Stop the Rail Plans!

[ricco67]

First off, let's talk about some of the differences between the two cities:

Bogot

[jfre81]

trae, some routes that previously went directly to downtown were shortened by forcing people to get on the lrt for the ultimate portion of the ride. they have to get off, wait for train, and then continue on their journey downtown.

buses in a controlled access lane don't take as long as buses that interact with traffic, hence the brt. because the lrt here interacts with traffic travel times are increased from what they could be if a better design was implemented.

The controlled access lane still needs to be grade-separated to not be held up in traffic. The problems with the Red Line are due to the design of the Red Line (no grade separations) - not an inherent problem with LRT itself.

I think the perfect place for BRT would be Sugarland, Woodlands, and Kingwood. Kingwood would have hissy fits because they would lose a substantial portion of their median on Kingwood drive (an ideal placement).

Yeah, I think outer loop/suburbs is better for BRT, if it goes anywhere here. In any case, it's not like Houston has to totally choose either/or LRT/BRT to build out its transit system.

[musicman]

The controlled access lane still needs to be grade-separated to not be held up in traffic. The problems with the Red Line are due to the design of the Red Line (no grade separations) - not an inherent problem with LRT itself.

concur. I don't think anyone's doubting the technology. Implementation is the killer.

[N Judah]

Does Bogot

[Trae]

Many areas are getting "Signature Bus Service" which is similar to BRT.

[ricco67]

I also read somewhere that Bogota plans to convert their BRT to LRT in 10 years or so.

Assuming you mean BRT from those places to go into downtown, I'd say stick with Park and Rides.

Actually, I was refering for those areas to have a BRT for their "local" area and be a feeder to P&R and their local shopping and employment centers.

[wernicke]

So when are they going to officially start construction on these new lines? Previously, I thought it was planned for April 2008...

[ricco67]

I've been getting conflicting information for months. I was recently told that they haven't acquired all of the land they need yet, but other people haven't even mentioned this to me yet.

[jfre81]

We're probably looking at mid-2013 completion, at best, at this point...

[woolie]

Glad to see this thread has cooled off a bit.

Can we have trolleybus service on "Signature Lines?"

I was in SF over the weekend.

[wernicke]

This article from today ties into our discussion about delays and material costs:

Soaring costs of materials...

Like I said previously... the longer you wait, the more you pay. If we're gonna build it regardless, it would be better to start yesterday than a year from now (assuming planning is complete, which it isn't).

[rsb320]

LOL....with these more accurate numbers do you think it will be?

according to texas freeways....It is one of Houston's few remaining freeways in its as-constructed 1960's configuration.

No, they squeezed more lanes in the 80's or 90's. I think I remember that they took out the shoulders and made them lanes.

[musicman]

No, they squeezed more lanes in the 80's or 90's. I think I remember that they took out the shoulders and made them lanes.

they added the hov but the roadbed is the same.

[roadrunner]

Best take I've seen on this issue in Kuff's blog. It pretty much illustrates everything I feel about the issue.

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/011492.html

[CALMSP]

has there been any confirmed dates for the construction to start on the university line??? or is this going to be a luxury my grandchildren can play with??

[editor]

Here's a new note about BRT...

Chicago is going to start a trial BRT program. Four routes, 10.2 miles total, $153 million.

This in a city that already has an extensive subway, elevated rail, and heavy commuter rail system. Whoda thunk it?

[houstonmacbro]

Here's a new note about BRT...

Chicago is going to start a trial BRT program. Four routes, 10.2 miles total, $153 million.

This in a city that already has an extensive subway, elevated rail, and heavy commuter rail system. Whoda thunk it?

I think they've got to get people around and don't have decades to waste trying to build new (permanent and extremely costly) rail lines. Sounds like they saw the future and it was BRT.

[FoUTASportscaster]

In reviewing this thread, I didn't see one important thing in the LRT v BRT debate. I think it should be pointed out that while LRT has higher capital costs, it has lower operating costs than BRT. Electric engines are always easier and cheaper to maintain than combustible engines. If capacity increases on LRT, all you need to do is add another. The train is still operated by the one person and energy costs double. In BRT, you need another completely new bus with another driver, essentially doubling all costs. The infrastructure is easier to maintain. Rails, unmaintained, can last decades. A concrete guideway can not. Central Expressway here in Dallas was completely rebuilt less than ten years ago and already has some potholes. The streetcar on the otherhand is still running on rails that were built in the 1800's. And I don't think I even need to talk about the price of diesel v electricity.

Even if the cost for LRT is higher in the short-term, lower everday costs are a huge plus.

[editor]

[kylejack]

Trains can carry far more people than buses, and its easier to load many people at once. The fact that its jam-packed on my Light Rail ride every morning is proof that its a popular and effective transit option. They need more doubles on the Red line, and more lines.

[wernicke]

Trains can carry far more people than buses, and its easier to load many people at once. The fact that its jam-packed on my Light Rail ride every morning is proof that its a popular and effective transit option. They need more doubles on the Red line, and more lines.

I love riding the rail. And the small taste of Metro's bus transportation I got after Ike was not good. People may pooh-pooh rail bias, but it does exist and for good reason.

[TheNiche]

Trains can carry far more people than buses, and its easier to load many people at once. The fact that its jam-packed on my Light Rail ride every morning is proof that its a popular and effective transit option. They need more doubles on the Red line, and more lines.

That the Red Line is popular only proves that the Red Line is popular. And it should be. It connects the two largest employment centers in the region, acts as a replacement shuttle system between the TMC and outlying parking lots, and has numerous parks, stadia, and museums along the route. Never mind that METRO has used it as a funnel for bus passengers, this was low-hanging fruit. The University Line is the next lowest because it'll tap all the bus traffic coming out of Southwest Houston and also patch in to Uptown and Greenway. Lines such as the East End, North, and Southeast are probably really bad ideas, though; that stuff just replaces busses.

...and no matter how much ridership any of these lines get, at-grade light rail doesn't usually integrate well with the existing transportation infrastructure. Once again, the Red Line was low-hanging fruit because much of it had adjacent parallel one-way streets to handle displaced traffic (and even then, it has impacts on traffic that crosses it). No other proposed route has the advantages that the Red Line does.

[wernicke]

That the Red Line is popular only proves that the Red Line is popular. And it should be. It connects the two largest employment centers in the region, acts as a replacement shuttle system between the TMC and outlying parking lots, and has numerous parks, stadia, and museums along the route. Never mind that METRO has used it as a funnel for bus passengers, this was low-hanging fruit. The University Line is the next lowest because it'll tap all the bus traffic coming out of Southwest Houston and also patch in to Uptown and Greenway. Lines such as the East End, North, and Southeast are probably really bad ideas, though; that stuff just replaces busses.

To me, the University and Uptown lines both seem to be the next "lowest hanging fruit". The other lines serve populations dependent on public transportation and although they may not yield the same sort of ridership numbers, in time, I believe these lines will catalyze private development along the rail that will provide lasting benefits for Houston...

And the goal should be to invest in an interconnected system of rail, looking to the future as Houston's core becomes more dense (and the development of commuter rail will eventually tap into this system).

Also, in the coming decades, I think grade separation at problematic areas could be revisited... but it is better to build the framework now at a lower relative cost than building later.

[TheNiche]

To me, the University and Uptown lines both seem to be the next "lowest hanging fruit". The other lines serve populations dependent on public transportation and although they may not yield the same sort of ridership numbers, in time, I believe these lines will catalyze private development along the rail that will provide lasting benefits for Houston...

And the goal should be to invest in an interconnected system of rail, looking to the future as Houston's core becomes more dense (and the development of commuter rail will eventually tap into this system).

Also, in the coming decades, I think grade separation at problematic areas could be revisited... but it is better to build the framework now at a lower relative cost than building later.

...yeah, I think that the notion that local governments reliant upon property taxes to make huge capital investments on a totally speculative basis, just hoping for higher property tax revenue as a result, is one of those concepts that needs to go in the thread about antiquated ideas that aren't cool any more.

...same goes for the ridiculous notion that the inflation-adjusted cost of building things is always going to increase.

For the most part, we already have the rights of way (and to the extent that we do not, I would concur that we do need to pre-emptively acquire and preserve it), but we can't force developers to build anything around it (Red Line a good case in point). Therefore we need a policy of 'if they come we will build it'. Not the other way around.

[wernicke]

...yeah, I think that the notion that local governments reliant upon property taxes to make huge capital investments on a totally speculative basis, just hoping for higher property tax revenue as a result, is one of those concepts that needs to go in the thread about antiquated ideas that aren't cool any more.

...same goes for the ridiculous notion that the inflation-adjusted cost of building things is always going to increase.

For the most part, we already have the rights of way (and to the extent that we do not, I would concur that we do need to pre-emptively acquire and preserve it), but we can't force developers to build anything around it (Red Line a good case in point). Therefore we need a policy of 'if they come we will build it'. Not the other way around.

I disagree... since the Red Line, we have seen an outright explosion of development in the TMC (where there is no parking and employees are reliant on rail to get to work), we have seen Houston Pavilions and MainPlace pop up on Main St, citing proximity to rail as a valuable asset, and, although Midtown has not lived up to expectations secondary to speculative land grabs and price gouging, I am quite confident that transit-oriented developments will eventually pop up here (they are proposed at the McGowen and Ensemble/HCC stops). These things take time, particularly with difficult credit markets. You cannot build rail, and expect within 5 years all of these private developments to emerge... these are long-term investments.

And are you saying the cost of metal/materials/labor is not going to increase in the next decade or so, which is the time-frame we are discussing??

[musicman]

I disagree... since the Red Line, we have seen an outright explosion of development in the TMC (where there is no parking and employees are reliant on rail to get to work)

expansion in the TMC was going to happen period. employees were parking in the same outlying lot and taking in buses already.

[TheNiche]

I disagree... since the Red Line, we have seen an outright explosion of development in the TMC (where there is no parking and employees are reliant on rail to get to work), we have seen Houston Pavilions and MainPlace pop up on Main St, citing proximity to rail as a valuable asset, and, although Midtown has not lived up to expectations secondary to speculative land grabs and price gouging, I am quite confident that transit-oriented developments will eventually pop up here (they are proposed at the McGowen and Ensemble/HCC stops). These things take time, particularly with difficult credit markets. You cannot build rail, and expect within 5 years all of these private developments to emerge... these are long-term investments.

Dude, the light rail was completed in 2004. It has been through the ridiculously good credit markets of the last several years. Several apartment complexes have been built nearby but not along the rail. Numerous others have been built in nearby neighborhoods but not within walking distance the the rail.

I don't begrudge you that there have been projects along or near Main Street, but as musicman points out, it is hard to attribute them as a consequence of the light rail service. Even Houston Pavilions got scaled back, and would never have been built in any form had it not been for immense City of Houston contributions.

As the rail system is expanded and integrated regionally, I have little doubt that it will spur meaningful development...eventually. But as an investment in urban form it is a pitifully low-yielding one.

And are you saying the cost of metal/materials/labor is not going to increase in the next decade or so, which is the time-frame we are discussing??

Productivity and real wages will probably increase, but if your justification to build something right now is that we'll be too wealthy in the future to afford it, you might want to rethink that logic.

Edited October 14, 2008 by TheNiche

[wernicke]

Productivity and real wages will probably increase, but if your justification to build something right now is that we'll be too wealthy in the future to afford it, you might want to rethink that logic.

I'm saying light rail in Houston is an inevitability, whether you like it or not, and that investing now makes a lot more sense than waiting longer (it will undeniably be more expensive the longer we wait).

And while the TMC was expanding previously, the light rail has certainly had an impact. Texas Childrens' just built a 1500+ car garage at the Smithlands stop to provide parking for their massive expansion projects along Fannin. The Methodist Inpatient expansion is massive, undoubtedly these employees will ride the rail. Would a simple bus shuttle from the surface lots that are already full have been feasible to move the tens of thousands of people who have been added to the workforce since 2004? Unlikely without adding significant congestion to a highly congested area.

Unless you have rode on a jam-packed double car train into the TMC during rush hour, I think it is hard to appreciate the rail's impact on mobility in this area.

[kylejack]

That the Red Line is popular only proves that the Red Line is popular. And it should be. It connects the two largest employment centers in the region, acts as a replacement shuttle system between the TMC and outlying parking lots, and has numerous parks, stadia, and museums along the route. Never mind that METRO has used it as a funnel for bus passengers, this was low-hanging fruit. The University Line is the next lowest because it'll tap all the bus traffic coming out of Southwest Houston and also patch in to Uptown and Greenway. Lines such as the East End, North, and Southeast are probably really bad ideas, though; that stuff just replaces busses.

...and no matter how much ridership any of these lines get, at-grade light rail doesn't usually integrate well with the existing transportation infrastructure. Once again, the Red Line was low-hanging fruit because much of it had adjacent parallel one-way streets to handle displaced traffic (and even then, it has impacts on traffic that crosses it). No other proposed route has the advantages that the Red Line does.

All those abandoned warehouses in the East End are fertile ground for redevelopment, and rail is just the right seed to plant. With UH just across the highway from the Third Ward, there's potential there as well to increase mobility for students. Since a lot of that is abandoned warehouses, it also makes the land acquisition less abrasive than, say, cutting through an established neighborhood.

Edit: Not to say that Third Ward isn't an established neighborhood. But there's still space to cut through without disrupting many homes.

Edited October 14, 2008 by kylejack

[N Judah]

Hey, that's how transportation works. Build it first, and development comes later. So what?