overcrowded train, or worse?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good article to highlight that lack of funding for public transportation isn't just a Houston problem, thanks for the link.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the value of comparing Houston and NYC. we've been down that path many times on this forum and nothing really comes out of it. I know I did respond as such, i couldn't help it... But when i used to spend a lot of time in new york, i only took the subway to get to certain special destinations, day to day stuff everything i could possibly need was within a 10-15 minute walk.

 

To your question on taking a private vehicle and the advantages - yes i do like having that option in Houston. But I would like other options as well. I used to live in Montrose and would bike everywhere. Being able to take the bayou downtown and feel safe doing so even with my toddlers in a trailer was amazing. Walking to the red line and taking it to Reliant and not having to worry about parking, being able to have a few beers, and get out with no traffic was amazing. Walking to Dallas St and taking a single bus to an Astros game with my kid who loves to ride was amazing. I only drove to work (Clear Lake, the park and ride would have taken 1+ hour to go against traffic and I would still have needed my bike when I got to Bay Area) and it was amazing. BTW when I did live by work and was taking grad school classes at UH I did take the park and ride and walked to campus twice a week, for that 4-5:30 class. Coming back was much nicer in a bus where i could read and not have to worry about the gulf freeway.

 

now we moved to Bellaire, still inside the loop. To get downtown on a single bus to the med center, then the train would take an hour. To go 8 miles. And I picked a destination right on the rail line. 40 minutes to get to Reliant, 4.5 miles away. There are better ways to move around more efficiently, and it will take a combination of smart methods that should ideally relieve traffic and congestion, reduce emissions, and provide multiple options for residents.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, august948 said:

Doesn't it make you glad you can take your own private vehicle, as clean as you want it with a/c and radio to listen to instead of being stuck in an overcrowded train, or worse?

 

I'd honestly rather read a book and do a little people-watching than deal with road rage and the risk of accidents.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An aging transportaton system that's way different from ours is breaking down due to a lack of fundings? Color me shocked.

Edited by Some one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Los Angeles is probably a more apt comparison for Houston than NYC - it has a huge car culture, is a very large city and Metro area, yet it has been able to develop a better transportation network, with more options that just local buses

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skwatra said:

you could make the same slideshow called "Tales of Highway Hell" in Houston and have equivalent scenes and stats.

 

You could. But it would be misleading. NYC commuters have the longest commute time in the Country. Houston does not. But nice try. 

 

A nice visual aid of the facts: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/average-commute-time-by-state.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I'd honestly rather read a book and do a little people-watching than deal with road rage and the risk of accidents.

 

 

To each his own, but I have to say the people watching on the bus and light rail isn't the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

You could. But it would be misleading. NYC commuters have the longest commute time in the Country. Houston does not. But nice try. 

 

A nice visual aid of the facts: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/average-commute-time-by-state.html

 

posting a story about the most densely populated region in the country and their subway woes is misleading. And one graphic based on some census sample that's not defined is misleading too. My further discussion was what life is like getting around Houston and how congested and slow things have gotten in the last decade. LA is a better example, and I feel like that now - rush 'hour' has expanded and the reverse commute has faded. No matter where you are or what direction you're going between 3-8pm its crowded and slow and I would like more options.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skwatra said:

posting a story about the most densely populated region in the country and their subway woes is misleading. And one graphic based on some census sample that's not defined is misleading too. My further discussion was what life is like getting around Houston and how congested and slow things have gotten in the last decade. LA is a better example, and I feel like that now - rush 'hour' has expanded and the reverse commute has faded. No matter where you are or what direction you're going between 3-8pm its crowded and slow and I would like more options.

 

I agree with you on that, the biggest issue we have by far is getting people in and out of town on weekday mornings and afternoons.  That's where the focus of transportation improvements should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, skwatra said:

My further discussion was what life is like getting around Houston and how congested and slow things have gotten in the last decade. LA is a better example, and I feel like that now - rush 'hour' has expanded and the reverse commute has faded. No matter where you are or what direction you're going between 3-8pm its crowded and slow and I would like more options.

 

You are entitled to your anecdotal evidence. And I'm not suggesting you should ignore your personal observations. However, the fact is Houston's commute time relative to other cities, has actually gotten faster not slower. If you have facts that suggest otherwise, then please post them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

You are entitled to your anecdotal evidence. And I'm not suggesting you should ignore your personal observations. However, the fact is Houston's commute time relative to other cities, has actually gotten faster not slower. If you have facts that suggest otherwise, then please post them. 

 

1. Houston commute times relative to other cities is not relative to my argument and I know we have to look at other models to compare, but what is important is Houston's commute times relative to 10 years ago and what to expect 10 years from now.

2. Chron article from 2018 states "Houston drivers traveled an average of 27.3 minutes to work" and from 2015 a Chron article states "Solo drivers take 25.8 minutes to reach the office". An almost 6% increase in 3 years. Of course I wouldn't count this as evidence, as they are two different studies and they likely use variables which could be altered to give you very different numbers, or they surveyed some ridiculous sample size like 100 people which is just as good as my "anecdotal evidence" which includes how all the real Houstonians I know that live and work around the city have been impacted by transportation and traffic.

3. If you have the actual source data from your visualcapitalist commute data that would be interesting, but I can't find anything. I don't think any facts have actually been presented in this discussion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also New York is the largest metro area in the world by size, in the country by population, by a good amount.  20 million people spread out over 4500 sq miles of urban land are going to have some long commute times no matter what.  Just NYC by itself has 8.5 million people and covers 300 sq miles

 

Houston is big and sprawling, but still is way smaller - only 6.5 million people across 1600 sq miles of urban land.  The metro areas are closer (NYC at 13,000 sq mi, Houston at 10,000 sq mi), but that just illustrates how much larger New York is than Houston - 3.5x the people in not much more space.  Of course they will have longer commute times

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, cspwal said:

Of course they will have longer commute times

 

NYC also has the biggest, fastest, most frequent, heavily used, train system in America. It's supposed to be the "best." Funny, I thought more trains=less congestion. 

 

No matter how you slice it, Houston's congestion is not that bad. Congestion should be measured by not only automobile congestion but the combined congestion of automobile and public transportation congestion.  Because as we can see, standing, waiting for your NYC subway train is a real thing. But fine, if you want to only include automobile congestion then INRIX traffic analectics is the best source in my opinion. Even there, Houston is not even in the top ten most congested cities in America for automobile traffic. 

 

http://inrix.com/scorecard-city/?city=Houston%2C TX&index=77

http://inrix.com/scorecard/

 

1 hour ago, skwatra said:

 

2. Chron article from 2018 states 

 

I stopped reading after you said Chron article. Wikipedia is more accurate than chron.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houston has awful traffic compared to the average city, but is not really congested at all compared to the 3 bigger cities in the US (NYC, LA, and Chicago)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

I stopped reading after you said Chron article. Wikipedia is more accurate than chron.com

Its not their data. and no one has highly accurate data, just studies and surveys that point to a trend- things are getting worse.

 

new study from HomeArea.com

 

A recent survey by the Rice Kinder Institute for Urban Research shows Houston-area residents continue to assert that traffic congestion is getting worse, and in an area that adds nearly 100,000 people annually, that’s probably no surprise.

 

Solo drivers take 25.8 minutes to reach the office, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trains (and public transportation in general) should NEVER be proposed as a way to solve traffic congestion. No matter what we do, there’ll always be traffic. Even cities with the best public transportation still have terrible traffic. Instead, it should be proposed as an alternative to traffic. 

Edited by Some one
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

 

NYC also has the biggest, fastest, most frequent, heavily used, train system in America. It's supposed to be the "best." Funny, I thought more trains=less congestion. 

 

No matter how you slice it, Houston's congestion is not that bad. Congestion should be measured by not only automobile congestion but the combined congestion of automobile and public transportation congestion.  Because as we can see, standing, waiting for your NYC subway train is a real thing. But fine, if you want to only include automobile congestion then INRIX traffic analectics is the best source in my opinion. Even there, Houston is not even in the top ten most congested cities in America for automobile traffic. 

 

http://inrix.com/scorecard-city/?city=Houston%2C TX&index=77

http://inrix.com/scorecard/

 

 

I stopped reading after you said Chron article. Wikipedia is more accurate than chron.com

not that bad? Houston ranked 13th. In the nation.

 

at what point do you think it is bad enough to consider commuting options other than bigger freeways?

 

so by your estimation, if we remove public transportation from NYC, Chicago, Boston, and DC their traffic levels would do what? 

 

Houston compared to NYC is 95 hours in traffic compared with 133, from your own reference above. so 35 more hours.

 

let's break that down to daily times, to give it more realistic context. based on a 5 day work week, and ignoring vacations, there's 260 weekdays in a year.

 

so an individual in NYC spends 30.7 minutes in traffic a day. an individual in Houston spends 21.9 minutes in traffic a day.

 

I ask these questions again, because it's important for you to understand that I really want you to answer them:

 

at what point does Houston traffic become bad?

 

what happens to freeway traffic in NYC, Chicago, Boston and DC if you remove rail (subway, elevated, etc) from the commuter options?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very old table from the feds. But i'm just amazed at how -few- highway miles Houston has. I would like to see more recent statistics. But the case could be made that Houston should add more highway miles. 

 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p11.htm

 

Urbanized Area Location Prime State Location Other State(s) Estd. Urbanized Population (1,000) Federal-Aid Urbanized Land Area (Sq. Miles) Persons per Square Mile Total Highway Mileage Total & Expressway Mileage Total Freeway Miles per Urbanized Population Total Highway Vehicle Miles (000) Total Freeway Vehicle Miles (000) Daily Vehicle Miles Per Capita % of Travel Served by Freeways Average AADT on Freeways
New York Northeastern NJ NY NJ 17,089 3,962 4,313 37,623 1,130 66.1 263,905 101,299 15.4 38.4 89,639
Los Angeles CA   12,384 2,231 5,551 26,949 652 52.7 280,793 126,498 22.7 45.1 193,875
Chicago - Northwestern IN 1/ IL IN 7,702 2,730 2,821 23,764 477 62.0 158,240 48,276 20.5 30.5 101,167
Philadelphia 1/ PA NJ 4,068 1,347 3,020 13,417 347 85.4 77,005 24,483 18.9 31.8 70,457
San Francisco - Oakland CA   4,022 1,203 3,343 9,316 330 82.0 90,277 47,982 22.4 53.1 145,461
Detroit MI   3,836 1,304 2,942 13,808 283 73.8 92,359 31,125 24.1 33.7 109,882
Dallas - Ft. Worth TX   3,746 1,712 2,188 17,830 594 158.5 116,548 49,197 31.1 42.2 82,872
Washington DC MD, VA 3,617 999 3,621 10,329 306 84.6 82,959 34,533 22.9 41.6 112,852
Atlanta GA   2,977 1,757 1,694 13,145 306 102.9 100,693 42,488 33.8 42.2 138,701
Boston MA   2,917 1,138 2,563 10,148 211 72.3 59,361 22,890 20.3 38.6 108,468
San Diego CA   2,653 733 3,619 5,965 246 92.8 62,809 33,745 23.7 53.7 137,029
Houston TX   2,487 1,537 1,618 15,251 368 148.0 91,883 39,195 36.9 42.7 106,458

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting data. Looks to be from 2000, and I assume it is mileage by lane so Houston has had a lot of expansion since then. The stats I find most interesting which I've never come across before are "% of Travel Served by Freeways" and "Daily Vehicle Miles Per Capita".

 

The % of travel i assume is % of car/bus vehicle travel (based on the NYC and SF numbers, can't be all modes of travel).

 

Any thoughts on the Daily vehicle travel of 36.9 miles per capita for Houston, and if that number has gone up or down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

This is a very old table from the feds. But i'm just amazed at how -few- highway miles Houston has. I would like to see more recent statistics. But the case could be made that Houston should add more highway miles. 

 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p11.htm

 

Urbanized Area Location Prime State Location Other State(s) Estd. Urbanized Population (1,000) Federal-Aid Urbanized Land Area (Sq. Miles) Persons per Square Mile Total Highway Mileage Total & Expressway Mileage Total Freeway Miles per Urbanized Population Total Highway Vehicle Miles (000) Total Freeway Vehicle Miles (000) Daily Vehicle Miles Per Capita % of Travel Served by Freeways Average AADT on Freeways
New York Northeastern NJ NY NJ 17,089 3,962 4,313 37,623 1,130 66.1 263,905 101,299 15.4 38.4 89,639
Los Angeles CA   12,384 2,231 5,551 26,949 652 52.7 280,793 126,498 22.7 45.1 193,875
Chicago - Northwestern IN 1/ IL IN 7,702 2,730 2,821 23,764 477 62.0 158,240 48,276 20.5 30.5 101,167
Philadelphia 1/ PA NJ 4,068 1,347 3,020 13,417 347 85.4 77,005 24,483 18.9 31.8 70,457
San Francisco - Oakland CA   4,022 1,203 3,343 9,316 330 82.0 90,277 47,982 22.4 53.1 145,461
Detroit MI   3,836 1,304 2,942 13,808 283 73.8 92,359 31,125 24.1 33.7 109,882
Dallas - Ft. Worth TX   3,746 1,712 2,188 17,830 594 158.5 116,548 49,197 31.1 42.2 82,872
Washington DC MD, VA 3,617 999 3,621 10,329 306 84.6 82,959 34,533 22.9 41.6 112,852
Atlanta GA   2,977 1,757 1,694 13,145 306 102.9 100,693 42,488 33.8 42.2 138,701
Boston MA   2,917 1,138 2,563 10,148 211 72.3 59,361 22,890 20.3 38.6 108,468
San Diego CA   2,653 733 3,619 5,965 246 92.8 62,809 33,745 23.7 53.7 137,029
Houston TX   2,487 1,537 1,618 15,251 368 148.0 91,883 39,195 36.9 42.7 106,458

 

It's really staggering when you consider how many miles per urbanized population. we are well over double the amount of NYC. look next at daily vehicle miles per capita, we are also more than double. that lines up almost perfectly.

 

then when you consider urbanized population of NYC compared to Houston and they have barely half as many freeway miles (37000 to 15000). it really shows how many people use public transit when given the option like they are in NYC.

 

you would think, well, Dallas has 10 more miles of freeway, per urbanized population, but then you see that they have a lower daily vehicle miles per capita, that's interesting. more freeways, less travel? Then you realize that they have a more complete rail transit system than Houston. It really hammers the point home that you were trying to show with this link that by giving people the option of alternative forms of transit, specifically rail, they take advantage!

 

thanks for the data and link!

Edited by samagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, samagon said:

 

It's really staggering when you consider how many miles per urbanized population. we are well over double the amount of NYC. look next at daily vehicle miles per capita, we are also more than double. that lines up almost perfectly.

 

then when you consider urbanized population of NYC compared to Houston and they have barely half as many freeway miles (37000 to 15000). it really shows how many people use public transit when given the option like they are in NYC.

 

you would think, well, Dallas has 10 more miles of freeway, per urbanized population, but then you see that they have a lower daily vehicle miles per capita, that's interesting. more freeways, less travel? Then you realize that they have a more complete rail transit system than Houston. It really hammers the point home that you were trying to show with this link that by giving people the option of alternative forms of transit, specifically rail, they take advantage!

 

thanks for the data and link!

 

Good point on the rail as an option for commuters in Dallas and elsewhere, but is it realistic that Metro will do anything like that in the next 22 years?  Or is it going to continue to focus on inside the loop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, august948 said:

 

Good point on the rail as an option for commuters in Dallas and elsewhere, but is it realistic that Metro will do anything like that in the next 22 years?  Or is it going to continue to focus on inside the loop?

I think it’s possible. The guy who’s long opposed them is gone and has been replaced by someone who’s willing to help metro. There’s also been a huge increase in support in rail. The only concern is cost, but if the infrastructure bill does pass, metro could take advantage of that.

 

Building rail to the suburbs may be harder, but this is being planned in conjunction with HGAC’s high capacity transit task force (http://www.h-gac.com/taq/transportation-committees/HCT/default.aspx). Take it with a grain of salt though, as barely any transit project included in HGAC’s regional transportation plan has been built.

Edited by Some one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, samagon said:

you would think, well, Dallas has 10 more miles of freeway, per urbanized population, but then you see that they have a lower daily vehicle miles per capita, that's interesting. more freeways, less travel? Then you realize that they have a more complete rail transit system than Houston. It really hammers the point home that you were trying to show with this link that by giving people the option of alternative forms of transit, specifically rail, they take advantage!

 

 

Dallas may have a "more complete rail transit system" by number of miles and number of stations, but last I checked, Houston still had a higher percentage of people using transit.

 

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Dallas may have a more complete rail transit system (which isn't saying much), but last I checked, Houston still had a higher percentage of people using transit.

 

Dart is a good example of how NOT to build a rail system. They built it on a bunch of old right of way and now they have to deal with problems like gaps on the north and east side, stops avoiding neighborhoods and major activity centers, and the 4 lines going through downtown together. It’s kinda sad when the metrorail has about 10 million less riders than dart does (and dart is the biggest light rail system in the us by miles).

Edited by Some one
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Some one said:

Dart is a good example of how NOT to build a rail system. They built it on a bunch of old right of way and now they have to deal with problems like gaps on the north and east side, stops avoiding neighborhoods and major activity centers, and the 4 lines going through downtown together. It’s kinda sad when the metrorail has about 10 million less riders than dart does (and dart is the biggest light rail system in the us by miles).

Agree 100%!!! I lived in Dallas for 4 years and the light rail system is almost non existent. I mean it's there but it's like nobody really believes it's there or notices. And people from Dallas easily admit that anyone from the northside of the city wouldn't be caught dead taking it anywhere. They have such a different mindset when it comes to having an urban city. Houston definitely feels more urban on many levels compared to there. 

Edited by j_cuevas713
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 8:46 AM, Some one said:

There’s also been a huge increase in support in rail. The only concern is cost, but if the infrastructure bill does pass, metro could take advantage of that.

 

 

Whatever hope of new rail infrastructure being built with federal tax dollars, just took a huge hit because of California's boondoggle of a high speed train fiasco. If anything, the feds may want to get money back on wasted train investments! I can see the feds spending money on rebuilding/repairing -existing- rail infrastructure though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

Whatever hope of new rail infrastructure being built with federal tax dollars, just took a huge hit because of California's boondoggle of a high speed train fiasco. If anything, the feds may want to get money back on wasted train investments! I can see the feds spending money on rebuilding/repairing -existing- rail infrastructure though.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/trump-demands-calif-give-back-feds-billions-for-bullet-train-project.html

 

i would think, though, that this would reflect more on bullet train projects between cities rather than commuter projects in cities.  Is the TCR project using any fed funds or is that all private?

Edited by august948

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now