Stop the Rail Plans!

[TheNiche]

This is excellent. Your true colors come out here all bright and shiny.

Cliff Notes Version goes sumthin' like this;

Govmint and Public stuff is bad. Private is good. (even though the private isn't private at all).

That said, there are a lot of powerful people who would PROFIT BIG TIME by this plan and we all know that profits rule the day until said time that the "privates" need bailing out by the public!

Read it again. But first read an introductory microeconomics textbook.

[N Judah]

If people use those new tollroads you build.

He's not going to build them. He's simply going to take existing freeways (the ones we have already paid for) and sell them to private developers. And instead of refunding the money to us somehow, he's going to fund a pet project which perpetuates and retroactively justifies the auto-centric lifestyle.

Edited April 9, 2008 by N Judah

[dmoneybangbang]

Sprawl has plenty of benefits, too, like inexpensive housing near employment centers. It is one of the most often overlooked benefits.

As for density, screw that. It's way too expensive.

Sure it is, and part of strategy is timing. You don't honestly expect La Grange to build itself a subway system, do you?

There may come a day--you never know--but this isn't it.

Support this claim.

Why would you spend billions of dollars on transit for poor people? Wouldn't it be more important to see what social class causes most of the congestion. Perhaps you can post some studies that justify spending billions of dollars on poor people who don'ty work in concentrated employment centers?

[Trae]

^^How do those nice, shiny office towers in Downtown get clean?

Niche, your plan is crazy.

[TheNiche]

He's not going to build them. He's simply going to take existing freeways (the ones we have already paid for) and sell them to private developers. And instead of refunding the money to us somehow, he's going to fund a pet project which perpetuates and retroactively justifies the auto-centric lifestyle.

Yes, that is correct. But to dismiss the subsidized vehicle rental plan as a pet project is somewhat disingenuous. I'm replacing the kind of transportation that they use with one that is probably only a little bit more expensive but which opens up economic opportunities to them as well as prospective employers.

[TheNiche]

Support this claim.

Why would you spend billions of dollars on transit for poor people? Wouldn't it be more important to see what social class causes most of the congestion. Perhaps you can post some studies that justify spending billions of dollars on poor people who don'ty work in concentrated employment centers?

Density gets very expensive. It costs more per square foot of built space for every additional floor that is built. I know this because I've priced out construction projects ranging from one-story to 30-story developments, and the trend is pretty much inescapable. The denser the development on a particular site, the higher the prices ultimately have to be (in per-square-foot terms) in order to justify it. I've explained the specific factors influencing this several times on HAIF.

That poor people tend to be more likely to find work in places not well served by transit such as in retail/services and in industrial parks would seem to better justify my argument that they need a kind of transportation with greater flexibility. And to the extent that they or more affluent folks work in more concentrated employment centers, that's what expanded P&R service is good for.

[Jax]

I am glad Nice is not in a position of power.

[TheNiche]

I am glad Nice is not in a position of power.

FWIW, so am I. There's no conceivable way I could make so little money and at the same time tolerate the vast majority of my peers, subordinates, or constituents.

[KinkaidAlum]

Read it again. But first read an introductory microeconomics textbook.

Trust me, once was enough.

[ricco67]

Trust me, once was enough.

I hear ya'. My kiddo is taking that this year. I warned her it was going to be a snoozefest unless she's REALLY into it or has a kickin' professor.

[wernicke]

A lot of a certain person's ramblings seem to ignore the fact that the majority electorate of Houston voted for Metro's LRT expansion in 2003. We live in a democracy and LRT is what the people want.

In my view, the only remaining questions have to do with planning and implementation.

[houstonmacbro]

As we ponder this, take a read of this article:

Los Angeles' Future in Mobility: Many Goals But Many Obstacles

[musicman]

As we ponder this, take a read of this article:

Los Angeles' Future in Mobility: Many Goals But Many Obstacles

sounds like they know rail isn't the solution to their problem so they are going to implement rapid bus lines in areas where density won't support LRT and expand their HOV system.

[jfre81]

It surely sounds like there are a lot of people who think BRT is always much cheaper than LRT, but none of them have cited any sources. The buses and bus lanes are going to have to be maintained like anything else.

[TheNiche]

A lot of a certain person's ramblings seem to ignore the fact that the majority electorate of Houston voted for Metro's LRT expansion in 2003. We live in a democracy and LRT is what the people want.

In my view, the only remaining questions have to do with planning and implementation.

I ignore nothing. I fully comprehend that 52% of the electorate of Houston is rather short-sighted. But at the same time, the referendum only allows METRO to build rapid transit; it does not compel METRO to build, however.

A new mayor able to stock the METRO board with anti-rail reformers could kill METRO Solutions pretty much at his or her discretion.

[jfre81]

I'm having a hard time telling if you really believe this or if you're just being "Niche" for the sake of doing so....

People who vote for rail are short-sighted? That's a good one...

[TheNiche]

It surely sounds like there are a lot of people who think BRT is always much cheaper than LRT, but none of them have cited any sources. The buses and bus lanes are going to have to be maintained like anything else.

BRT infrastructure consists of formed concrete. It should be obvious that that is less expensive than trackage and overhead electrical systems. The busses are considerably less expensive, as has been reported by the Houston Chronicle in the past. And I'm not sure about BRT vs. LRT operating costs, but maintenance of formed concrete is a hell of a lot easier than of tracks and overhead electrical equipment.

Its all about the marginal cost difference.

I'm having a hard time telling if you really believe this or if you're just being "Niche" for the sake of doing so....

People who vote for rail are short-sighted? That's a good one...

Read my sig. I'm very serious.

[jfre81]

BRT infrastructure consists of formed concrete. It should be obvious that that is less expensive than trackage and overhead electrical systems. The busses are considerably less expensive, as has been reported by the Houston Chronicle in the past. And I'm not sure about BRT vs. LRT operating costs, but maintenance of formed concrete is a hell of a lot easier than of tracks and overhead electrical equipment.

Its all about the marginal cost difference.

That formed concrete also contains reinforcing steel. "Formed concrete" pretty much makes up I-10 that we just reconstructed to the tune of $3B.

[musicman]

It surely sounds like there are a lot of people who think BRT is always much cheaper than LRT, but none of them have cited any sources.

LOL, did you read the first post?

Edited April 9, 2008 by musicman

[woolie]

You don't need high rises to achieve transit density. The vast majority of the buildings can be 3-5 stories... essentially in a slightly different and denser configuration than the creeping proliferation of "garden apartments" we've seen in the past 30 years. So other than increased land value, I'm not seeing how the construction cost itself is prohibitively larger than what people already pay to construct this type of housing.

[jfre81]

LOL, did you read the first post?

What, you mean the link that thinks that Minute Maid Park would only cost $133M to build today? I stopped reading after that.

[RedScare]

What, you mean the link that thinks that Minute Maid Park would only cost $133M to build today? I stopped reading after that.

Touche.

[TheNiche]

You don't need high rises to achieve transit density. The vast majority of the buildings can be 3-5 stories... essentially in a slightly different and denser configuration than the creeping proliferation of "garden apartments" we've seen in the past 30 years. So other than increased land value, I'm not seeing how the construction cost itself is prohibitively larger than what people already pay to construct this type of housing.

So you would contend that two-story garden-style apartments have hard costs that are approximately the same as a four-story wrap?

Wrong-o.

That formed concrete also contains reinforcing steel. "Formed concrete" pretty much makes up I-10 that we just reconstructed to the tune of $3B.

Yep, but I-10 is a superhighway. I'm talking about a bus lane. Lets try to keep it apples-to-apples.

Edited April 9, 2008 by TheNiche

[N Judah]

Yes, that is correct. But to dismiss the subsidized vehicle rental plan as a pet project is somewhat disingenuous. I'm replacing the kind of transportation that they use with one that is probably only a little bit more expensive but which opens up economic opportunities to them as well as prospective employers.

I think it would be disingenuous to trap poor people in an expensive auto-centric paradigm and then pretend to help them by trapping them in it even further by pretending their acceptance of that paradigm is some kind of justification for eliminating any possible alternatives.

Edited April 9, 2008 by N Judah

[TheNiche]

I think it would be disingenuous to trap poor people in an expensive auto-centric paradigm and then pretend to help them by trapping them in it even further by pretending their acceptance of that paradigm is some kind of justification for eliminating any possible alternatives.

You believe it to be an expensive paradigm. I believe it to be a lucrative opportunity. A quick Google search reveals that researchers at the Brookings Institute seem to agree with me.

[jfre81]

Yep, but I-10 is a superhighway. I'm talking about a bus lane. Lets try to keep it apples-to-apples.

All right....here's your apples. So you're cool with scrapping the whole LRT plan and going back to square one with BRT? This is going to cause delays which will mean - OMGWTF?!?!?! - more inflation and material cost increases that would make it as expensive in the long run as going along with the current plan. That's why this thread even exists.

They should have been putting in LRT back when Minute Maid Park could be built for $133M. *snicker*

[musicman]

What, you mean the link that thinks that Minute Maid Park would only cost $133M to build today? I stopped reading after that.

even before that, the FTA references METRO's own numbers on the change from BRT to LRT.

it said you could build a minute maid park every 2 miles, not 1.

Edited April 9, 2008 by musicman

[TheNiche]

All right....here's your apples. So you're cool with scrapping the whole LRT plan and going back to square one with BRT? This is going to cause delays which will mean - OMGWTF?!?!?! - more inflation and material cost increases that would make it as expensive in the long run as going along with the current plan. That's why this thread even exists.

They should have been putting in LRT back when Minute Maid Park could be built for $133M. *snicker*

So we're back to this inflation thing? Been there, done that.

[jfre81]

even before that, the FTA references METRO's own numbers on the change from BRT to LRT.

Doesn't matter. That they would be so disingenuous when referencing expenses going up because of inflation and material cost increases makes it amount to nothing in my eyes.

LRT v. BRT

Some more interesting reading...brings up a lot of the maintenance problems with BRT, but seems to come over the middle in the LRT/BRT debate....

[musicman]

Doesn't matter.

so numbers from the governing organization mean nothing? yet a presentation by a pro-transportation group is valid?