When Will The Light Rail & Commuter Rails Start Construction?

[musicman]

Meanwhile, when rail transit is introduced, the development takes the form of pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with walkable streets.

this is really a broad statement IMO. the rail here will be going where things are fairly developed already. not sure how pedestrian friendly/walkable the neighborhoods will become.

[FoUTASportscaster]

This is getting tiresome.

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

You seem to ignore the negative aspects of auto-centric planning, pollution, CO2 emmissions, social isolation, oil addiction, etc. The trips being generated aren't always a net gain. In some instances, these trips are combined into one when there is reason to. When there is access capacity, these can take the form of many more trips. The average suburban household in the US makes 13 car trips a day.

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

You may look at the benefits, but railed transit has virtually no negative asspects compared to its auto counterpart, no point-of-use pollution, little to no single-use zoning and land hungry development, social integration, less oil use, etc.

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

Again, like many times before, your erroneously put words in my mouth. There are benefits to some degree. However, the negatives far outweigh them.

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).

The work is actually east of the interchange and the west is still congested and there is no work...yet.

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."

Why are you making this an either or scenario? Railed transit in the Sunbelt will never reach everyone. There isn't a city in the US that has that situation. Rail transit is similar to the freeway in comparison. It is the higher capacity, higher speed alternative to the bus. The more rail, the more the bus serves as the collector road to a degree and brings passengers not directly on a rail stop to the station. For example, when I lived in Irving, the train was a 15 minute bike ride away. The 306 bus was also a 15 minute ride away. When the time worked I could take the bus, when it didn't, I rode. The train station (South Irving) is a transit center where 13 other routes meet. Now that I live in downtown, I can walk the two blocks to Saint Paul Station.

The last two sentences are a complete fallacy. In every instance in the last 50 years, rail has been introduced to developed areas. Here in Dallas, it has been 11 years. So it has never gone beyond the developed areas. However, a UNT study has shown that over 3 billion in development has occured in areas along the line. Like Mockingbird Station, downtown Plano, Galatyn Park, Park Lane, etc have shown, rail has the ability to rework the landscape into a walkable, pedestrian-friendly and auto-independent neighborhood. The rule is most people will comfortably walk 5 minutes in most scenarios. That is roughly a 1/4 to 1/2 mile raidus to get to a transit station from the periphery of the neighborhood. So, as LRT promotes with its stations every 1 mile, you can have an almost continous walkable neighborhood. I will admit it will not always work this way. In Dallas it didn't, the further north you go after Park Lane, the more spacious the stations become.

So, to sum up, the city has grown, thanks in large part to transit, but its geographic footprint hasn't, thanks in large part to transit. It encourages high-density development, unlike the low-density sprawl spawned by the auto. It encourages people to walk, which requires no fuel from unstable areas of the world, encourages interaction with complete stangers from the same area, allowing for social integration, and creates memorable places, not an autonomous suburban shopping center.

How would this increase capacity?

It's apparent you aren't familiar with transit systems. Rapid Transit lines, like the New York Subway, have much bigger cars and can travel at higher speeds. The operate like LRT in terms of physical performance, but have a capacity similar to CRT.

this is really a broad statement IMO. the rail here will be going where things are fairly developed already. not sure how pedestrian friendly/walkable the neighborhoods will become.

As I showed earlier, it is essentially the redevelopment that occurs that promotes that type of walkability. In the case of Mockingbird Station and downtown Plano, it was a rehab of existing buildings. In Galatyn Park and Park Lane, it was a start from scratch. Galatyn Park was a greenfield, while the development going on at Park Lane was a demo of an auto-oriented area. this type of phenomenon is fairly common, with examples from metro areas of Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Portland, Saint Louis, San Jose and Washington D.C., just off the top of my head.

[CDeb]

This is getting tiresome.

Why? Does intellectual debate suck that much? I've found that when I think I'm right, the only way to determine if I am right is to seriously and honestly consider the possibility that I may be wrong.

You seem to ignore the negative aspects of auto-centric planning, pollution, CO2 emmissions, social isolation, oil addiction, etc.

Maybe because:

1) One cannot quantify those negative aspects nor the effect that the use of automobiles has on them,

2) One cannot be certain that any of those negative aspects are ideed negative. What is social isolation? That seems to be your personal bias against and opinion of suburban lifestyle and is essentially meaningless. Autos manufactured today emit practically zero NOx VOC and CO compared to other sources of those pollutants (industry, agriculture). CO2? Maybe you've drank the global warming kool-aid, but the science doesn't back up the proclaimations. Oil addiction? I agree with you there, but you're making a huge assumption that technology will remain the same in that regard.

There are benefits to some degree. However, the negatives far outweigh them.

Until I see some credible economic research backing that up, we'll have to agree to disagree.

So, to sum up, the city has grown, thanks in large part to transit, but its geographic footprint hasn't, thanks in large part to transit. It encourages high-density development, unlike the low-density sprawl spawned by the auto.

Of course, since your argument seems to be based on the above premise: that high desnity development = good, and "sprawl" = bad, which is highly debated by even urban planners, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

But I have thoroughly enjoyed the exchange.

[TheNiche]

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.

I stated that transit is "depreciable and requires maintenance." Capital is depreciated. Maintenance is expensed. A capital investment analysis captures all ongoing costs that are inherent to the long-term transportation strategy.

In spite of maintenance, parts of Chicago's elevated lines are so decrepit that the operational speed limit becomes ridiculously slow. They'd need a major capital project to make the system function at its former design specs. We've talked about this before on HAIF.

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.

As for investments that pay off, even big time, in 100 years...screw them. Any of us paying taxes today will be dead by then, so the justification for anyone to pay anything for something that they won't be able to enjoy is zero. In that case, the Net Benefit = Cost.

You're lucky to get ten years out of a freeway before it clogs...again.

Once again, that people are able to fill a freeway to capacity so quickly speaks only to the value that people place on a freeway. If anything, it is an indication that we need to build bigger freeways and more of them than we do at present to accomodate future demand growth.

I'll grant you this, however: all forms of public transportation infrastructure need to be paid for in full by their users rather than from a general fund. The way that we finance our projects needs to change.

[musicman]

It's apparent you aren't familiar with transit systems. Rapid Transit lines, like the New York Subway, have much bigger cars and can travel at higher speeds. The operate like LRT in terms of physical performance, but have a capacity similar to CRT.

if you put any bigger/longer cars here they would block intersections. it isn't just a matter of replacing light rail with rapid transit lines.

[TheNiche]

if you put any bigger/longer cars here they would block intersections. it isn't just a matter of replacing light rail with rapid transit lines.

...either that, or you'd have to reconstruct transit lines to add capacity.

Could it be that all forms of transit are subject to reconstruction and expansion, not just highways!?

[T 2 THA C]

at the risk of sounding redundant ne dates as for construction purpose's.

[jfre81]

I'll grant you this, however: all forms of public transportation infrastructure need to be paid for in full by their users rather than from a general fund. The way that we finance our projects needs to change.

Are you equally cool with the idea of people who do not drive having the equal option not to pay into the freeway system they do not use?

I even know people in Houston who drive who do not use the freeways for various reasons. Myself, I avoid them when it's feasible. I like actually exploring the city instead of looking at concrete and billboards.

Oh, and freeways need maintenance too. Remember that bridge in Minnesota?

All these delays and bickering over routes is just slowing things down. They need to run it right down Richmond. If it makes it one lane each way, then so be it. It works on Main for me, no matter how much anyone else complains.

[musicman]

Are you equally cool with the idea of people who do not drive having the equal option not to pay into the freeway system they do not use?

if you've purchased anything, it probably arrived by 18 wheeler via the freeway system you don't use.

[jfre81]

if you've purchased anything, it probably arrived by 18 wheeler via the freeway system you don't use.

To be fair I wasn't saying I shouldn't pay for anything, just pointing out the double standard. It's like the people who claim they should be exempt from paying school taxes if they don't have kids.

Public transit benefits everyone. If you don't use it, the people who do aren't clogging *your* roadways.

[TheNiche]

Are you equally cool with the idea of people who do not drive having the equal option not to pay into the freeway system they do not use?

Absolutely! It is my belief that all freeways and major thoroughfares should be converted to toll roads and sold to private interests, that antitrust regulation should apply to owners of toll roads so as to ensure efficient and competitively-priced markets, and that provided some reasonable mechanism for eminent domain when necessary, private owners should be able to upgrade capacity when it makes financial sense to do so.

Detractors would say things like "why should I pay for a road that we already paid for," but by selling it, the public is essentially unpaying for it. It's just being refinanced. Despite the practicality, the idea will never gain popularity in political circles. That's reality.

[GovernorAggie]

Absolutely! It is my belief that all freeways and major thoroughfares should be converted to toll roads and sold to private interests, that antitrust regulation should apply to owners of toll roads so as to ensure efficient and competitively-priced markets, and that provided some reasonable mechanism for eminent domain when necessary, private owners should be able to upgrade capacity when it makes financial sense to do so.

Detractors would say things like "why should I pay for a road that we already paid for," but by selling it, the public is essentially unpaying for it. It's just being refinanced. Despite the practicality, the idea will never gain popularity in political circles. That's reality.

I like your idea in concept, but the details don't sit too well. For instance, tolls would likely be higher on trucks transporting my fruits and veggies--and eventually that will effect how much I pay for them, right?

Also, the eminent domain-lite is out of the window. If the PRIVATE owner wants to widen it's business, it should not get help from the government through the use of eminent domain. It should have to buy people out at an agreed to price. If one family doesn't sell, then they either have no project or they have to build around those people. And if no one sells, then thy will have to go vertical, either up or down. End of story.

[TheNiche]

I like your idea in concept, but the details don't sit too well. For instance, tolls would likely be higher on trucks transporting my fruits and veggies--and eventually that will effect how much I pay for them, right?

Also, the eminent domain-lite is out of the window. If the PRIVATE owner wants to widen it's business, it should not get help from the government through the use of eminent domain. It should have to buy people out at an agreed to price. If one family doesn't sell, then they either have no project or they have to build around those people. And if no one sells, then thy will have to go vertical, either up or down. End of story.

Trucks tend to depreciate the road more rapidly, so yes, they would probably get stuck with a higher cost. But that is good. It will get passed along to the consumer so that goods carried by trucks will only reflect the true cost to society of those goods being made readily available. In the grand scheme, it influences peoples' consumption choices so as to result in more efficient rationing of resources.

Academics in the field of economics tend to be very libertarian on the eminent domain issue as well. But they teach to assume that all individuals are rational actors in their models. That doesn't hold true in reality. And I'm not about to say that there isn't potential for abuse of an eminent domain mechanism granted to private road developers, but I'd dare to say that the enormous cost to society resulting from one irrational holdout is well worth risks associated with the tool.

[HtownWxBoy]

So when will construction on the next lines start?? Wasn't it supposed to start earlier in the summer?

[RailOnWestheimer]

There's a better alternative -- Rail On Westheimer! Check out:

www.RailOnWestheimer.org

[musicman]

There's a better alternative -- Rail On Westheimer! Check out:

www.RailOnWestheimer.org

LOL

[HtownWxBoy]

There's a better alternative -- Rail On Westheimer! Check out:

www.RailOnWestheimer.org

That would be awsome

[Highway6]

That would be awsome

It make sense connecting Highland Village Shops to the Galleria... but it in no way serves UST, the Menil, or Greenway Plaza..

[RailOnWestheimer]

It make sense connecting Highland Village Shops to the Galleria... but it in no way serves UST, the Menil, or Greenway Plaza..

Longdistance commuters getting to work at Greenway Plaza won't be served by a local streetcar, they need regional rail. The westpark corridor should be kept open for the time when high speed regional rail is built. If you are worried about serving UST, Menil, or St Thomas University with lightrail then an Alabama alignment makes much more sense. But the busiest, densest development is actually along Westheimer which is why the streetcar should be there.

http://www.RailOnWestheimer.org/

Rail on Westheimer -- it just fits!

[jfre81]

Maybe this should be another thread, but I am starting to take a liking to this idea of rail on Westheimer as opposed to Richmond.

However it would probably render Westheimer (at least in the Inner Loop) either one-way or unusable by car traffic. Which is practically what it is today, come to think of it.

Could we all do without driving on Westheimer?

[Highway6]

Longdistance commuters getting to work at Greenway Plaza won't be served by a local streetcar, they need regional rail. The westpark corridor should be kept open for the time when high speed regional rail is built.

Greenway plaza needs to be on a LRT, or local streetcar route, too... just like downtown, TMC, Galleria.

Commuter rail is pointless if the destinations inside the loop don't connect.

Longdistance commuters won't be served by one commuter line that goes into Greenway then nowhere else.

How will your longdistance commuters get to lunch.. or get downtown... Ride their commuter rail out to some transit center then hop on another commuter rail into downtown ??

You have to have inner loop destinations connected.

If you are worried about serving UST, Menil, or St Thomas University with lightrail then an Alabama alignment makes much more sense. But the busiest, densest development is actually along Westheimer which is why the streetcar should be there.

But you arent proposing a Alabama alignment.. you are proposing Westheimer. And we certainly arent going to have one LRT down Westheimer, and another one parallel half a mile away.

UST, and the Menil are just as walkabale distance from Richmond as they are Alabama.

You're proposal is much less serviceable to these two destinations.

And while Westheimer may have more dense commercial space on its Eastern end than Richmond... servicing UST and the Menil area is much more important than hitting up a few tattoo parlors, clothing stores, and restaurants.

Your proposal altogether is a year too late and pointless at this junction in the process.

Pretty renders though....

[RailOnWestheimer]

Your proposal altogether is a year too late and pointless at this junction in the process.

Pardon me, but I thought the whole point of the current process was to comment on METRO's DEIS before the September 17 deadline. I ask that people consider the Westheimer alternative given the DEIS as it stands now, and I urge the public to ask METRO to modify the DEIS to include an evaluation of a Westheimer routing.

Maybe you can explain why METRO is asking for comments on its DEIS if it's too late to comment on its DEIS?

[RailOnWestheimer]

Could we all do without driving on Westheimer?

The important question is, can we afford to destroy car and truck capacity on Richmond when little would be lost by doing the same on Westheimer?

[musicman]

Pardon me, but I thought the whole point of the current process was to comment on METRO's DEIS before the September 17 deadline. I ask that people consider the Westheimer alternative given the DEIS as it stands now, and I urge the public to ask METRO to modify the DEIS to include an evaluation of a Westheimer routing.

Maybe you can explain why METRO is asking for comments on its DEIS if it's too late to comment on its DEIS?

METRO itself took the westheimer route out because there were too many obstacles with it. this was one of the routes evaluated early on.

[Highway6]

Pardon me, but I thought the whole point of the current process was to comment on METRO's DEIS before the September 17 deadline. I ask that people consider the Westheimer alternative given the DEIS as it stands now, and I urge the public to ask METRO to modify the DEIS to include an evaluation of a Westheimer routing.

Maybe you can explain why METRO is asking for comments on its DEIS if it's too late to comment on its DEIS?

The time to fight for a Westheimer route was during any of the other previous comment periods before the 6 present route alternatives were chosen back in December.... back when Westheimer alternatives were on the table.

At this time, comment on Metro's DEIS should be to voice opinions on those alternatives and to bring up modifications such station location, noise control, land acquisitions ... it is not time to resurrect old routes already considered and discarded.

[ricco67]

While I would LOVE a Westheimer route, I believe it's for the future, and perhaps as a (at least for lower Westheimer) subway.

If an LRT does exist as a surface route, you might as well close down that part of Westheimer to traffic. The only real negative effect that would happen are for deliveries for the various businesses, since it's mostly a walkable area anyway.

Right now, the main component that Metro wants to do is to increase ridership as much as possible. While a Westheimer route would have a high ridership levels fairly quickly, I believe that people would be against it unless the current proposed routes prove themselves.

[RailOnWestheimer]

If you must have Greenway Plaza (and I worked there for several years so I can tell you that you can eat lunch by simply walking to many places such as the strip mall on Richmond or the mall inside of Greenway Plaza itself) then Greenway Plaza could be on the regional line as a stop between Hillcroft and Downtown, on the Westpark corridor. That way you could get from Greenway Plaza to either the Hillcroft Transit Center or to Downtown in one single stop.

The time to fight for a Westheimer route was during any of the other previous comment periods before the 6 present route alternatives were chosen back in December.... back when Westheimer alternatives were on the table.

Well there's no sense in crying over spilled milk. We have to do what we can now.

At this time, comment on Metro's DEIS should be to voice opinions on those alternatives and to bring up modifications such station location, noise control, land acquisitions ... it is not time to resurrect old routes already considered and discarded.

Only if we fully understand the impact of a particular route selection can we make rational comments on its effect. If a Richmond route rips out 200 mature oak trees and the open greenspace on the esplanade, well we need to understand that impact in the report and weigh it against the impact of a Westheimer alignment (where there is no esplanade by the way.)

Besides, Westheimer was never seriously fleshed-out. When they killed it they said they would reconsider if there was interest -- well, I'm interested, and I think others are too. Now it's timely to ask METRO to add it to the DEIS.

[Highway6]

Besides, Westheimer was never seriously fleshed-out. Now it's time to ask METRO to add it to the DEIS.

Maybe because it had serious obvious flaws that made it undoable from the start...

Nope, the time to ask Metro to add it to the DEIS has come and gone... Sorry.

[RailOnWestheimer]

Maybe because it had serious obvious flaws that made it undoable from the start...

Maybe you don't personally like the Westheimer alternative, that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or can't be done.

It's never too late to reconsider a plan. It's only too late after the project has been installed already.

[Trae]

I would love that, but I would want it to go on Richmond until Weslayan, then swing north to Westheimer. With all of the changing routes though, this line will never get done. Typical Houston.