Stop the Rail Plans!

[cnote]

why doesn't it?

a little bit of a tangent but since you asked...there are many reasons but I think the crux is that people avoid and plan around congested freeways...when capacity is added and traffic begins to flow, people begin making more trips on the freeway until it is congested again and the process reverses. So I guess it has to do with seemingly unlimited amount of "trips" that people will use on the freeway, no matter how wide you build it. Not to mention the fact that expanding freeways to keep up with the number of drivers added every year would be impossible.

Some people with better intraweb skills can probably pull up numerous study's and papers that support this argument...

[KinkaidAlum]

a little bit of a tangent but since you asked...there are many reasons but I think the crux is that people avoid and plan around congested freeways...when capacity is added and traffic begins to flow, people begin making more trips on the freeway until it is congested again and the process reverses. So I guess it has to do with seemingly unlimited amount of "trips" that people will use on the freeway, no matter how wide you build it. Not to mention the fact that expanding freeways to keep up with the number of drivers added every year would be impossible.

Some people with better intraweb skills can probably pull up numerous study's and papers that support this argument...

That's a part of it.

A bigger part of it is this;

Expanded and improved freeways = New Development

New Development = Sprawling communities, schools, and malls further from the center city

New Sprawl = More cars on the highway

More cars on the highway = worsening traffic

Worsening traffic = Increased Gridlock

Increased Gridlock = Demands for new or bigger freeways

This has been the cycle in Houston for far too long. It's a developer's wet dream situation and we keep buying into it as a region.

[Trae]

Should have built it when the chance was there. Dallas' DART is going through the same problem with the Orange Line, and it is going to cost them over one billion now.

I still say build it as light rail and forget about BRT in dedicated lanes, UNLESS you want to pay more in the future for an upgrade to LRT.

The Katy freeway will have a vehicle count of around 250,000 per day, many of those with multiple passengers in the car, meaning that much more than 250,000 people will use it on a daily basis. All the light rails lines might average what, 70-80k(?) people per day, given rosy estimates....and would cost ~50% of the cost of the Katy freeway? No thanks. This doesn't even take into account the goods and freight moved along the Katy Freeway.

I'm all for cost containment, but the Katy Freeway looks to be the better deal here.

I would say 200K+ easily for the lines metro plans to be complete by 2012. The Red Line alone is at almost 50K, and the University Line itself should get there no problem. Add in the Uptown, Southeast (UH, TCU, etc.), and East End lines, and you have a lot of riders.

so that makes it ok?

So, you take out that statement out of his whole post?

[Trae]

delete...

[N Judah]

I've always said that the longer they wait to do this s--t the more expensive it will be. I guess I was right! Kudos to the pro-freeway crowd for disingenuously stalling by pretending to care about something called BRT which nobody had ever heard of until Houston tried to build light rail.

Like others, I don't remember the blogs freaking out this badly when the I-10 expansion costs doubled. Hrm.

But having said that, I think there is a straightforward solution: get more federal funding. Nobody batted an eye when the Katy Freeway expansion costs doubled mainly because everyone knew they weren't the ones paying for it (as if the man on the street could tell you about vehicle projections or any of that crap, or even the total cost of the I-10 expansion). Who's on our side in D.C. ? If other places can get a "bridge to nowhere" for easy billions why can't we get a "mass transit to the city core" for less than that?

But having said that I think this is a fine time to switch over to a real subway type of line. Something that will be an engineering feat -- another wonder of the world that we can really be proud of.

[T 2 THA C]

so that makes it ok?

No!!! Did I say that, I just think that its over hyped because everything goes up but the pay I take home.

[roadrunner]

I would love to hear any other solutions, but I really don't think there are any. Use that money to improve the bus system? The streets are already crowded with buses...and I thought we are trying to reduce congestion.

And if it truly is the construction costs that are driving the soaring price, then BRT isn't going to be much cheaper. LRT is still the only logical option left. And how much money has Metro already spent on LRT studies? Are they just going to start from scratch after 4-5 years of planning and engineering?

[musicman]

No!!! Did I say that, I just think that its over hyped because everything goes up but the pay I take home.

ah ok..thought that was your justification.

[musicman]

a little bit of a tangent but since you asked...there are many reasons but I think the crux is that people avoid and plan around congested freeways...when capacity is added and traffic begins to flow, people begin making more trips on the freeway until it is congested again and the process reverses. So I guess it has to do with seemingly unlimited amount of "trips" that people will use on the freeway, no matter how wide you build it. Not to mention the fact that expanding freeways to keep up with the number of drivers added every year would be impossible.

it is only common sense that people will try and take the path of least resistance. however at the same time, a city must make continuing efforts to maintain traffic flow for most of day otherwise the local economy is affected. over the last 40 yrs, the city has basically done everything it could to keep traffic moving without a major reconstruction. It put in an HOV, installed metered entrances, limited who can be in HOV lane, built westpark tollway, etc. the city could severely meter the freeway so that fewer people could enter but it would cause havoc for all surrounding areas. at this point, we've reached a critical mass and now traffic is slow during many non rush hr periods. remember it was only designed to carry about 100k vehicles and is handling more than double that currently.

txdot polled all the communities affected and concensus was no decking which meant widening the corridor. txdot's design added an additional feeder lane, main lane and 2 toll lanes in each direction. even more than that, merge lanes are being moved to ensure better flow, tolls can be varied realtime to ensure traffic flow is maintained, etc. minimizing congestion is more than removing cars from roads. it is also designing so that the opportunities for creating bottlenecks are minimzed.

having multiple entities involved was also a new idea. getting the toll road authority involved helped the project along because more financing could be obtained to finish the project in a shorter period.

[JLWM8609]

And, the Katy did not need full replacement, complete with expansion to 440 feet of concrete. Replacement of bad concrete and an asphalt overlay would do. No, the movers and shakers wanted a shiny new replacement, with cute Texas outlines on the bridges, and new landscaping. That's fine, but some of us want a shiny new train instead of a bus, also.

That was done back in 1984 when the HOV lane was added. You can only patchwork concrete roadbeds and overlay with asphalt so much before deep rehab is needed. They also needed to raise some overpasses which were quite low and not to current TxDOT specs, the lowest at Campbell Rd. being built back in the early 50s. The full replacement was needed, six lanes and no interior shoulders just won't handle the traffic out there. Could you imagine what the Eastex Freeway would be like if it was still 4 lanes north of 610 instead of the 10-14 lanes it is now?

[woolie]

The cost of cancer treatment is going up, ergo, we should stop treating people with expensive drugs and instead substitute the less expensive "faith healing."

Look peeps. All transportation infrastructure is horrendously expensive. But if you don't build the expensive infrastructure, the results will be immediately obvious. For many years the sewer system in the core of the city was inadequate, pushing development to the margins like the Galleria. Uptown is overbuilt with woefully inadequate transportation infrastructure and midtown became a ghost village. Avoiding one problem can lead to multiple bad outcomes. EOF.

[cnote]

That's a part of it.

A bigger part of it is this;

Expanded and improved freeways = New Development

New Development = Sprawling communities, schools, and malls further from the center city

New Sprawl = More cars on the highway

More cars on the highway = worsening traffic

Worsening traffic = Increased Gridlock

Increased Gridlock = Demands for new or bigger freeways

This has been the cycle in Houston for far too long. It's a developer's wet dream situation and we keep buying into it as a region.

I was assuming that everyone realized new freeways lead to new developments and more cars...I was trying to explain why sometimes widening a road may not have the intended impact even immediately following construction. New development takes some time, although not long here in Houston.

Also, we should keep in mind that big cheap houses in pretty master planned communities along sprawling freeways filled with strip centers and malls are a consumers wet dream...maybe not for the folks on this board, but for many.

it is only common sense that people will try and take the path of least resistance.

you ask the question and then tell me the answer is common sense???

[musicman]

you ask the question and then tell me the answer is common sense???

your statement that i questioned was that expanding freeways doesn't help the congestion situation.

you repliedI think the crux is that people avoid and plan around congested freeways

to which i responded that (above) is common sense with the caveat that katy freeway has reached its critical mass and must be modified.

[cnote]

your statement that i questioned was that expanding freeways doesn't help the congestion situation.

you repliedI think the crux is that people avoid and plan around congested freeways

to which i responded that (above) is common sense with the caveat that katy freeway has reached its critical mass and must be modified.

I see...well soon the new Katy will be gridlocked as well...they are already building planned communities in Fulshear, next stop Sealy!!!

[musicman]

I see...well soon the new Katy will be gridlocked as well...

and the solution is?

[cnote]

and the solution is?

Birth control???...Economic Slowdown???...Building commuter rail from the suburbs???...Gas price increases until people ride the busses??....

It's the million dollar question...

EDIT::: Just so everyone knows the first two are sarcasm...don't want any angry Catholics flaming me...

[houstonmacbro]

I never thought I'd see bad traffic north of Greenspoint, but the stretch between West Road to Spring is a parking lot in the afternoons. Freeways are not the answer to our long term transportation issues.

[cnote]

Birth control???...Economic Slowdown???...Building commuter rail from the suburbs???...Gas price increases until people ride the busses??....

It's the million dollar question...

EDIT::: Just so everyone knows the first two are sarcasm...don't want any angry Catholics flaming me...

And just for clarification I favor building rail to the suburbs...heavy or light, doesn't matter. The cheapest one I suppose.

[houstonmacbro]

And just for clarification I favor building rail to the suburbs...heavy or light, doesn't matter. The cheapest one I suppose.

If not rail to the 'burbs could we get fast, dedicated bus lanes (not those that they share with cars!) and more frequent service.

[Jax]

and the solution is?

I think it's more about alternatives than solutions at this point. Not everyone wants to drive everywhere, especially in traffic. Giving people an alternative to driving everywhere will make Houston a more desirable place to live in the long run.

[cnote]

If not rail to the 'burbs could we get fast, dedicated bus lanes (not those that they share with cars!) and more frequent service.

I second that...I think that would help immensly, and talk about cost effective!

EDIT:::I said earlier that I love the park and ride except for the extent to which it is affected by wrecks on the freeway and other cars in teh HOV.

[musicman]

And just for clarification I favor building rail to the suburbs...heavy or light, doesn't matter. The cheapest one I suppose.

with multiple employment centers in houston, how cost effective will this be for everyone in the burbs? METRO's updated data offered an estimate of 133 million per mile for their light rail system.

[cnote]

with multiple employment centers in houston, how cost effective will this be for everyone in the burbs? METRO's updated data offered an estimate of 133 million per mile for their light rail system.

The go heavy rail on existing tracks where they are available, and build new ones where they are not. Also, as was stated earlier, a bus with a dedicated lane, not shared by other cars could be as effective and much cheaper...

[houstonmacbro]

I think the main thing we should be looking at is MOBILITY for the MASSES and not just costs. Heck, it was also expensive to go to the moon and look at all the benefits we derived from that...

At least this would help Houstonians now and in the future. What happens when the population of this city doubles, or heck, let's just say another 1 million people in the next 10 years.

We are gonna be cursing the very freeways we love.

[musicman]

The go heavy rail on existing tracks where they are available, and build new ones where they are not. Also, as was stated earlier, a bus with a dedicated lane, not shared by other cars could be as effective and much cheaper...

Union Pacific has stated their tracks are too busy for METRO's use. how will land be obtained for the new corridors you are proposing without affecting more people than it will serve?

The issue with the bus in a dedicated lane is that limiting the lane to only buses wastes resources because their frequency is less i.e. there is too much unused capacity. all alternatives on the katy due to capacity issues have been exhausted. having 2 controlled lanes in each direction gives transtar, city/county more flexibility in offering longer term solutions because traffic in 1/3 of the lanes will be controlled vs. 1/7 now.

[musicman]

I never thought I'd see bad traffic north of Greenspoint, but the stretch between West Road to Spring is a parking lot in the afternoons. Freeways are not the answer to our long term transportation issues.

an alternative could be to alter your work/school schedule so that worst can be avoided. have you tried that? and it doesn't cost a cent.

[cnote]

Union Pacific has stated their tracks are too busy for METRO's use. how will land be obtained for the new corridors you are proposing without affecting more people than it will serve?

Money talks with regard to UP. Also, how much land does it take to run a rail...maybe a thirty foot tract of land...how much was the Katy widened???certainly more than 30 feet. And I recall it affected many businesses.

an alternative could be to alter your work/school schedule so that worst can be avoided. have you tried that? and it doesn't cost a cent.

That is an excellent solution...but you must get businesses to buy in and allow their employees to take advantage, the vast majority are not able.

[houstonmacbro]

an alternative could be to alter your work/school schedule so that worst can be avoided. have you tried that? and it doesn't cost a cent.

I am not talking for me.

My commute is exactly 15 minutes or less. I live very close to work and thankfully avoid the freeways on my daily 'commute'. But I am not typical and not everyone lives 5 miles to their jobs on back roads and less traveled thoroughfares.

[woolie]

My door-to-door commute is 15 minutes by bicycle or 20 minutes using the train. It's nice. I generally only drive on the streets and avoid the freeways. It's remarkable how civil and pleasant life is when you don't deal with freeway congestion on a daily basis.

[musicman]

Also, how much land does it take to run a rail...maybe a thirty foot tract of land

LOL obtaining it is the problem.

That is an excellent solution...but you must get businesses to buy in and allow their employees to take advantage, the vast majority are not able.

if i know i'm leaving at a peak time, i do my grocery shopping and other errands prior to getting on the freeway so that i don't have to get in traffic. there are many things each of us can do to assuage the commute even if our employers don't allow a variation in schedule.

I am not talking for me.

ah so you don't have a problem with traffic?