Houstonians Now Want More Tranist and Less Roads!

[TheNiche]

Just to be fair, I'd argue against comparing national statistics for one mode to local statistics for another mode. In 2002, according to the National Transit Database, DART's operating expense per passenger mile for bus was $0.89. That's a savings of $0.29 per passenger mile, which at 75 million passenger miles annually represents a net savings of $21.75 million per year.

Yeah, I should've cited my source, by the way, which was a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. It didn't have bus cost figures for Dallas, so the U.S. was the next best alternative. Thanks for making the $0.89 figure available.

Yep. Dallas built light rail. We built a glorified streetcar.

Which is frustrating. I don't dislike the Red Line by any means, in fact I use it whenever I can, but it was clearly designed and built "on the cheap." I'm not saying that the whole thing should be grade separated, but what about at least providing some key separations at key locations? Main and Richmond/Wheeler is a disaster, for example. Or the Texas Medical Center. The fact is, there are so many constraints inherent with operating a line entirely at grade (for example, the capacity of the line is severely limited by downtown and midtown block lengths which essentially dictate that nothing longer than a two-car consist will every be able to regularly operate along the line) that the overal efficacy of the system is hindered; in some cases, severely. And you can bet that METRO won't do anything different for Richmond.

Yeah, I forgot to mention the two-car limit. In the short term, as ridership demand increases, from an expanded system, this will probably cause an increase in frequency of service. That is not altogether bad because it would be easier for people to transfer...but it will also cause much worse congestion at street crossings than already exists. In the long term, this constraint may actually cause METRO to either run busses on parallel routes in order to take pressure of the Red Line or it may cause large parts of it to need to be rebuilt to higher standards. If the system has a shorter lifespan, that very quickly eliminates any delusion of economic feasibility.

And like yourself, I'm very doubtful that much of their University Line will be built with any considerations for transportation modes as an interactive system whose goals are (or should be) compatible and not competing.

[ricco67]

But then, you're over engineering for the sake of the STUPID people.

I know this may be a bit harsh, but perhaps if people would learn some social responsibility, traffic would be civilized in Houston again.

I agree that it should be as grade separated as far as it's feasible, but the way Houston is laid out, I don't think it is, unless you want to put it all in tunnels. While this would be awesome, some parts of Houston wouldn't be prudent due to flooding issues (the further west and southwest you go, it's more feasible) some parts of town would be more conducive to be put underground unless it crosses a bayou.

[dbigtex56]

Yes it can. Public infrastructure that carries risk should be built with the top fraction of a percent of careless users in mind.

They may be evidence of Darwinism, but in the mean time, they take a massive toll on the rest of society. ...but they can't be stopped from driving, so the next best alternative is to accomodate them and minimize their external effects.

Last I heard driving was a privilege, not a right. So yes, they can (and should) be stopped from driving. If people understood that bad driving had real consequences, there would be a lot more good drivers on the road.

[Ethanra]

I keep on reading about this superior system in Dallas... If its so superior why does it have a horrible ridership, 60,000 daily riders for 45 miles. My brother lived and went to school in Dallas and met plenty of native dallasites( is that spelled right?) They don't even understand, why the system is getting exspanded, no one uses it... The first 7.5 mile line in Houston has 40,000 riders a day, runs through some of the most important areas, TMC, DT, schools, conventioneers from DT to Reliant. After the University line is built taking people from the main line through greenway plaza area to Uptown. The projected ridership for a 20 + mile line is close to 100,000. How is the Houston lines so horrible? Far as the wrecks, that is irresponsible drivers... Far as the homeless on the trains, that is less then 1% of the riders and homeless ride mass transportation for escape from the weather in every city in the U.S. I've been to Europe dozens of times and they don't have a problems with LRT at street grade... My family visit from England all the time and they have positve comments about our LRT. They just don't understand why their isn't more of it yet.

[musicman]

I've been to Europe dozens of times and they don't have a problems with LRT at street grade...

i know the last time i went to europe on travel with coworkers. one got in a wreck and another got hit by a train at street grade. and i haven't been back

[Ethanra]

i know the last time i went to europe on travel with coworkers. one got in a wreck and another got hit by a train at street grade. and i haven't been back

Accidents happen and their will always be isolated incidents, exspecially if people are not aware and not being responsible. Saying that, How does someone not see a train and walk or drive in front of it? When I was kid my parents taught to look both ways before crossing...

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

i know the last time i went to europe on travel with coworkers. one got in a wreck and another got hit by a train at street grade. and i haven't been back

Europe has been like a second home for me. Im out of the US 150-180 days a yr. In all of that time i have never witnessed a wreck and thier trains are at street level. Trains dont cause wrecks, people do. In Houston, we just have to learn to pay attention to the streets and those around us---you know like you are taught when you first learn to drive.

[musicman]

Accidents happen and their will always be isolated incidents, exspecially if people are not aware and not being responsible. Saying that, How does someone not see a train and walk or drive in front of it? When I was kid my parents taught to look both ways before crossing...

it really is familiarity IMO. most houstonians have not had the opportunity to drive across the light rail. i personally have no problem now, but there were a few challenging areas until i became more familiar. i know my mom won't drive around it.

the dallas system eliminates the lrt/vehicular interactions for large portion of their system.

[TheNiche]

The market became distorted long ago when private run transit providers were put out of buisness by government subsidized roads and freeways promoting auto use.

Roads have always been around in some form or another, and various levels of improvement have always been available (ranging from a dirt trail to cobblestone to wood planks to brick to asphalt to concrete to a superhighway, and many levels in between). The benefits of roads over a fixed guideway is that 1) it is a fully-integrated and open system; you can take the most direct path; you can go from any one point to any other without numerous transfers; you can detour around obstructions; you can get almost any kind of vehicle anyplace. Can you imagine how difficult construction would be if we didn't have paved roads to move materials? How about supplying the local grocery store? The infrastructure has to exist to accomodate logistical needs.

If government wouldn't pay for it, private industry would by way of the creation of toll roads...you know, those wildly successful profit-generating things that HCTRA builds from its own funds. Likewise, when a new subdivision is developed, the developer pays for roads and passes it on to builders in the form of the lot price, which then gets passed on to consumers. Water utilities are also paid for by consumers by way of a MUD. ...and you'll notice that such a model is very succesful in the Houston area. Consumers pay for it. So with respect to the region's major thoroughfares and freeways, which do receive government subsidy, I'm actually in agreement with you that there shouldn't be as much, and everything should be paid for by user fees. The same goes for transit. ...and you know what? Most consumers would pay for it in a heartbeat because roads are just too efficient. For the time being, roads will prevail, I assure you.

Your first point is absolutely wrong under any circumstance. LRT does what buses can't, and that's lure choice riders, those that can take cars. During rush hour, LRT's choice riders are greater than 75%, meaning those people under most circumstances would take the car over the bus. The following ridership of express buses at three transit centers that were replaced with rail's arrival. Ridership is taken from 2003 or immediately after it debuted. It replaced buses that had been in service for almost two decades.

Station Express Bus LRT Ridership

Parker Rd. 896 2,478

Arapahoe 722 2,247

Dntn Garland 656 1,444

So in conclusion, it is false to say that rail replaces bus. What it does is provide a faster, more convienient, more efficient mode of transportation over bus.

So that said, your numbers, which are faulty to begin with, are further skewed when ridership increases are factored in. I currently live in downtown, I recently joined a growing number of people in my building and the area when I gace up the car. The reason is always DART Rail. Something the bus that was replaced never did.

I'm not sure that this level of data is sufficient from which to draw conclusions. Your data are from suburban locales, which will be biased toward the point that you are trying to prove. But LRT serves a much broader base of users than that, and even the addition of these riders probably won't change the conclusion.

This is already skewed. Mockingbrd Station is one of the finest examples of TOD in the nation. It wasn't there when the stationed opend in 1996. It opened in 2001 and wouldn't have done so without rail. As TOD, like downtown, the Cedars, downtown Plano, Galatyn Park, downtown Garland etc keep growing, then the need for buses doesn't exist and at the same time, economic growth continues.

Toronto is a great example of a mature system. Skyscrapers surround stations all along their line. Those weren't there when the stations opened decades ago.

Mockingbird Station is somewhat impressive, yes, but it is only a speck in the greater transportation system serving the DFW area. Its marginal impact is extremely small, and even then, it was delayed. After all, if you have to way five years after having made such a large investment, the discounted impact isn't as significant. Also bear in mind that if the real estate investments hadn't been made at Mockingbird Station, they still would've been been felt somewhere in the region. Real estate is itself not an economic driver, but is a secondary sector...merely an indicator of regional economic growth.

As for Toronto, that's another country. Are you qualified to comment on their political and regulatory environment as it relates to real estate development? I'll readily admit that I'm not.

Again false. The Red line north is a great example. Look it up.

I made two assertions in the paragraph that you responded to. Which one do you believe is false? I'll gladly look into it, but I need you to provide me some direction into what I'm looking for.

In Dallas it is and I beg you to find one example that proves the point.

If I recall correctly, San Diego faced this problem with its system.

DART downtown has the same thing, yet you hear nothing about it here.

DART is infinitely more competent than METRO. Sucks to be us.

Most of the adverse impacts of the LRT happen outside of downtown Houston, in Midtown and the Museum District, where the grid isn't as well tied together anymore because they closed off a lot of cross streets. Other problem areas are closer to the Texas Medical Center. DART is just better configured outside of downtown Dallas. The only problem in downtown Houston is that it throws off signal timing. The pedestrian plaza could be annoying too if there weren't an easy detour, but I can live with it.

Yet, somehow DART and the T are able to negotiate with those same freight companies and things get done. The T's Cotton belt line will use of the most congested lines in the nation when it enters UP's section near downtown FW.

Like I said before, Dallas has been planning, negotiating, acquiring, and preserving rights of way for a long time. Houston is far behind. Make no mistake about it: it isn't easy...and if it seems like it, then the transit agency is getting a raw deal.

But then, you're over engineering for the sake of the STUPID people.

I know this may be a bit harsh, but perhaps if people would learn some social responsibility, traffic would be civilized in Houston again.

It is probably easier to overengineer transit to accomodate the stupid than it is to teach them social responsibility.

[TheNiche]

Last I heard driving was a privilege, not a right. So yes, they can (and should) be stopped from driving.

No they can't. You think illegal immigrants carry a drivers license and auto insurance?

[dbigtex56]

You think illegal immigrants carry a drivers license and auto insurance?

Yes.

Care to trot out statistics as to how many many of the auto-light rail collisions were caused by unlicensed, uninsured drivers? Or can we agree, not many (and I'm being generous)?

[TheNiche]

Yes.

Care to trot out statistics as to how many many of the auto-light rail collisions were caused by unlicensed, uninsured drivers? Or can we agree, not many (and I'm being generous)?

You missed the point entirely.

What I'm getting at is that driving is so necessary that stupid people will continue to drive even if you tell them that they can't because it is illegal.

[Montrose1100]

Did someone really say they don't know where some traffic jams come from?

Poor design - In the way because you'll have 4-5 lanes of I-45, and for some reason everyone acts as if its their first time on the freeway and when the 610 exit comes up, everyone hits their brakes in a panic. Unless its just because of the amount of vehicles, 45 past 610 (towards Downtown) is fine. Then you have the left exit to I-10, and everyone panics in the left two lanes... Just when you think your safe, here comes the downtown with all their crazy left exit only lanes, and although people will pass under the signs once, twice, it still takes the lane going off of the freeway for them to realize that the lane they're in is exiting. Brake! Blinker, cut off, panic all over again.

Excuse the rank, but road rage can channel to haif rage.

[musicman]

Did someone really say they don't know where some traffic jams come from?

Poor design - In the way because you'll have 4-5 lanes of I-45, and for some reason everyone acts as if its their first time on the freeway and when the 610 exit comes up, everyone hits their brakes in a panic. Unless its just because of the amount of vehicles, 45 past 610 (towards Downtown) is fine. Then you have the left exit to I-10, and everyone panics in the left two lanes... Just when you think your safe, here comes the downtown with all their crazy left exit only lanes, and although people will pass under the signs once, twice, it still takes the lane going off of the freeway for them to realize that the lane they're in is exiting. Brake! Blinker, cut off, panic all over again.

Excuse the rank, but road rage can channel to haif rage.

for 610/45, i think that that the entrance before park place/broadway doesn't merge well (particularly if you're not a confident driver). this seems to be where the holdup appears. as you approach the loop, no lanes end so it usually moves well by the time you've reached the loop. but i do understand the panic mode you describe.

[desirous]

for 610/45, i think that that the entrance before park place/broadway doesn't merge well (particularly if you're not a confident driver). this seems to be where the holdup appears. as you approach the loop, no lanes end so it usually moves well by the time you've reached the loop. but i do understand the panic mode you describe.

Funny you bring that up - I used to have to enter from Broadway and merge all the way across to 610W. Every time, I cringed, knowing it's not helping with traffic.

[musicman]

Funny you bring that up - I used to have to enter from Broadway and merge all the way across to 610W. Every time, I cringed, knowing it's not helping with traffic.

...but you still did it.........you're not alone, believe me. while you were cringing, i hoped you stepped on the gas!

[desirous]

...but you still did it.........you're not alone, believe me. while you were cringing, i hoped you stepped on the gas!

Of course! I've driven in the Northeast, and that has made me fearless.

[houstonfella]

I don't do park 'n ride, but don't we have a great P&R system in H-town? I talk with the folks at work who swear by it ... 20 minutes from Sugar Land or Katy or Woodlands (30 I think) but all in all .... it works. The bus may emit foul air, but if one breaks down, another can easily replace. Once your train is broken, it isn't that easy (I remember my months in SF). Anyhow, Houston isn't totally in the dark ages. We are slower with rail, but faster with HOV.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I don't do park 'n ride, but don't we have a great P&R system in H-town? I talk with the folks at work who swear by it ... 20 minutes from Sugar Land or Katy or Woodlands (30 I think) but all in all .... it works. The bus may emit foul air, but if one breaks down, another can easily replace. Once your train is broken, it isn't that easy (I remember my months in SF). Anyhow, Houston isn't totally in the dark ages. We are slower with rail, but faster with HOV.

I have neighbors that drive to the Seton Lake Park and Ride and they are very happy with it. Not sure but i think it is bus 121 or 212 something like that.

[JLWM8609]

I don't do park 'n ride, but don't we have a great P&R system in H-town? I talk with the folks at work who swear by it ... 20 minutes from Sugar Land or Katy or Woodlands (30 I think) but all in all .... it works. The bus may emit foul air, but if one breaks down, another can easily replace. Once your train is broken, it isn't that easy (I remember my months in SF). Anyhow, Houston isn't totally in the dark ages. We are slower with rail, but faster with HOV.

I think it's about time 288 got it's own HOV lanes and a Route# "288" South Freeway bus service. The facilities could be barrier separated transitways, 3 lanes in each direction inside 610 and 2 lanes outside 610 with direct ramp access to and from 610. It would run from just north of Clear Creek to US 59 with a park and ride at Almeda-Genoa Rd. Access to the Medical Center and UH would be facilitated with an entrance/exit ramp at Holcombe similar to the one on US 59 at Edloe. I think some modification to the 610 overpass at 288 would be needed.

Also, not to get too OT, but contrary to popular belief, diesel emissions are not as foul as one would think. Check this link out. http://www.northtexaspowerstrokes.com/post...20Industry.html

[ricco67]

I think it's about time 288 got it's own HOV lanes and a Route# "288" South Freeway bus service. The facilities could be barrier separated transitways, 3 lanes in each direction inside 610 and 2 lanes outside 610 with direct ramp access to and from 610. It would run from just north of Clear Creek to US 59 with a park and ride at Almeda-Genoa Rd. Access to the Medical Center and UH would be facilitated with an entrance/exit ramp at Holcombe similar to the one on US 59 at Edloe. I think some modification to the 610 overpass at 288 would be needed.

Also, not to get too OT, but contrary to popular belief, diesel emissions are not as foul as one would think. Check this link out. http://www.northtexaspowerstrokes.com/post...20Industry.html

i agree that 288 needs its own HOV lane, in fact, i think they need a two lane. a third would be nice to go in the opposite direction . and it would help with evacuations. the only problem is that they planted all those trees there.

[TheNiche]

I think it's about time 288 got it's own HOV lanes and a Route# "288" South Freeway bus service. The facilities could be barrier separated transitways, 3 lanes in each direction inside 610 and 2 lanes outside 610 with direct ramp access to and from 610. It would run from just north of Clear Creek to US 59 with a park and ride at Almeda-Genoa Rd. Access to the Medical Center and UH would be facilitated with an entrance/exit ramp at Holcombe similar to the one on US 59 at Edloe. I think some modification to the 610 overpass at 288 would be needed.

TxDOT is already considering it in their planning process, but it'll probably take a while before they're ready to break ground. METRO is also considering the P&R service, but they really need the City of Pearland's cooperation to make it work well.

the only problem is that they planted all those trees there.

Nope, that's not a problem at all for TxDOT, HCTRA, METRO, or any other transportation entity.

[JLWM8609]

I always thought those trees were a waste of money. What's the use of planting them if they'll be torn down in a relatively short period of time?

[FoUTASportscaster]

Roads have always been around in some form or another, and various levels of improvement have always been available (ranging from a dirt trail to cobblestone to wood planks to brick to asphalt to concrete to a superhighway, and many levels in between). The benefits of roads over a fixed guideway is that 1) it is a fully-integrated and open system; you can take the most direct path; you can go from any one point to any other without numerous transfers; you can detour around obstructions; you can get almost any kind of vehicle anyplace. Can you imagine how difficult construction would be if we didn't have paved roads to move materials? How about supplying the local grocery store? The infrastructure has to exist to accomodate logistical needs.

Usually, governments stayed out of the road buisness. It is a recent phenom, post WWII thing. Developers in the past were the ones to pay for the roads, along with the streetcar lines and utilities. Now it is a government function sinced the suburbs after WWII wanted growth, so they started building them, so the developers wouldn't spend the money.

As for benefits, that depends on the use. In New York and San Fransisco, cities modeled for transit use, your example is not the case. Transit offers the most efficient route. In post-WWII cities, the auto does because we designed the cities around them. However, as DTD, uptown, Mockingbird, downtown Plano, Galatyn Park, Addison Circle, Legacy Town Center, the Cedars, downtown Carrollton and SWern Medical District is showing, transit can be convenient if designed that way. I don't own a car anymore because my lifestyle is now such that transit is more convinient for me. Houston could do the same. It is fact that rail does that kind of development. Buses do not.

Also, there is something considerably wrong about the way we build typical cities anymore. The average person spends 19% of their income on cars. We drive our cars to work, then work to pay for our cars. This puts the 1/3 of Americans who don't own a car at a distinct disadvantage.

I do agree we need the infrastructure. We don't need the mismatched amount of infrastructure. In metro Houston, the ratio is about 71.5 miles of freeway per local passenger rail mile. That is not a good ratio and leads to sprawl.

If government wouldn't pay for it, private industry would by way of the creation of toll roads...you know, those wildly successful profit-generating things that HCTRA builds from its own funds. Likewise, when a new subdivision is developed, the developer pays for roads and passes it on to builders in the form of the lot price, which then gets passed on to consumers. Water utilities are also paid for by consumers by way of a MUD. ...and you'll notice that such a model is very succesful in the Houston area. Consumers pay for it. So with respect to the region's major thoroughfares and freeways, which do receive government subsidy, I'm actually in agreement with you that there shouldn't be as much, and everything should be paid for by user fees. The same goes for transit. ...and you know what? Most consumers would pay for it in a heartbeat because roads are just too efficient. For the time being, roads will prevail, I assure you.

I'm not sure that this level of data is sufficient from which to draw conclusions. Your data are from suburban locales, which will be biased toward the point that you are trying to prove. But LRT serves a much broader base of users than that, and even the addition of these riders probably won't change the conclusion.

Mockingbird Station is somewhat impressive, yes, but it is only a speck in the greater transportation system serving the DFW area. Its marginal impact is extremely small, and even then, it was delayed. After all, if you have to way five years after having made such a large investment, the discounted impact isn't as significant. Also bear in mind that if the real estate investments hadn't been made at Mockingbird Station, they still would've been been felt somewhere in the region. Real estate is itself not an economic driver, but is a secondary sector...merely an indicator of regional economic growth.

That is the answer. If private companies built and ran the thing, then the true cost of driving would be paid for by the consumer, putting transit at a much more even playing field. The Chicago Tribune did a lengthy article about the journey gasoline makes to the pump. They quoted a guy from the Brookings Institute that stated the true cost of gasoline is $8 a gallon, and that was the conservative estimate. If every driver paid for the cost of the freeway they were using, the cost of parking that codes force on buisness in various cities, the true cost of gas, then we wouldn't be a car-loving culture. If the driver paid for everything, and not just the tolls in your scenario, then there'd be a lot less who would pay. We'd be a lot more balanced as a society.

As for the time being, as you suggest, roads will prevail a lot more, because drivers aren't paying for them directly.

Ideally, I wish government never got involved in the transportation buisness, then neither would have to be subsidized. As it was, the freeways essentially forced private transit companies across the nation to sell to municipalities. Some of those freeways were paid for by taxes levied on the transit companies, so essentially they paid for their own destruction.

It's funny you get all offended by a five year delay in the Mockingbird Station example. There actually was no delay that lengthy, as you suggest. It was actually opened five years after the rail station opened. At that time, the sheep we call developers weren't sure if it would work because there hadn't been a similar project done in Dallas, elsewhere, but not Dallas. It took a pioneering guy in Ken Hughes to start it a few years after the station was already operating, and now we have a lot more TOD's, in the examples I gave you, and more in the planning process. In fact, one developer has gotten DART to add a station on the Blue Line for his upcoming project. I also hate to tell you, a lot of projects of Mockingbird scale take a little time. Not the five years as you suggest, but a book called the New Transit Town will go over the lengthy details for ya.

As for Toronto, that's another country. Are you qualified to comment on their political and regulatory environment as it relates to real estate development? I'll readily admit that I'm not.

I made two assertions in the paragraph that you responded to.

Yeah, they are a pro-transit anti-freeway city and have one of the most livable cities in North America. The city has less energy usage per person as well as pollution. The reason is simple, it was designed for people and not autos.

Which one do you believe is false? I'll gladly look into it, but I need you to provide me some direction into what I'm looking for.

Even if parallel routes are eliminated or scaled back (which isn't necessarily desirable depending upon the distance between LRT stations, Dallas being a good example), in an efficient transit system, perpendicular routes would need to be expanded to handle any increased demand for the LRT corridor.

You whole statement is false. Express bus routes are eliminated. They are a little more expensive to operate than standard buses, but have a greater ridership. Rail is less expensive to run than standard bus service, and has greater ridership than both. Now, as in the case of the Red Line I quoted above, there are some routes that operate between stations ferrying passengers to places between the stations. They are smaller, and therefore need less buses to cover the same ground and then therefore cost less. Now as for perpendicular routes needed expanding, I am not sure why you insinuate that. It, too is false and the Red Line is still the example that dispproves that.

DART is infinitely more competent than METRO. Sucks to be us.

DART maybe, but prior to the starter system, DART was labeled every bit as incompetant. Part of the difference is that our congressional district worked to help DART, despite the bad press. How many times did Tom Delay et al work to derail METRO. That doesn't mean their not incompetant. They just really haven't been given the chance. 7.5 miles isn't a chance.

Most of the adverse impacts of the LRT happen outside of downtown Houston, in Midtown and the Museum District, where the grid isn't as well tied together anymore because they closed off a lot of cross streets. Other problem areas are closer to the Texas Medical Center. DART is just better configured outside of downtown Dallas. The only problem in downtown Houston is that it throws off signal timing. The pedestrian plaza could be annoying too if there weren't an easy detour, but I can live with it.

That's what I hear. However, should the drivers obey the law, then they'd be fine. When researching the accidents that METRO Rail has had, there was one where the train operator was at fault. DART's main attribute was that it used existing ROW, but as the Blue Line South has shown, an LRT can exist in street. That maybe due to the fact that DART designed it better. However, there was a rocky period at the beginning of its start in this world, where drivers obeyed the law. That is no longer the case. It maybe due to the drivers learning, less drivers because it isn't in the urban core, a better design, some combo of or neither. The fact is drivers are no longer getting involved in accidents.

Like I said before, Dallas has been planning, negotiating, acquiring, and preserving rights of way for a long time. Houston is far behind. Make no mistake about it: it isn't easy...and if it seems like it, then the transit agency is getting a raw deal.

True. I'd like to think DART was the one to show that rail can exist in Texas, therefore places like HoustonSan Antonio, Fort Worth and Austin realize they are behind the times and working to expand. All have done some sort of rail proposal since DART's system opened.

That doesn't mean METRO can't do it. As I mentioned, the T has been able to negotiate with UP in a couple of years to use one of the most congested rail ROW's in the country. If METRO wanted to, they could. As it is, they appears to be focusing on urban core rather than region. That's neither good nor bad, just their approach.

It is probably easier to overengineer transit to accomodate the stupid than it is to teach them social responsibility.

It also adds millions upon millions of dollars, but that's likely what you want, so you can attack it from that angle too.

[lockmat]

You whole statement is false. Express bus routes are eliminated. They are a little more expensive to operate than standard buses, but have a greater ridership. Rail is less expensive to run than standard bus service, and has greater ridership than both. Now, as in the case of the Red Line I quoted above, there are some routes that operate between stations ferrying passengers to places between the stations. They are smaller, and therefore need less buses to cover the same ground and then therefore cost less. Now as for perpendicular routes needed expanding, I am not sure why you insinuate that. It, too is false and the Red Line is still the example that dispproves that.

So are you saying that perpendicular routes aren't necessarily needed b/c buses can "ferry" them between LRT stops?

To my uneducated mind, it seems like perpendicular routes would make things more efficient. But at the same time, I remember in my trip to Rome that we did have to take a bus a couple times, even though 95% of the time we used the subway system.

Here are some examples of cities that have lines interacting a lot

Paris:

Tokyo:

And here are some examples that have a reputation for being effecient, yet don't seem to interact as much:

Boston:

Athens:

So, although different, why do they still seem to work?

Seems like a more sprawled out city would benefit from lines that interacted more, rather than just go to and from the CBD.

If they don't interact, seems like TOD would be absolutely necessary for those who use the system to get around efficiently.

Critique, please.

Edited March 24, 2007 by lockmat