When Will The Light Rail & Commuter Rails Start Construction?

[Houston19514]

i expect crosswalks at stations. in this instance dennis, bremond, berry, winbern are station related. cleburne, anita and drew are standalone ones.

it looks like the drew one is in the middle of the block...at least on the west side of main. the one at cleburne looks like it ends up in a parking lot by one of the churches, also on the west side of main. maybe that's what niche was talking about.

I hadn't realized the restrictions on the topic. ;-) They are what they are, whether there is a station nearby or whatever... they are crosswalks at closed streets. The genesis of this topic was Niche's observation pedestrian traffic in midtown is difficult because the grid was disrupted by the closures of streets. To examine the extent of the grid disruption, one has to look at the number and spacing of crosswalks. Whether the crosswalks are affiliated with stations or not really could not be less relevant.

The one at Drew is far from the middle of the block, even on the west side of the street. It is only offset (like the others) to create what they call the "Z" crossing. It's a safety feature, so pedestrians are "forced" to slow down and look where they are going, rather just dashing straight across the street (and the rail tracks). The "Z" design puts it maybe 10-15 feet from the very end of the block, on one side of the street. and yes, the one at Cleburne crosses Main to a church parking lot. (Cleburne is a street that was not cut off by the rail line. I don't think Cleburne ever went through. Nevertheless, the crossing is not in or near the middle of a block. No such crossings exist in Midtown.

[Pumapayam]

I'm a big fan of the way they built DART LRT in Dallas.

One thing I notice is that their lines are colored, and it makes it a bit easier to know where the train is going (Blue background for Blue Line, Red Background for Red Line, etc.). I think METRO should take that approach with the LRT.

The DART is usuable and looks great. And the network is so much more expansive than ours. Are they still expanding it.

They never did the whole BRT route I bet.

[musicman]

The one at Drew is far from the middle of the block, even on the west side of the street. It is only offset (like the others) to create what they call the "Z" crossing. It's a safety feature, so pedestrians are "forced" to slow down and look where they are going, rather just dashing straight across the street (and the rail tracks). The "Z" design puts it maybe 10-15 feet from the very end of the block, on one side of the street. and yes, the one at Cleburne crosses Main to a church parking lot. (Cleburne is a street that was not cut off by the rail line. I don't think Cleburne ever went through. Nevertheless, the crossing is not in or near the middle of a block. No such crossings exist in Midtown.

The Drew one is in the middle of the so-called super block or else i'm not looking at the map correctly.

[Houston19514]

The Drew one is in the middle of the so-called super block or else i'm not looking at the map correctly.

Okay, whatever. I thought you might come back with that silliness. You must have gotten a Pedant pill from The Niche today. It's called Superblock for a reason. It's multiple blocks. There are no crosswalks is in the middle of a standard block. They are all on the corner of blocks in the midtown grid. More to the point, they all fit in the pedestrian grid, as a crosswalk in the middle of a standard block would not.

[TheNiche]

Okay, whatever. I thought you might come back with that silliness. You must have gotten a Pedant pill from The Niche today. It's called Superblock for a reason. It's multiple blocks. There are no crosswalks is in the middle of a standard block. They are all on the corner of blocks in the midtown grid. More to the point, they all fit in the pedestrian grid, as a crosswalk in the middle of a standard block would not.

Yeah, I'm gonna back off on this one. I was only going off of memory, but the evidence appears otherwise.

[Trae]

The DART is usuable and looks great. And the network is so much more expansive than ours. Are they still expanding it.

They never did the whole BRT route I bet.

They sure didn't, but they are adding in BRT, only after the LRT system is completed (it will be 93-miles long).

[musicman]

Okay, whatever. I thought you might come back with that silliness. You must have gotten a Pedant pill from The Niche today. It's called Superblock for a reason. It's multiple blocks. There are no crosswalks is in the middle of a standard block. They are all on the corner of blocks in the midtown grid. More to the point, they all fit in the pedestrian grid, as a crosswalk in the middle of a standard block would not.

it is physically one block that is all i was saying. blocks vary in size throughout houston.

[DaTrain]

I hate to add to thread that will probably be merged, but are there actual plans for what the alignment would be like on Richmond? Is it going to be the 2 lanes taken up in the middle with one lane for traffic on either side? I certainly hope not, but I don't know what else they plan to do unless it involves a lot of destruction along Richmond... Why can't they do 2 rail lanes on one side?

I was initially for the rail on Richmond, but just trying to envision this thing is giving me doubts...if they can't keep 4 lanes devoted to traffic, it'll be a nightmare

I might sound rediculous for this but, with the four lane w/o center lane configuration of Richmond Avenue, METRO should try and do something called "single-track" for this segment only; they can double-track it elsewhere along the street outside Afton. This may affect METRORail traffic eventually, but there can be signals to allow one rail car to go west first, switch signals and let the eastbound car go, or vice versa. The single track for both directions take two center lanes away but there can be minimal expansion of Richmond if need be.

This isn't anything new to the light rail game: Sacramento used single tracking early on till recent years when double tracking construction took place. Example of this:

Another one. Note that it uses one catenary instead of two:

Also, BART uses a single track for one direction merging from two tracks in the same direction in downtown Oakland; the other direction uses two tracks. But that was due to buget constraints when the system is buillt.

[musicman]

I might sound rediculous for this but, with the four lane w/o center lane configuration of Richmond Avenue, METRO should try and do something called "single-track" for this segment only; they can double-track it elsewhere along the street outside Afton.

i'll bet it could work if the stations were equidistant in the area of interest and if the trains were computer driven. i think the human factor (a driver) alone would make it difficult.

[TheNiche]

I might sound rediculous for this but, with the four lane w/o center lane configuration of Richmond Avenue, METRO should try and do something called "single-track" for this segment only; they can double-track it elsewhere along the street outside Afton. This may affect METRORail traffic eventually, but there can be signals to allow one rail car to go west first, switch signals and let the eastbound car go, or vice versa. The single track for both directions take two center lanes away but there can be minimal expansion of Richmond if need be.

Also, BART uses a single track for one direction merging from two tracks in the same direction in downtown Oakland; the other direction uses two tracks. But that was due to buget constraints when the system is buillt.

Aside from cost, what is the benefit?

[Trae]

The cost.

[TheNiche]

The cost.

And what is the benefit as it relates to Afton Oaks, which is where DaTrain was suggesting that this be implemented to the exclusion of other parts of the line?

[FoUTASportscaster]

They try to seperate LRT vehicles from traffic except at intersections, but it 1) takes away lanes from drivers, and 2) disrupts the grid.

Taking away lanes from drivers is a good thing. The only way to relieve congestion is reduce capacity, not add to it. An exerpt from the book Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and Decline of the American Dream illustrates the point very well.

The simple truth is that building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, it actually increases traffic. The revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse. This paradox was suspected as early as 1942 by Robert Moses, who noticed that the highways he had built around New York City in 1939 were somehow generating greater traffic problems than had existed previously. Since then, the phenomenon has been well documented, most notably in 1989, when the Southern California Association of Governments concluded that traffic-assistance measures, be they adding lanes, or even double-decking the roadways, would have no more than a cosmetic effect on Los Angeles

[TheNiche]

The simple truth is that building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, it actually increases traffic.

The problem isn't traffic. It is congestion.

The revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse.

Only if by worse, you mean that the additional lanes make it less costly to travel, thereby inducing more trips. I'd contend that traffic volume, all other things being held equal, is an indicator of the public's well-being.

Its studies showed that increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more

[CDeb]

Taking away lanes from drivers is a good thing. The only way to relieve congestion is reduce capacity, not add to it. An exerpt from the book Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and Decline of the American Dream illustrates the point very well.

The authors need to spend more time talking to traffic engineers and less time talking to urban planners if they want to be taken seriously when quoting traffic engineers.

[tamtagon]

Please don't post excerpts from Suburban Nation. That book makes a highly convincing argument for market-driven suburbanization--the author just doesn't seem to realize it.

HaHaHaHa I love that book - it has a lot of entertainment value.

The guys behind Suburban Nation did a good job to write something that a lot of people would buy. The eventual disappointment by so many of their readers will be unfortunate as these folks realize they have enthusiastically embraced suppositional text as postulates upon which cities should be planned.

[FoUTASportscaster]

The problem isn't traffic. It is congestion.

Which is caused by traffic.

Only if by worse, you mean that the additional lanes make it less costly to travel, thereby inducing more trips. I'd contend that traffic volume, all other things being held equal, is an indicator of the public's well-being.

No, worse means more congestion. By pure numbers, more people are caught in bumber-to-bumber congestion in three lans than four.

I'd contend that your statement isn't the case. The worst places in Dallas aren't served by transit and are essentially a one trick pony. On top of that, the negative aspects like pollution, ozone, time spent away from the family, cul-de-sac kids aren't good for the public.

Good. This is as it should be. If less congested roads weren't in demand, then when they became available, they wouldn't fill up.

That logic is twisted. The point is fairly simple. It is pointless to spend millions of dollars "to relieve congestion" when the outcome will be more congestion. Transporation as we know it in the United States does not work in simple supply and demand terms. The government has screwed with it too much for there to be a marketplace based condition.

Correct. But there are many forms of public infrastructure that have a finite life span. Just because we'll have to replace sewer lines in the future is no reason to stop building them in the present, after all. The same applies to roads and [gasp] even light rail. So long as these public investments generate sufficient benefit over their life span, that they'll have to be replaced is not a viable argument against them.

Unlike the infrastucture you named, the roads aren't or won't be replaced because they are aging, but rather because when we build it and have no other options (and encourage its use in other means like suburban-style-single-use-low-density development), then it will always need constant replacement. Add to that the materials used in roads wear out faster than materials used in other infrastucture (though not because of the materials, but rather the machines they are designed for).

Is that a problem? When people's cost of mobility is reduced, people organize their lives in ways that reflect the lower cost. They are free to live in suburbs, or even in the countryside...and as a side effect, there aren't nearly as many people clamoring to get closer to work, which keeps land prices in the inner city reasonable for those that do want to live there.

Seems to me it is a problem when that outcome is in the form of increased congestion that was supposed to be relieved, now increasing congestion exponentially. For the record, their cost of mobility isn't reduced. They still pay for it in taxes, which the government will get in one way or another. Yes they are free to live anywhere, but that is not always a good thing. And the last point is just misguided. The attractive places "closer to work" are generally the ones that has no vacancy.

Induced traffic is the manifestation of benefits from lower travel costs.

So you admit that building roads to relieve congestion just makes it worse (the induced traffic principle). Again, these costs aren't lowered, just lowered at point of use. I am a big fan of toll roads, because the users actually pay for the road, rather than everyone. If that were the case from the begining, there'd be less limited-access highways and transit companies would likely still be privately-owned and for-profit.

Comparing freeways used by millions of individuals to a single human body makes for a very weak analogy.

It's an effective analogy for those who think about its meaning, rather than physical meaning. If a man eats turkey for thanksgiving, he didn't accomplish anything by loosening the belt. lIt ikely just encourages him to eat a little more. Same thing with freeways and roads. When they are at capacity, building more lanes more lanes is going to cause more congestion.

It repeats itself more slowly than you might think because employers start moving operations out to the suburbs to be closer to their employees. Ultimately, people are not only more able to live in places that they place a greater value upon, but many of them are able to find employment that is close to home. In fact, one of the beneficial side effects of suburban employment centers is that reverse commuting starts to take hold, allowing freeways to be used at full bidirectional capacity during peak hours.

Actually that's only true in a small number of workers. The CEO is always the reason behind the move, not the lame excuse of being close to workers. Not sure what you mean in terms of value. Time and again, the places which have the most value are places in memorable walking environments, both old and new. As far as the reverse commute thsi would already have been the case if we had built traditional neighborhoods with mixed-use zoning. It was the rise of single-use zoning that lead to commutes in one direction. For proof, just analyze older cities such as New York or London.

Please don't post excerpts from Suburban Nation. That book makes a highly convincing argument for market-driven suburbanization--the author just doesn't seem to realize it.

Actually, it seems as though you haven't read Suburban Nation since the authorS make it very that the government has effectively destoryed the market place. It makes the point clear with facts that the suburbs exist today because the government has effectively destroyed the marketplace with its subsidization of roads, zoning practices, parking requirements, etc. The book is more a guideline for responsible development, a return to traditional city-building, sustainable development. The authors make it very clear this is ideal in the urban core, but realize the greenfield is very much a possibilty with the eagerness and inexpense of the suburbs.

The authors need to spend more time talking to traffic engineers and less time talking to urban planners if they want to be taken seriously when quoting traffic engineers.

The problem belongs in specialization. Traffic engineers are focused on one thing. The issue is that traffic is caused by other issues outside their control. Therefore to solve traffic problems, things other than widening roadways have to be considered, but aren't in their control.

[ricco67]

Look, in short we need both roads AND rail.

Roads are not only necessary for people to drive around, but also for commerce. The efficiency of moving merchandise and materials to stores and factories is something that cannot be debated. Even stores and bars along the various rail routes need to be stocked SOMEHOW and that can only be done with trucks.

Sorry, I don't see a UPS guy riding the rail. As much as I'm PRO rail, it's unrealistic to shoot to get rid of ALL roads in that particular area.

I know that some transit agencies have opted to use the single rail option in some segments of their lines, but I think Houston's population and traffic would make that obsolete rather quickly. The numbers increase on the redline is a good example of that.

[CDeb]

The problem belongs in specialization. Traffic engineers are focused on one thing. The issue is that traffic is caused by other issues outside their control. Therefore to solve traffic problems, things other than widening roadways have to be considered, but aren't in their control.

The problem belongs in this quote:

The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity among traffic engineers:

[GovernorAggie]

The problem isn't traffic. It is congestion.

Only if by worse, you mean that the additional lanes make it less costly to travel, thereby inducing more trips. I'd contend that traffic volume, all other things being held equal, is an indicator of the public's well-being.

What's the "all-things" that are being considered equal? I say that because New Orleans has HORRIBLE traffic congestion today, has been since Katrina, and some will tell you that it's actually worse than pre-Katrina and the city is half of what it was before. I don't think it's necessarily an indication of that city's "public" well-being because the first thought in one's mind is likely "where the heck did you people come from...and where are you going...I thought the place was struggling and on life support." There's no way that it's all contractors, either.

Regarding "building out of congestion" and using the belt-loosening analogy, I'd say that yes, CDeb, building transit is building our way out of congestion. Building transit would be like loosening your belt at Thanksgiving; building more new travel lanes would be more like putting on a whole new and bigger pants size at Thanksgiving.

[editor]

I'd say building more highway lanes is like loosening your belt at Thanksgiving.

Building rail is more like having a doctor install a higher capacity esophagus in anticipation of gorging yourself.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Look, in short we need both roads AND rail.

Roads are not only necessary for people to drive around, but also for commerce. The efficiency of moving merchandise and materials to stores and factories is something that cannot be debated. Even stores and bars along the various rail routes need to be stocked SOMEHOW and that can only be done with trucks.

Sorry, I don't see a UPS guy riding the rail. As much as I'm PRO rail, it's unrealistic to shoot to get rid of ALL roads in that particular area.

I won't argue with you there. A balance is indeed needed. However, to say there is a balance now is rediculous. The Houston area has over 500 miles of freeway and literally thousands upon thousands of miles of road. On the other end is 7.5 miles of rail. If congestion relief is truely the goal, there is one way to do that, takes cars off the road. The Sunbelt has a long way to go before a transit system will be in place to do that.

I've addressed this with you before and have never gotten a satisfactory answer, so tell me, how is adding capacity for transit any different than adding capacity for roads? Is that not still "building your way out of congestion?"

If you add capacity to a train, you add another train or a car to an existing train. With LRT, there is no point-of-use pollution and no expensive reconstruction with ROW eminent domain. The plain fact of the matter is that LRT can carry roughly 25,000 people per hour in the space of a two lane roadway. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circu...01_Thompson.pdf Freeways, on the other hand, can only carry 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour. With solo occupancy the general trend, it can be deduced that roughly 2,500 people are in those 2,000 vehicles. Therefore, by doing basic math, I come to the conclusion that LRT can carry ten lanes of freeway traffic before any new construction is needed. Even then, there is no need to aquire ROW, as the line is prime for conversion to rapid transit, a la New York's subway.

So, after building a rail line, there is usually no more building of rail lines, just adding cars or new lines. I hope that satisfactorilly answers your question.

I'd say building more highway lanes is like loosening your belt at Thanksgiving.

Building rail is more like having a doctor install a higher capacity esophagus in anticipation of gorging yourself.

I wouldn't really say that. Transit generally leads to self-sustaining mixed-use development. Take Mockingbird Station in Dallas. There are people who live, shop and work there. All they use to move is their feet. There isn't a whole lot of moving around in sustainable development.

[CDeb]

I come to the conclusion that LRT can carry ten lanes of freeway traffic before any new construction is needed.

Your calculations are essentially correct, it CAN carry that many. But WILL it? How many branches to that rail line do you have to build before it carries anywhere approaching that volume? Anywhere approaching a freeway lane volume? It's disingenuous to suggest that the mere construction of one line is all that is needed.

And for clarity, I'm not against mass transit at all. I'm in favor of more of it in Houston. But the suggestion that "induced demand" makes freeway expansion projects unbeneficial is tiresome and incorrect.

[musicman]

If you add capacity to a train, you add another train or a car to an existing train.

If the line existed yes you could add more trains.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Your calculations are essentially correct, it CAN carry that many. But WILL it? How many branches to that rail line do you have to build before it carries anywhere approaching that volume? Anywhere approaching a freeway lane volume? It's disingenuous to suggest that the mere construction of one line is all that is needed.

I didn't say one line is needed, because more than one line is needed. I'll use a Dallas example, since I am more familiar with it than any other. The TRE commuter line carries roughly 8,500 people every weekday. Almost all of them transfer at Union Station to a Red or Blue line train. If neither of those lines existed, ridership would be way lower on the TRE. Now, in reverse the Green Line will open in 2009 for the State Fair. There will be lots of people who will take the existing Red or Blue to downtown and transfer to the Green Line to go to Fair Park. When the line goes to Love Field, many will get on the two existing lines to go there. So, as more lines are built, more passengers will use the existing lines to get to the new lines.

Go look at a map of the New York Subway. Many people will make many transfers. Rarely would one line carry passengers who won't transfer.

I'd venture to guess that in the Sunbelt, there will never be one line that will carry 25,000 passengers an hour. That still doesn't deny the fact that once rail is built, you will never need to do another capital project for it again, unlike freeways.

And for clarity, I'm not against mass transit at all. I'm in favor of more of it in Houston. But the suggestion that "induced demand" makes freeway expansion projects unbeneficial is tiresome and incorrect.

Tiresome, maybe, incorrect, no.

Just a sample of what's out there.

http://userpages.itis.com/burleigh/issues/traffic_bib.html

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/transport.../congestion.asp

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

http://www.webtag.org.uk/webdocuments/2_Pr...lling/2.9.2.htm

http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/documents.../iccts00003.pdf

http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/transp...ducedtravel.htm

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/roadbu...g-futility.html

http://dsf.chesco.org/planning/lib/planning/pdf/intrindv.pdf

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml

[TheNiche]

That still doesn't deny the fact that once rail is built, you will never need to do another capital project for it again, unlike freeways.

I haven't had the time to devote the level of attention to this topic that is necessary to effectively rebut you...but:

WRONG. Transit infrastructure is depreciable and requires maintenance.

[CDeb]

Tiresome, maybe, incorrect, no.

Just a sample of what's out there.

http://userpages.itis.com/burleigh/issues/traffic_bib.html

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/transport.../congestion.asp

http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

http://www.webtag.org.uk/webdocuments/2_Pr...lling/2.9.2.htm

http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/documents.../iccts00003.pdf

http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/transp...ducedtravel.htm

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/roadbu...g-futility.html

http://dsf.chesco.org/planning/lib/planning/pdf/intrindv.pdf

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml

Yes, incorrect. Every one of those sources focuses on the fact that there is traffic induced on a single road after a road project but fails to consider total benefit to the entire transportation system.

Since I distinctly remember posting it to you before, here it goes again:

It is foolish to say that adding capacity will not improve the overall transportation system. What your statement is attempting to describe is known as triple convergence. When a primary route is congested past a traveler's tolerance for congestion, they seek alternate modes, alternate routes, or travel at alternate times. When a capacity improvement is made (be it a widened freeway or a new rail line), travelers will converge on the new capacity from those other modes, routes and times because it provides them with a better travel time. Therefore, that new capacity will quickly fill up and peak-period congestion is just as bad as it was before the improvement.

So one could say that no improvement has been made, right? Hardly. Those added travelers had to come from somewhere. And the modes, routes and times that they abandoned are less congested than they were before. Alternate roads have cleared considerably. There's more room for others in the rail car. The freeway is free flow at 6 a.m. when it used to be a parking lot at a quarter 'till. Overall, the transportation system has improved considerably.

"You can't build your way out of congestion" is a cute saying, but it's incomplete. It should be, "You can't build your way out of peak period congestion," because peak-period congestion will always be with us, no matter how many miles of rail line or freeway lane-miles we build. But that doesn't mean that we can't make the peak period shorter, or have it occur in fewer places or on fewer modes.

[FoUTASportscaster]

I haven't had the time to devote the level of attention to this topic that is necessary to effectively rebut you...but:

WRONG. Transit infrastructure is depreciable and requires maintenance.

Maintenance is an operating cost, not a capital cost. New York's subway was constructed around the turn of the century over a hundred years ago. Since then, there hasn't been anything but routine maintenance and it carries 4 million people a day. In terms of cost, the rail is by far the better choice, 100+ years later. You're lucky to get ten years out of a freeway before it clogs...again.

Though it should be noted that my statement wasn't entirely accurate. Should LRT get to the point where it has reached capacity, Rapid transit lines could take the place, causing another capital project to proceed on rail ROW.

It is foolish to say that adding capacity will not improve the overall transportation system. What your statement is attempting to describe is known as triple convergence. When a primary route is congested past a traveler's tolerance for congestion, they seek alternate modes, alternate routes, or travel at alternate times. When a capacity improvement is made (be it a widened freeway or a new rail line), travelers will converge on the new capacity from those other modes, routes and times because it provides them with a better travel time. Therefore, that new capacity will quickly fill up and peak-period congestion is just as bad as it was before the improvement.

That is only partially true. That explains half the reasons why short term benefits are lost. another reason comes from further trip generation. When capacity is added, people drive more and generate more trips. When capacity is full, trips are combined and done at one time or sometimes not at all.

So one could say that no improvement has been made, right? Hardly. Those added travelers had to come from somewhere. And the modes, routes and times that they abandoned are less congested than they were before. Alternate roads have cleared considerably. There's more room for others in the rail car. The freeway is free flow at 6 a.m. when it used to be a parking lot at a quarter 'till. Overall, the transportation system has improved considerably.

The first sentence is the flaw. When you add capacity there are actually more trips generated. So the overall transportation system hasn't been relieved as greatly as you suggest. Congestion and capacity are not a linear function as your logic suggests.

"You can't build your way out of congestion" is a cute saying, but it's incomplete. It should be, "You can't build your way out of peak period congestion," because peak-period congestion will always be with us, no matter how many miles of rail line or freeway lane-miles we build. But that doesn't mean that we can't make the peak period shorter, or have it occur in fewer places or on fewer modes.

The last sentence when taken by itself is accurate, if only taken in the short term. In the long term, any benefits are immediately lost as we sprawl further and further out with auto-oriented development, which artificially inflates traffic counts by funnelling traffic into collector roads then on freeways, instead of utilizing an urban street grid. As low-density auto-oriented development spreads further, it further taxes the freeway, causing a need to widen the corridor. Then when capacity is increased, the process continues.

75 here in Dallas is a prime example. When it was widened in the '90's, McKinney and Allen had an almost overnight explosion in auto-oriented sprawl. Now 75 is worse then before. Of course, that can be said of every freeway north of downtown as we sprawl further and further north. Heck, the high-five, the $250 million reconstruction of 75 and 635 was done only a few years ago and it is starting to get worse than before.

Meanwhile, when rail transit is introduced, the development takes the form of pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with walkable streets. While there is parking and auto trips are generated, it is also built to accommodate transit and people walking. When trips are generated, many are in the form of transit which will not need widening in any form, or costly capital projects for widening.

[CDeb]

That is only partially true. That explains half the reasons why short term benefits are lost. another reason comes from further trip generation. When capacity is added, people drive more and generate more trips. When capacity is full, trips are combined and done at one time or sometimes not at all.

You ignore further societal benefits. So, ask yourself, WHY are those trips being generated?

The first sentence is the flaw. When you add capacity there are actually more trips generated. So the overall transportation system hasn't been relieved as greatly as you suggest. Congestion and capacity are not a linear function as your logic suggests.

Again, WHY are those trips generated? I'm not talking JUST transportation system benefits, but societal benefits as a whole.

The last sentence when taken by itself is accurate, if only taken in the short term. In the long term, any benefits are immediately lost as we sprawl further and further out with auto-oriented development, which artificially inflates traffic counts by funnelling traffic into collector roads then on freeways, instead of utilizing an urban street grid. As low-density auto-oriented development spreads further, it further taxes the freeway, causing a need to widen the corridor. Then when capacity is increased, the process continues.

And you contend that no benefit to society has occured? Think again.

75 here in Dallas is a prime example. When it was widened in the '90's, McKinney and Allen had an almost overnight explosion in auto-oriented sprawl. Now 75 is worse then before. Of course, that can be said of every freeway north of downtown as we sprawl further and further north. Heck, the high-five, the $250 million reconstruction of 75 and 635 was done only a few years ago and it is starting to get worse than before.

I'm not terribly familiar with Dallas, but the last time I was there a month ago, the High 5 was congested because of ongoing road work on 635 west of the interchange (at least in the direction we were traveling).

Meanwhile, when rail transit is introduced, the development takes the form of pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with walkable streets. While there is parking and auto trips are generated, it is also built to accommodate transit and people walking. When trips are generated, many are in the form of transit which will not need widening in any form, or costly capital projects for widening.

This is simply not true. You have to build a transit network the same as you have to build a road network. While each line may not need expansion as in a freeway, collector & distribution lines need to be built in order to reach everyone. Even in TOD, you can only fit so many people in there, and people will only walk so far to a transit stop. As your city grows, you have to reach more and more people, and build more and more lines. You are in effect "widening your freeway."

[musicman]

Though it should be noted that my statement wasn't entirely accurate. Should LRT get to the point where it has reached capacity, Rapid transit lines could take the place, causing another capital project to proceed on rail ROW.

How would this increase capacity?