BigFootsSocks Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 It's necessary to connect two strong and exploding populations (Katy and The Woodlands) together and the sprawling development that is at the edge if not past the boundaries of the GP. The development in these areas is going to happen whether or not the toll road was going to built. There's no denying that. With the Energy Corridor building out at exponitally and a booming Woodlands population this is a necessary traffic congestion reliever. That's just reality. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 It's necessary to connect two strong and exploding populations (Katy and The Woodlands) together and the sprawling development that is at the edge if not past the boundaries of the GP. The development in these areas is going to happen whether or not the toll road was going to built. There's no denying that. With the Energy Corridor building out at exponitally and a booming Woodlands population this is a necessary traffic congestion reliever. That's just reality.You think the undeveloped Katy prarie would've developed without the grand parkway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Most definitely. And it's not so undeveloped anymore. Bridgelabds is biting a huge chunk out of it in the coming years which according to plans will be split in half by the GP. Just look at Houston in Google Earth with the "Time Change" setting, specifically the areas around the north portion of the Beltway before it was built. There was already lots of activity going on in these suburbs before the Beltway was built and spurned more growth. There's already development pushing the boundaries of Segment E, and the other segments being built are, for the most part, cutting through already developed land. So to answer your question, yes. Houston is defined by sprawling, vast amounts of suburbia. As we see a changing trend of redeveloping and building up, that's focused mainly in the inner core. The outskirts will continue to build out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 This thread left 288's median and is on I-10 halfway to El Paso. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 This thread left 288's median and is on I-10 halfway to El Paso.Might as well be closer to Phoenix now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 To get back to funding roads, by tolls or otherwise... Once upon a time, most of our highways were built either out of cash flow or with bonds, either way backed by tax revenues, largely from fuel taxes. Although cars do now get better mileage than they used to, we also have more of them.  Be that as it may, the gasoline tax hasn't budged in more than twenty years on either the Federal or State of Texas levels.  So, let's do us some calculatin'... 1993 - Average US miles driven:  8800.  Best selling truck:  F150, 18 hwy mpg.  Best selling car:  Taurus, 30 hwy mpg.  $187.73 in fuel tax for the F150, $112.64 for the Taurus, in 1993 dollars.  Accounting for inflation, that's $309.53 for the F150 and $185.72 for the Taurus. 2013 - Average US miles driven:  9400.  Best selling truck:  F150, 23 hwy mpg.  Best selling car:  Camry, 35 hwy mpg.  $156.94 in fuel tax for the F150, $103.13 for the Camry. Texas population in 1993, 18 million.  2013, 26.7 million. Oh, and on top of the loss of real spending power, let's not forget that The Merry Little Band in Austin and their brethern and sistern in DC have also been raiding the fuel tax revenues for other spending. If fuel taxes were indexed to inflation and actually spent as the dedicated fund that the Texas Constitution says they are, I humbly submit that our need for toll roads would be markedly reduced, and our highway maintenance standards could return to what I remember them being. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I'm not sure if there's a current thread on this or not, but it looks like they are moving forward with toll lanes on 288.  I hadn't heard about this - much less hearing it was delayed.  Anyone have any idea what the design is going to look like, particularly coming into downtown & the med center?   Construction of new toll lanes in the median of Texas 288 will start a few months later than initially planned, On that timeline, the 10.3-mile tollway from U.S. 59 to Brazoria County would be completed in 2018, Lewis said. http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/10/texas-288-toll-lane-work-expected-mid-2016/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeerNut Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Bah perfect place for commuter rail. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Bah perfect place for commuter rail.Optimistically, if the median was fully used, there should be lanes for roads and rail. Putting the rail on columns not unlike Inner Loop Houston's elevated HOV lane will work too. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Another advantage of the rails being on columns is if 288 floods, the train would still run, with really eerie views 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Bah perfect place for commuter rail. I think the Columbia Tap Rails to Trails ROW could revert back to rail one day for that reason. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 So will the 610 and 288 interchange be rebuilt then to accommodate the new lanes? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBuddy06 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 So will the 610 and 288 interchange be rebuilt then to accommodate the new lanes? Absolutely. It's in the plan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) So will the 610 and 288 interchange be rebuilt then to accommodate the new lanes? Not for the initial phase, which is what we'll see built soon. The reversible toll lane will snake through the current interchange as you can see in this exhibit:http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_us59/harris_county_clear_creek.pdf Ultimate plans do call for the interchange to be rebuilt when the reversible toll lane is expanded and rebuilt into a 4 lane tollroad. When that happens, the toll lanes will run through the interchange where the current 288 mainlanes are, and the 288 mainlanes will be relocated to run through the edges of the interchange.http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_us59/bw8_ih610.pdf Edited October 29, 2015 by JLWM8609 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToryGattis Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Bah perfect place for commuter rail. Rail?! Rail in general tends to be a bad cost-benefit proposition, but why would you ever consider building one when one *already exists* a mile to the west perfectly connecting the Med Center and Downtown?  There *might* be a good argument for extending the existing line south (although I doubt it), but there's no universe where it makes sense to build a parallel line! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Rail?! Rail in general tends to be a bad cost-benefit proposition, but why would you ever consider building one when one *already exists* a mile to the west perfectly connecting the Med Center and Downtown?  There *might* be a good argument for extending the existing line south (although I doubt it), but there's no universe where it makes sense to build a parallel line! While I tend to disagree with Mr. Gattis over the desirability of rail in general, I've got to agree here. The only thing advantageous about this corridor as far as rail goes is the relative ease of construction. The location poses significant barriers to pedestrian traffic, and exists on the periphery of Pearland's development, limiting its usefulness as a commuter route. After all, if you're already driving to 288 to get on the train, and the express lanes are a similar price, why wouldn't you do the familiar thing and just take the express lanes? Any sort of heavy rail in Houston would do best by serving dense, central corridors that are already relatively underserved by the freeway system. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) One of my transit fantasies (although more grounded in reality and more highway-friendly than my HAIF peers) is to extend the Red Line down to 288 as sort of a hybrid commuter line. The biggest problem with this is Pearland falls outside of METRO's jurisdiction, and it's difficult by vote/impossible by law to add the METRO tax in Pearland, so you'll end up with free riders or a complicated multi-agency system. Edited October 29, 2015 by IronTiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 One of my transit fantasies (although more grounded in reality and more highway-friendly than my HAIF peers) is to extend the Red Line down to 288 as sort of a hybrid commuter line. The biggest problem with this is Pearland falls outside of METRO's jurisdiction, and it's difficult by vote/impossible by law to add the METRO tax in Pearland, so you'll end up with free riders or a complicated multi-agency system.Realistically from fannin south the commuter line down 90 will start. And any light rail would probably go to hobby airport.Rail?! Rail in general tends to be a bad cost-benefit proposition, but why would you ever consider building one when one *already exists* a mile to the west perfectly connecting the Med Center and Downtown? There *might* be a good argument for extending the existing line south (although I doubt it), but there's no universe where it makes sense to build a parallel line!Highways tend to be a bad cost benefit proposition but you advocate for those. You're ideologically against rail we get it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Rail?! Rail in general tends to be a bad cost-benefit proposition, but why would you ever consider building one when one *already exists* a mile to the west perfectly connecting the Med Center and Downtown? There *might* be a good argument for extending the existing line south (although I doubt it), but there's no universe where it makes sense to build a parallel line!More highways amirite? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 More highways amirite? Highways are not going to be the answer in all cases (especially long term), but I'm getting really sick of this dogmatic "we must build rail like East Coast cities or we are failures" mentality. There was a recent article in the Houston Chronicle ("Kotkin, Cox: Light rail in the Sun Belt is a poor fit") that just seemed to prove an ugly fact--unless you're a Eastern seaboard, old-line "legacy" city, rail doesn't seem to work. Even Portland, San Diego, and L.A. have actually seen transit numbers decrease since rail was implemented. Just because Gattis doesn't subscribe the popular urban theories du jour (like New Urbanism) doesn't mean he doesn't try to think of innovative solutions or that he's wrong. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Highways are not going to be the answer in all cases (especially long term), but I'm getting really sick of this dogmatic "we must build rail like East Coast cities or we are failures" mentality. There was a recent article in the Houston Chronicle ("Kotkin, Cox: Light rail in the Sun Belt is a poor fit") that just seemed to prove an ugly fact--unless you're a Eastern seaboard, old-line "legacy" city, rail doesn't seem to work. Even Portland, San Diego, and L.A. have actually seen transit numbers decrease since rail was implemented.Just because Gattis doesn't subscribe the popular urban theories du jour (like New Urbanism) doesn't mean he doesn't try to think of innovative solutions or that he's wrong.Actually LA is investing heavily in rail and actually wants to accelerate projects, learning from mistakes of not investing earlier.http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-train-to-lax-metro-sales-tax-20151007-story.htmlPretty much every major city in the world is investing in some kind of expansion/improvement rail project so there is something to be said for rail mass transit. This includes many sun belt cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxConcrete Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Not for the initial phase, which is what we'll see built soon. The reversible toll lane will snake through the current interchange as you can see in this exhibit:http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_us59/harris_county_clear_creek.pdf Ultimate plans do call for the interchange to be rebuilt when the reversible toll lane is expanded and rebuilt into a 4 lane tollroad. When that happens, the toll lanes will run through the interchange where the current 288 mainlanes are, and the 288 mainlanes will be relocated to run through the edges of the interchange.http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_us59/bw8_ih610.pdf I believe those schematics for the initial phase are out of date. However, information on the exact design planned by Blueridge Transportation Group (the winning bidder) are not readily available, and may still be subject to change since they are having trouble securing the funding. The presentation document which announced Blueridge Transportation Group as the winning bidder says there will be 8 direct connection ramps at BW8 and four toll lanes. See page 15http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0226/11b-presentation.pdf  Here is more evidence that 8 connectors are still planned from the September HGAC meeting, see document page 14 ("page 4 of 7" at bottom of page)http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2015/09-sep/docs/ITEM-06A-1.Resolution-for-Approval-of-Amendments.pdf"Modify description as follows:Description: CONSTRUCT 8DCs AT BW 8 INTERCHANGE" The October TIP update from yesterday's meeting mentions 4 toll laneshttp://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2015/10-oct/docs/ITEM-06A-TIP-Amendments.pdf Facility: SH 288From: IH 610To: BRAZORIA C/LDescription: CONSTRUCT 4 TOLL LANES  I also remember seeing a report that the interchange at Loop 610 will be fully or mostly rebuilt. However I cannot find that report and I don't know what is currently planned at Loop 610. Edited October 30, 2015 by MaxConcrete 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Well, Slick, you either proved my point or missed it entirely, but no, L.A. with its expanding rail system is not immune to this problem either. But then, to be fair, I realized that I didn't post the article, which shows, no, pouring billions of dollars of rail isn't going to work. Link (hope it works, if not, try Googling for it) Edited October 30, 2015 by IronTiger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Not understanding the difference between light rail and commuter rail is a pretty big flaw. They are not the same thing at all. A commuter rail on 288 from downtown to Pearland would be something entirely different than the rail that exists less than a mile away. The only bad thing is that without the University Line, there'd be no way to connect to anything without going to downtown first. A University Line would allow folks in Pearland to commute to the med center, Rice, UH, TSU, Downtown, Greenway, Galleria, and more. It would DEFINITELY take cars off the road and would be an excellent proposition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Highways are not going to be the answer in all cases (especially long term), but I'm getting really sick of this dogmatic "we must build rail like East Coast cities or we are failures" mentality. There was a recent article in the Houston Chronicle ("Kotkin, Cox: Light rail in the Sun Belt is a poor fit") that just seemed to prove an ugly fact--unless you're a Eastern seaboard, old-line "legacy" city, rail doesn't seem to work. Even Portland, San Diego, and L.A. have actually seen transit numbers decrease since rail was implemented.Just because Gattis doesn't subscribe the popular urban theories du jour (like New Urbanism) doesn't mean he doesn't try to think of innovative solutions or that he's wrong.Well yeah...that's kinda pointing out the obvious. Htown is a car-centric city, but there's a ridiculous amount of cars on our highways, and it's only going to get worse. I didn't actually say "rail is the only answer" if that's what you got out of it. Rail is a nice portion of a set of solutions though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToryGattis Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Highways tend to be a bad cost benefit proposition but you advocate for those. You're ideologically against rail we get it. Compare the taxpayer cost per person-mile moved - it's no contest.  Recent Chronicle story said the new Tomball tollway is attracting twice the usage they predicted - freeways are popular, even tolled ones (which pay for themselves, unlike any rail project). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Compare the taxpayer cost per person-mile moved - it's no contest. Recent Chronicle story said the new Tomball tollway is attracting twice the usage they predicted - freeways are popular, even tolled ones (which pay for themselves, unlike any rail project).I would argue that the recent decision to remove rolls on a San Antonio project (not sure which one) would disagree with your point. I know, I know, that was thanks to the rainy-day funds that voters moved over.I also get that toll roads are essentially the states' way of getting out of raising taxes by just throwing up tolls, but there's no reason to argue that they are popular. I mean, even arguing that freeways are popular isn't really fair for a state like ours. If that's all most of us have access to, then yeah it's popular, but only because it's the only choice we have.I get the point of freeways, I really do. I just don't understand the pride one gets from seeing a highway cut across an untouched landscape that will soon fill up with the same boring, cookie-cutter, suburban hellacape that it will inevitably become. The fact that our flat city only exacerbates this issue makes me more frustrated. I understand that we can't just build a million mid rises or high rises, etc, because land here is cheap, but I'm tired of looking at the same flat 2-3 story landscape outside of the Beltway in most areas, while having people simultaneously complain about traffic, argue for bigger roads, and then turn around and complain when those bigger, newer, tolled roads are full almost immediately upon opening. Unless they are the toll roads to nowhere, or through nowhere (249 or Grand Parkway), they are just as full as other roads.But yeah, freeways are super duper popular. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Well, Slick, you either proved my point or missed it entirely, but no, L.A. with its expanding rail system is not immune to this problem either. But then, to be fair, I realized that I didn't post the article, which shows, no, pouring billions of dollars of rail isn't going to work.Link (hope it works, if not, try Googling for it)I didn't miss the point, if you knew anything about LA's lines you would know that there is heavy expansion in progress, more than any other city in North America. It's a major undertaking and will have big effects when complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Compare the taxpayer cost per person-mile moved - it's no contest. Recent Chronicle story said the new Tomball tollway is attracting twice the usage they predicted - freeways are popular, even tolled ones (which pay for themselves, unlike any rail project).Freeways are a huge loser financially, per person mile moved is a clever statistic at best. Also when for almost 100 years the thought of decent alternative transit has been shut down in this city what do you expect? People are almost pressured into driving because it's what the power brokers made convenient. But it's only a matter of time before there's a reckoning like LA and people in power figure out they have to invest in more rail. There are only so many widening projects left, and even once they complete the freeway is just as full as it was before, totally pointless projects. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I get the point of freeways, I really do. I just don't understand the pride one gets from seeing a highway cut across an untouched landscape that will soon fill up with the same boring, cookie-cutter, suburban hellacape that it will inevitably become. The fact that our flat city only exacerbates this issue makes me more frustrated. I don't want to speak for him, but having read his previous thoughts on the subject, he does make a fairly compelling argument about this - the suburban hellscape, while awful and alienating for many, represents comfort and opportunity on several orders of magnitude greater than where many, if not most, of the newcomers to Houston come from. If you're privileged to come from a relatively stable society, where your environment is generally trustworthy, and you can count on greater complexity leading to greater opportunities for personal development, then yes, suburbia is oppressively banal. If, on the other hand, your previous life experiences are of a relatively chaotic environment, where institutions cannot be trusted and you're stuck in a small, cramped, dangerous living environment, those suburbs represent space, safety, stability and the opportunity to realize dreams that were impossible where you grew up. There's something to be said for that point. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) I didn't miss the point, if you knew anything about LA's lines you would know that there is heavy expansion in progress, more than any other city in North America. It's a major undertaking and will have big effects when complete.In the same thread, you "railed" about highway expansion projects, citing induced demand and how it just fills back up again. I've come to accept to accept this fact, but yet you support an idea of "No one uses our railroads, lets keep pouring money into it until something happens". How is this a better idea? Edited October 30, 2015 by IronTiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 In the same thread, you "railed" about highway expansion projects, citing induced demand and how it just fills back up again. I've come to accept to accept this fact, but yet you support an idea of "No one uses our railroads, lets keep pouring money into it until something happens". How is this a better idea?When did I say nobody uses our railroads? I think they should be built in the right corridors and not just on abandoned right of way. Of course if you build them where there's no demand nobody will ride. But a lot of time it's about getting free government money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparrow Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Compare the taxpayer cost per person-mile moved - it's no contest.  Recent Chronicle story said the new Tomball tollway is attracting twice the usage they predicted - freeways are popular, even tolled ones (which pay for themselves, unlike any rail project). I may just be poking the bear, so to speak, but while toll roads do in fact pay for themselves and more, they don't pay the car payments, and the vehicle maintenance, and the auto insurance, and the tanks of gas, and the registration fees, and the parking, and.... you get the idea--the numerous costs the taxpayer must bear themselves if they wish to use the toll road.  Comparing highways to railways without considering the various costs of the vehicle to use the pathway of choice, is the same as comparing renting versus buying a house without taking into account taxes and HOA fees. How about doing a comparison of trip cost instead of "per mile" and consider vehicle expense to the citizenry as well? Edited October 30, 2015 by Sparrow 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Compare the taxpayer cost per person-mile moved - it's no contest.  Recent Chronicle story said the new Tomball tollway is attracting twice the usage they predicted - freeways are popular, even tolled ones (which pay for themselves, unlike any rail project). And the alternatives to the Tomball tollway are... old 249 with a ton of lights, or going miles and miles out of the way.   A method of moving people around locally that makes sense 30+ miles out of the city center and a different method of getting them from that exurb to the denser areas - or around within those denser areas - aren't mutually exclusive.  Conflating them is like conflating oranges and basketballs - they're both round, they're kinda the same color, and that's about it. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdog08 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Highways are not going to be the answer in all cases (especially long term), but I'm getting really sick of this dogmatic "we must build rail like East Coast cities or we are failures" mentality. There was a recent article in the Houston Chronicle ("Kotkin, Cox: Light rail in the Sun Belt is a poor fit") that just seemed to prove an ugly fact--unless you're a Eastern seaboard, old-line "legacy" city, rail doesn't seem to work. Even Portland, San Diego, and L.A. have actually seen transit numbers decrease since rail was implemented.Just because Gattis doesn't subscribe the popular urban theories du jour (like New Urbanism) doesn't mean he doesn't try to think of innovative solutions or that he's wrong. I think the issue here is that mass transit infrastructure and automobile infrastructure hasn't been funded and promoted remotely balanced and don't offer and apples to apples comparison.  Just like how a freeway can't operate without feeders, and roads of varying capacities; mass transit needs sidewalks, decent bus stop accommodations, buses, light rail, and commuter/regional rail. There really isn't a good political process or funding process that accomplishes these things at the regional level. It seems, because sun belt cities have to rob Peter to Pay to get rail built, they get worse results. By that I mean, sun belt cities usually fund rail at the expense of the varying methods of connecting to rail.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdog08 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 As far this project, I think this is a great idea. We need to keep building infrastructure to keep up with population demand and this way it pays for itself and gets off the ground quicker. I wish P&R services can somehow take advantage of these lanes as Pearland has a good amount of commuters the TMC. Optimistically, a TOD could be centered around park & ride in Pearland if there can be collaboration, but I wouldn't be surprised if none of this happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I may just be poking the bear, so to speak, but while toll roads do in fact pay for themselves and more, they don't pay the car payments, and the vehicle maintenance, and the auto insurance, and the tanks of gas, and the registration fees, and the parking, and.... you get the idea--the numerous costs the taxpayer must bear themselves if they wish to use the toll road. Comparing highways to railways without considering the various costs of the vehicle to use the pathway of choice, is the same as comparing renting versus buying a house without taking into account taxes and HOA fees.How about doing a comparison of trip cost instead of "per mile" and consider vehicle expense to the citizenry as well?This is a great point. About 100 years ago cars were considered a foolish investment because reliable public transit was so much cheaper. That's why in cities like Houston the oil/concrete/construction/car lobbies do anything in their power to keep things in their favor, because financially speaking for much of the population, purchasing and maintaining a car is not a good use of money. It's a never ending pit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBuddy06 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Not for the initial phase, which is what we'll see built soon. The reversible toll lane will snake through the current interchange as you can see in this exhibit:http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_us59/harris_county_clear_creek.pdf Ultimate plans do call for the interchange to be rebuilt when the reversible toll lane is expanded and rebuilt into a 4 lane tollroad. When that happens, the toll lanes will run through the interchange where the current 288 mainlanes are, and the 288 mainlanes will be relocated to run through the edges of the interchange.http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh288_us59/bw8_ih610.pdf Thanks for the clarification. I forgot that 'little' detail about the initial phase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToryGattis Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I may just be poking the bear, so to speak, but while toll roads do in fact pay for themselves and more, they don't pay the car payments, and the vehicle maintenance, and the auto insurance, and the tanks of gas, and the registration fees, and the parking, and.... you get the idea--the numerous costs the taxpayer must bear themselves if they wish to use the toll road.  Comparing highways to railways without considering the various costs of the vehicle to use the pathway of choice, is the same as comparing renting versus buying a house without taking into account taxes and HOA fees. How about doing a comparison of trip cost instead of "per mile" and consider vehicle expense to the citizenry as well?  Well, of course, this argument can be used for anything - not just transportation - like, say, housing.  People pay too much for housing, so maybe the government should build nice, affordable, concrete apartment towers for all of us to live in? (a la the Eastern Bloc)  Government should invest the fewest taxpayer dollars to create the most benefit.  In the case of transportation, that turned out to be roads - about the simplest way government can provide mass mobility (it is just an asphalt strip, after all).  Can't afford the car to run on the road? Then government provides a subsidized bus network as an alternative.  Bonus: the bus gets to use the transportation infrastructure network the government already built!  (as opposed to creating a new one from scratch, like, say, a transit rail network)  That's great infrastructure utilization. In any case, the car is still cheaper than rail.  Seehttp://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2010/03/real-future-of-transportation.html "Automobiles continue to maintain a huge cost advantage over passenger rail. Counting both subsidies and personal costs, Americans spend less than 25 cents a passenger mile on autos, nearly 60 cents a passenger mile on Amtrak, and more than 90 cents a passenger mile on urban transit. No wonder 85% of all our passenger travel is by automobile." and another one:  Transport Costs Per Passenger Milehttp://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=88 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToryGattis Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I get the point of freeways, I really do. I just don't understand the pride one gets from seeing a highway cut across an untouched landscape that will soon fill up with the same boring, cookie-cutter, suburban hellacape that it will inevitably become. The fact that our flat city only exacerbates this issue makes me more frustrated.I understand that we can't just build a million mid rises or high rises, etc, because land here is cheap, but I'm tired of looking at the same flat 2-3 story landscape outside of the Beltway in most areas, while having people simultaneously complain about traffic, argue for bigger roads, and then turn around and complain when those bigger, newer, tolled roads are full almost immediately upon opening. Unless they are the toll roads to nowhere, or through nowhere (249 or Grand Parkway), they are just as full as other roads.But yeah, freeways are super duper popular. The pride is about the opportunity that highways provide the American dream of homeownership in a good neighborhood with good schools for millions of people.  I agree it's no great shakes aesthetically, but that doesn't mean it's not aspirational for most families.  Not my scene either, which is why I live in a Midtown midrise.  The key is choice.  If you want to live in density by the light rail, by all means do. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 To me, rail in the South (and even West Coast) is like a bar in a supermarket that serves beer and wine by the glass. It's certainly only found in nice grocery stores (like Whole Foods though I think some regular HEB stores do it too) and I often wish there was one in my supermarket, but it's less important than other features, like having decent produce or a clean store. I'd be much less happy with it if it involved raising the prices in the store substantially, cutting selection, or otherwise compromising everything else, because I know it's not a necessity when grocery shopping. And once again Slick, you've undermined your own theory in your goalpost-changing arguments as to how rail is always the answer (I find it frankly amazing that you pretty much are the personification of what philosophically anti-rail opponents think pro-rail people are like). You stated that "rail has to be in the right corridors", citing the abandoned railroad right of ways in Dallas. While I'm not sure if that's the actual reason (I would say that because of spread-out job centers, using a "spider web" from downtown is less effective than it should be), it undermines the argument of putting rail down the center of 288 (and I believe you did say something against rail paralleling 59). But again, I'm not necessarily condemning the idea of tollroads or rail down 288 either way, I just don't like the idea that "we need rail", because as it stands, rail statistically won't help much in easing congestion (sorry), and it's not conducive to what public transit even stands for (transportation for the less advantaged). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxConcrete Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) The connections between Loop 610 and SH 288 are being added to the project and the change is included in a public meeting at HGAC this week.  http://www.h-gac.com/news/articles/2015-10-30.aspx  The announcement is also in today's Chronicle.  Edited November 1, 2015 by MaxConcrete 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 I think the issue here is that mass transit infrastructure and automobile infrastructure hasn't been funded and promoted remotely balanced and don't offer and apples to apples comparison.  Just like how a freeway can't operate without feeders, and roads of varying capacities; mass transit needs sidewalks, decent bus stop accommodations, buses, light rail, and commuter/regional rail. There really isn't a good political process or funding process that accomplishes these things at the regional level. It seems, because sun belt cities have to rob Peter to Pay to get rail built, they get worse results. By that I mean, sun belt cities usually fund rail at the expense of the varying methods of connecting to rail.   Pretty much every city outside of Houston disagrees with this.  In any case, the car is still cheaper than rail.  Seehttp://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2010/03/real-future-of-transportation.html "Automobiles continue to maintain a huge cost advantage over passenger rail. Counting both subsidies and personal costs, Americans spend less than 25 cents a passenger mile on autos, nearly 60 cents a passenger mile on Amtrak, and more than 90 cents a passenger mile on urban transit. No wonder 85% of all our passenger travel is by automobile." and another one:  Transport Costs Per Passenger Milehttp://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=88  This is a flawed statistic, it's based on the number of current passengers to determine the cost per mile, and thus is a self fulfilling prophecy.  Go over to a place like Europe where ridership is much higher and the cost per passenger mile come more into alignment. The more people you put onto rail, the more efficient it becomes. If rail transit wasn't more efficient than vehicle transit we'd have a load more 18 wheelers driving all the cargo currently shipped via trains around and all the train tracks across the nation would have been transformed into roads. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Pretty much every city outside of Houston disagrees with this. I think in this context, it means on and off ramps, as that fits the analogy.  This is a flawed statistic, it's based on the number of current passengers to determine the cost per mile, and thus is a self fulfilling prophecy.  Go over to a place like Europe where ridership is much higher and the cost per passenger mile come more into alignment.  The more people you put onto rail, the more efficient it becomes. If rail transit wasn't more efficient than vehicle transit we'd have a load more 18 wheelers driving all the cargo currently shipped via trains around and all the train tracks across the nation would have been transformed into roads. Even if it is a flawed statistic, it is known that more people=more efficient rail, but the way it stands in the South and West (maybe except the Bay Area), the job centers and density what they are means that rail will be generally inefficient. (If you came to the conclusion of "forcing density" to make rail work, congratulations, you've basically re-affirmed anti-rail's worst fears and polarized the issue further) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Even if it is a flawed statistic, it is known that more people=more efficient rail, but the way it stands in the South and West (maybe except the Bay Area), the job centers and density what they are means that rail will be generally inefficient. (If you came to the conclusion of "forcing density" to make rail work, congratulations, you've basically re-affirmed anti-rail's worst fears and polarized the issue further) I don't disagree, but it's still a flawed statistic. The only real way that it will change (regardless of where the employment centers are in relation to where they live) is by the public embracing rail. Unfortunately, decades of marketing by car manufacturers has people trained that you have to own a car and you have to use it. Which I can't see changing any time. So the statistic may be flawed, but it is real, and will continue to self perpetuate until the public perception of cars change. It will be interesting to see if in 20 or 30 years how and if employment centers and population centers grow around the north red, purple and green lines. I don't include the south red line cause it was built in areas that are already dense. Anyway, neither here nor there, this isn't a rail thread. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 It's the Transpo Forum; it's always a rail thread 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Any thread not posted in the trains sub forum will inevitably get off track 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 Any thread not posted in the trains sub forum will inevitably get off track Amazing how rail always seems to derail these threads. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 yep, these conversations about rail really seem to get up a head of steam. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 The rail comments seem to drive the road threads right into the ditch. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.