Jump to content

livincinco

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,915

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

 Content Type 

Everything posted by livincinco

  1. livincinco
    The "Press" is owned by Village Voice Media, this shouldn't be surprising, but I do appreciate them quoting Mayor Parker - "we have to recognize that rail will not be the ultimate answer for us".
  2. livincinco
    DART really just needs riders. Always seems like the next line is going to be the one that delivers them. DART had a ridership of 11.51 million annually in 2001 with a 20 mile network. (575,000 annual riders/mile). In 2011, they had an annual ridership of 22.3 million on a 72 mile network. (310,000 annual riders/mile). The population of the Dallas metro increased by 23.4% during that time period. https://www.dart.org/news/dartrailhistory.asp I expect the same thing to happen in Houston. The lines that are currently under construction will reduce the riders/mile on average and proponents will continue to say that the next line will add the riders.
  3. livincinco
    I think that you're greatly underestimating the complexity of installing rail in an existing roadbed. Installing embedded track in a roadway requires construction about 2 1/2 feet under the surface of the track. Additionally there's an impact zone (due to vibration) under the roadbed that requires the relocation of utilities even if they aren't directly under the railbed. (The impact zone for two lanes of light rail is 45 feet). Attached has good detail about the impact of light rail construction on subsurface infrastructure in section 3.2.3 https://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A5E6E5F1-C6AD-4745-A733-166A3EDF079F/0/TechnologyAnalysis.pdf
  4. livincinco
    I hear your point and agree that no infrastructure makes money. My point is more about financial accountability than profitability. I am by no means a proponent of the free market running rampant, but a big part of the reason that federal funding like you describe went away is because it was abused so heavily. In my opinion, there needs to be a degree of fiscal responsibility in any major infrastructure project and determining the cost/benefit is an important part of that.
  5. livincinco
    Thank you for providing a textbook example of a false equivalency. Parks are good, therefore we must subsidize rail in Houston? Also appreciate your providing such a great example to strengthen my point. Discovery Green (I didn't look up Hermann Park), self-funds its operating costs. Discovery Green has an annual budget of $3.4 million that is paid for by fundraising and rental fees (restaurant and usage fees). So yes, I completely approve of the way that Discovery Green was financed because it was able to provide improved quality of life in a completely responsible financial manner. The park analogy that I would make to transit is there basic parks and basic transit (buses) that government should provide. There are also premium parks (Discovery Green) and premium transit (rail) that have a higher cost to build and that those should be constructed in a fiscally responsible model.
  6. livincinco
    The problem with looking exclusively at operating costs when comparing heavy rail to other systems is that it doesn't factor in the debt burden related to the construction costs. The initial construction of heavy rail in LA cost $4.5 billion for a 17 mile line ($265 million/mile). That's a lot of debt to carry and finance especially if it's considered on a per rider basis even assuming that the Federal Government picks up part of the tab. Unfortunately, the way that most transit agencies finance debt, it never goes away either, they just pay down the interest without ever reducing the principal. The University line is planned at 11 miles. Assuming that costs were consistent with LA's $265 million/mile (highly questionable given that the North Line just came in at about $150 million/mile for light rail), that would put the cost of heavy rail at about $3 billion for that corridor. I just don't see it happening.
  7. livincinco
    I have no problem with subsidizing public transit for those who need it, but if you want to promote public transit as a lifestyle choice for those that have other options than that shouldn't be subsidized. You've spoken frequently about "rail bias". If you want to build trains for those who prefer to use public transit instead of buses for those who need to ride it, then I don't see why it is the taxpayers' responsibility to subsidize that. I'm fine with building rail as long as it can prove itself to be financially viable, but that very rarely happens. METROrail currently covers about 23% of its operating costs through fares. If people feel that passionately about how important it is to have trains in Houston, then they should be willing to pay the $5.00 one way fare that it would take to keep it revenue neutral assuming current ridership.
  8. livincinco
    I've always maintained that the full operational cost of highways should be covered by usage fees (the gas tax) at either the federal and/or state level. Those taxes should be raised to a level sufficient to cover those costs. I'm very much in favor of new highway construction being financed by toll roads which covers both the construction and operational costs of those roads. As you may have noticed, Texas has strongly adopted the toll road model. I also have no issue with subsidizing a portion of the operationing costs of transit, because it serves as a public service for those who are less fortunate. However, there's a big difference between subsidizing 25% of cost and 75% of cost.
  9. livincinco
    As a point of reference, population increased by 0.75% nationally last year.
  10. livincinco
    The problem with heavy rail is that it runs huge operational losses if it doesn't get appropriate levels of ridership. BART and MTA manage to cover between 70%-75% of their operating costs from fares, but most other systems in the US run a very large annual loss with several, such as Los Angeles, Miami, Cleveland, and Baltimore covering 30% or less of their operating costs. That's not including the construction and interest costs which are obviously a lot higher. The only cities that have had any significant investment in heavy rail in the last 10 years are markets where there was already a large heavy rail network. Puerto Rico is the only exception and their project has been a fiscal disaster.
  11. livincinco
    That would be incorrect. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/09/surprising-key-making-transit-oriented-development-work/6992/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/09/when-it-comes-streetcars-and-economic-development-theres-still-so-much-we-dont-know/6899/ https://go.itdp.org/display/public/live/More+Development+for+Your+Transit+Dollar%3A+An+Analysis+of+21+North+American+Transit+Corridors
  12. livincinco
    I'd be very interested to see specific projections on what the various discussed routes do to ridership. I haven't been successful in locating that information.
  13. livincinco
    Nothing adds density like a prison. This might become a new urban living model.
  14. livincinco
    My point is that it's still a matter of judgement from the individual developer. Each developer makes a decision regarding the profitability of "increasing the pedestrian experience" and whether it's worth making additional investment to do so. Additionally, making an investment towards increasing foot traffic is one thing, actually realizing increased foot traffic from that investment is another.
  15. livincinco
    I think it's more of a question of one developer thinking that ground floor retail is going to be profitable in a particular location and another thinking that it won't. I don't think any developer is interested in "improving the pedestrian experience" unless it's ultimately profitable for them.
  16. livincinco
    Sasol breaks ground next to Jacob's Plaza http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2014/03/sasol-tower-breaks-ground-in-energy-corridor.html
  17. livincinco
    Continuing issues with TriMet's ability to manage the transit network that has been constructed in Portland. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2014/01/state_audit_finds_trimet_needs.html#incart_m-rpt-2
  18. livincinco
    California is on track to create rules for driverless cars before the end of the year. They would be the first state to adopt a full set of rules related to widespread use. (Three states have adopted rules related to legalizing testing of autonomous cars). http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/California-pushes-to-finish-driverless-car-rules-5309034.php
  19. livincinco
    The Texas legislature also agrees that The Woodlands is a township. Not sure what your comment about layoffs is relevant to though. Last time I checked, layoffs are not exclusive to companies that are located in The Woodlands. http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/BillSearch/BillDetails.cfm?billFileID=187388&from=advancedsearch&startrow=1&number=50&IDlist=&unclickList=
  20. livincinco
    I think you're right, the APTA defines demand response as "Non-fixed-route service utilizing vans or buses with passengers boarding and alighting at pre-arranged times at any location within the system's service area.
  21. livincinco
    I'm not why you assume that there has to be a tax incentive for a company to move to The Woodlands as there's a number of other potential reasons. I don't have knowledge about the specifics of Baker Hughes and I'm not sure that anyone else here does, but I think that it's fair to state that both Downtown and The Woodlands are potentially attractive places for a business to locate, albeit different. We don't know where Baker Hughes employees live, we don't know the preferences of the Baker Hughes team regarding a urban v. suburban environment, we don't know whether Baker Hughes has identified advantages related to recruiting employees to those locations. Those and a number of other considerations are all valid reasons as to where to locate your business regardless of incentives.
  22. livincinco
    Houston's numbers broken down by mode Light rail - (0.22)% Bus - +3.44% Demand response - +5.62% I believe that Demand response refers to Park and Ride, but it isn't directly stated as such. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/2013-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf
  23. livincinco
    That's interesting because I never experienced that during my time renting, but I do think that it's safe to say that the average homeowner spends more on home improvement than the average renter does. Most big box retailers are trying to figure out how to develop an appropriate model for urban environments though.
  24. livincinco
    As usual, you are distorting and misstating my points. If you actually read my posts, you'll find that I actually never said that it was the sole reason, I said it was one major reason. There is virtually never a "sole" reason for anything. There's always multiple causes for any problem and to attempt to reduce a complex issue such as the Chicago rail network to a single cause would be a gross simplification. However, that's been a recurring pattern in your comments. You create a strawman argument based off of comments that I never made and then resort to name-calling because you're incapable of creating a rational argument to support your points. It's actually quite entertaining if somewhat childish and petulant. I've stated this many times before, but I will state it once again, I find rail to be highly effective in cities with a highly dense monocentric job base, but that's not what Houston is. It's a a marginally dense city with a highly dispersed job base, and if you look at cities across the country, rail's success in that kind of city has been highly questionable. Of course, in the view of trolls that are incapable of understanding complexity, that might be defined as anti-rail because things like ridership, cost and economic efficiency are abstract concepts to such individuals. I enjoy engaging in thoughtful reasonable discussion of transit options, however that is unfortunately rarely possible in this forum.
  25. livincinco
    I agree with your points and it brings up an interesting question about people locating where they "want" vs where they can find a job. Not sure how prevalent that is, but it would be interesting to see how much of an impact that has on figures related to unemployment. Lots of media coverage related to the number of people that are underemployed and from a strictly economic sense, unwillingness to move to where the jobs are would certainly reduce economic efficiency and would cause underemployment.
×
×
  • Create New...