Stop the Rail Plans!

[woolie]

Sounds like we need usage fees for sidewalks.

Oh, and I'll stand by my $12 vs. $2 comparison until the heat death of the universe, given that it was simply a count of my out of pocket expense for each mode. You can argue about which mode is more subsidized as much as you'd like.

Parking is only free when the land values are very low. Everywhere else, it's paid for either directly or indirectly through higher prices. When I take the train, I avoid paying rent on 300 sq ft for the duration of my visit. In most dense parts of Houston, this 300 sq ft costs between $5 and $15 per day. In the TMC specifically, it's $12 for any length over 3 hours.

Edited April 8, 2008 by woolie

[jgriff]

How is adding a ton of capacity into the Inner Loop not like adding in a new freeway?

For one thing freeways carry a lot more than just people.

We all pay for freeways with our taxes but at least all of us get to use them. Even if you never drive on them your groceries and just about everything else you own was delivered by them.

[musicman]

What are we gaining by waiting, whining, and debating this thing to death?

Do you make important purchases after planning? or do you just buy a product and just find out afterwards that it doesn't do what you want it to do?

[Trae]

For one thing freeways carry a lot more than just people.

We all pay for freeways with our taxes but at least all of us get to use them. Even if you never drive on them your groceries and just about everything else you own was delivered by them.

That's the only thing. Freeways carry goods. Light rail carries people and does not pollute the air.

[woolie]

That's the only thing. Freeways carry goods. Light rail carries people and does not pollute the air.

Sure it does, indirectly. It depends on how much of the electricity it uses is generated by hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, or wind. In Houston, it's about 50% natural gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear and other. If we have a complete analysis that takes into account the average kWh energy used per passenger mile for rail and the air emissions per kWh from the generating sources, and compare it to the average kWh used per passenger mile (generated by burning gas or diesel..) used by a car then we can compare air emissions for each mode directly. But anyway the short answer is that rail is very energy efficient compared to auto transit, and with better options for non-polluting energy sources.

Edited April 8, 2008 by woolie

[TheNiche]

People use those sidewalks don't they? Add in more sidewalks (wide, etc.), and more people will use them.

Yeah, just like they use the big new sidewalk along Holly Hall so much. It's so fancy that it has its own railroad crossing arms that swing down in the event that a freight train comes by, but in spite of all the apartment complexes that are adjacent and in spite of the LRT stop at Reliant Park, it doesn't get a tremendous amount of use.

[woolie]

You won't have sidewalk use without density or poverty.

btw niche, how do you manage to get into your car while carrying that sig line?

Edited April 8, 2008 by woolie

[TheNiche]

Wouldn't it benefit Houstonians to get this thing built?

Perhaps, presuming it is built in such a way as doesn't harm us. But it will also cost us money. Scarce money. Money from our pockets. METRO should not be confused with the U.S. Treasury.

Honestly, I think the red line is a joke and only serves a small portion of the city dwellers (inside and outside of the loop) that need high speed, reliable transport in, out and around the city.

Concur.

What are we gaining by waiting, whining, and debating this thing to death?

Probably nothing. I don't think it can be waited, whined, or debated to death. I think it is invincible and lacks appropriate oversight. The beast is hungry. It wants your money.

I think if we built rail right up Westheimer, people would scream initially and then they'd adjust and then they'd love it.

...yeah, sure just like all us HAIFers, continuing to argue about the Red Line four years after its completion?

I think if we built it a rail line from Katy to downtown, straight down I10 people would gripe and then adopt. And then love it.

See above.

If we did the same thing up I45 to Greenspoint, the same thing would happen.

See above.

So, why not get started, as planned or even with a modified plan. Maybe they've already started and we (I) just don't know?

Quite possibly. It is entirely possible that METRO possesses a device which renders one and one's construction projects completely invisible to every human sense, and that one day they'll turn it off and in a flash, we'll have transit.

Very plausible.

[zaphod]

Ever heard the joke "Nobody in New York drives because there is too much traffic"?

Any kind of quality transit, whether it's rail or something else, is a boost to people's quality of lives because they can avoid congestion and potentially save a lot of money. How is this not "progess"

Edited April 8, 2008 by zaphod

[TheNiche]

Sure it does, indirectly. It depends on how much of the electricity it uses is generated by hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, or wind. In Houston, it's about 50% natural gas, 30% coal, 20% nuclear and other. If we have a complete analysis that takes into account the average kWh energy used per passenger mile for rail and the air emissions per kWh from the generating sources, and compare it to the average kWh used per passenger mile (generated by burning gas or diesel..) used by a car then we can compare air emissions for each mode directly. But anyway the short answer is that rail is very energy efficient compared to auto transit, and with better options for non-polluting energy sources.

How about we just spend the LRT money on hybrids for poor people? In fact, how about we totally eliminate METRO and use those monies exclusively on hybrids for poor people?

I'd be more in favor of that because the flexibility of automobiles would allow poorer households without reliable transportation to places of employment to have better opportunities in life, which is beneficial to both them and prospective employers such as myself.

As for the TMC, if those institutions want transit, let them pay for it themselves.

You won't have sidewalk use without density or poverty.

btw niche, how do you manage to get into your car while carrying that sig line?

The neighborhood I'm referring to is actually one of the denser parts of all of Houston. And its lower-middle class.

Any kind of quality transit, whether it's rail or something else, is a boost to people's quality of lives because they can avoid congestion and potentially save a lot of money.

How is this not "progess"

Is it totally lost upon you that when government does something, you pay for it?

[tierwestah]

Since you live in Third Ward, what do they think of the University Line plans?

Alot of people in third Ward believe that rail is a form of gentrification and there are alot opposed and some indifferent. But to tell you the truth, when i'm home in the TRE, my peer of neighbors rarely bring up political matters.

The oil argument doesn't cut it, either. When oil gets truely expensive, then we can build transit. I don't have a problem with transit. I have a problem with inappropriate kinds of transit implemented incorrectly and at the wrong stage in a city's development. Btw, we're the nation's 4th largest City, but the 6th largest metropolitan area.

Spending lots of money on this kind of LRT at any point in time is not 'progress'. Spending lots of money on the right kind of LRT right now is not 'progress'. These are examples of waste.

I don't know about you but oil is already truly expensive. And the time to start getting the infrastructure is NOT after gas oil becomes too expensive. I strongly disagree with that assessment. Tell me what are your grandois ideas of correct implementation of transit? Tell me what's the right time? We're already running out of time as the urban core continues to densify.

I know i'm probably just wasting my time and brain cells going back and forth because I already know you're viewpoints aren't going to change.

[woolie]

I'm against relying on exclusive use of cars of any kind because they set hard limits on density, and this density threshold is well below any kind of "human scale" environment. I think the costs of sprawl are either understated or not counted at all, and it's a real drag on our lives and also our culture. This is the kernel of many people's pro-transit views.

Is it totally lost upon you that when government does something, you pay for it?

There are plenty of things I'd classify as "government waste." Most of the center around a certain overseas adventure. But I think transit is a worthwhile and acceptable use of government money. Transit as an integral part of a complete transportation strategy.

[TheNiche]

I don't know about you but oil is already truly expensive. And the time to start getting the infrastructure is NOT after gas oil becomes too expensive. I strongly disagree with that assessment. Tell me what are your grandois ideas of correct implementation of transit? Tell me what's the right time? We're already running out of time as the urban core continues to densify.

Say you're commuting 25 miles per day in a vehicle with 25 mpg. At $2 gas, you're paying about $60 each month. At $3 gas, you're paying about $90 each month, a $30 difference.

If you can't afford that, you've got problems (and are the perfect candidate for riding transit). But the caveat is that if you're that poor, then your time really isn't worth all that much, and giving you really expensive rapid transit probably isn't really in the best interests of society.

When gasoline gets expensive for the middle class (no, not how Lou Dobbs defines it), and they start trading in their SUVs for Honda Civics, then you'll know that gas is *almost* high enough. ...even then, probably not.

[TheNiche]

I'm against relying on exclusive use of cars of any kind because they set hard limits on density, and this density threshold is well below any kind of "human scale" environment. I think the costs of sprawl are either understated or not counted at all, and it's a real drag on our lives and also our culture. This is the kernel of many people's pro-transit views.

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.

There are plenty of things I'd classify as "government waste." Most of the center around a certain overseas adventure. But I think transit is a worthwhile and acceptable use of government money. Transit as an integral part of a complete transportation strategy.

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.

[woolie]

sigh, right? what's your transportation vision for a metro area of 7 million people, niche. continue expanding at a low density along existing freeway corridors? wouldn't that be a driver's paradise.

[C2H]

I would just give up on Niche. Like tierwester said, he's not going to change his viewpoints, no matter how little sense it makes.

But Kudos to him for not buckling down to the pressure and having the audacity to be the "different" one in all of this.

[urbancowboy]

There always seems to be this failure to address the change in land use that has to come about to make transit efficient. But, Trae is right in the sense that adding more lanes in to freeways isn't the best use of resources. Especially with the induced demand that expansions brings about. Also, sprawl in the long run is far more costly than the upfront cost of sustainable green development. Interestingly enough here in Philadelphia they are in the final stages of reconstructing the 100 year old el train line, I would like to see a freeway that last even half that long without total reconstruction. Oh and one more thing, the Center for Smart Growth in Maryland came out with a study that says that even if everyone were to switch to Hybrid cars that it wouldn't have nearly the impact as changes in land use and transit modes that promote dense green pedestrian friendly places. I am sorry, Pearland, Katy, and The Woodlands, but places like inner loop are the wave of the future. However, Katy, Pearland, have historic downtowns/centers near rail lines that will be perfect catalyst for TOD if commuter rail comes their way.

[Trae]

There always seems to be this failure to address the change in land use that has to come about to make transit efficient. But, Trae is right in the sense that adding more lanes in to freeways isn't the best use of resources. Especially with the induced demand that expansions brings about. Also, sprawl in the long run is far more costly than the upfront cost of sustainable green development. Interestingly enough here in Philadelphia they are in the final stages of reconstructing the 100 year old el train line, I would like to see a freeway that last even half that long without total reconstruction. Oh and one more thing, the Center for Smart Growth in Maryland came out with a study that says that even if everyone were to switch to Hybrid cars that it wouldn't have nearly the impact as changes in land use and transit modes that promote dense green pedestrian friendly places. I am sorry, Pearland, Katy, and The Woodlands, but places like inner loop are the wave of the future. However, Katy, Pearland, have historic downtowns/centers near rail lines that will be perfect catalyst for TOD if commuter rail comes their way.

We need more of you in this forum.

[Jax]

Amen, Urban Cowboy and Woolie. My thoughts exactly.

I'm not even going to reply to Niche...

[TheNiche]

sigh, right? what's your transportation vision for a metro area of 7 million people, niche. continue expanding at a low density along existing freeway corridors? wouldn't that be a driver's paradise.

Convert all existing freeways to toll roads, which would then be sold off to private investors. Sell off rights to construct new toll road corridors as well as tolled grade seperations at major intersections of grade-level arterials and at railroad tracks. Use the many billions of dollars of proceeds to set up a program by way of which poor people may lease inexpensive fuel-efficient vehicles at such a discount as they wouldn't dare drive around an old unreliable junker, forgo insurance, or ever under any circumstances use local transit provided by METRO. Eliminate all METRO services except for P&R, which would be expanded, adding more origins and destinations and providing more express service. Use remaining proceeds from the toll program (and there ought to be plenty) to purchase and hold straight-line corridors which may be used for inter-city transit on the order of maglev or TGV technology connecting the central business districts of major cities within Texas.

Any additional proceeds would be sold for a perpetuity, thus permenantly relieving some amount of the tax burden.

[roadrunner]

Convert all existing freeways to toll roads, which would then be sold off to private investors. Sell off rights to construct new toll road corridors as well as tolled grade seperations at major intersections of grade-level arterials and at railroad tracks. Use the many billions of dollars of proceeds to set up a program by way of which poor people may lease inexpensive fuel-efficient vehicles at such a discount as they wouldn't dare drive around an old unreliable junker, forgo insurance, or ever under any circumstances use local transit provided by METRO. Eliminate all METRO services except for P&R, which would be expanded, adding more origins and destinations and providing more express service. Use remaining proceeds from the toll program (and there ought to be plenty) to purchase and hold straight-line corridors which may be used for inter-city transit on the order of maglev or TGV technology connecting the central business districts of major cities within Texas.

Any additional proceeds would be sold for a perpetuity, thus permenantly relieving some amount of the tax burden.

I can't say I've ever heard that one before. Is this a serious post?

[jfre81]

If Niche's dream becomes reality, I'll be freakin' walking everywhere.

[TheNiche]

There always seems to be this failure to address the change in land use that has to come about to make transit efficient.

I agree with this statement. Trying to implement rapid transit without being able to force development around it fails to produce TOD in any reasonable period of time. Furthermore, as that TOD develops, it may not be in a maximally synergistic form by way of which an activity cluster of critical mass can be attained.

This is a premise of mine on why METRO's implementation of rapid transit was short-sighted.

Trae is right in the sense that adding more lanes in to freeways isn't the best use of resources. Especially with the induced demand that expansions brings about.

Induced demand is the intent (not the unintended consequence) of adding capacity to transporation projects. It is caused when private consumers experience higher total trip costs in period 0, before the expansion project, and lower costs in period 1, after the project. When costs for a good are lower, the quantity demanded of that good increases.

In freeway expansion projects, the typical basis for lower costs are time savings and a reduction in out-of-pocket costs, such as that better mpg can be attained when not sitting in congestion. But time savings are the big one.

Also, sprawl in the long run is far more costly than the upfront cost of sustainable green development. Interestingly enough here in Philadelphia they are in the final stages of reconstructing the 100 year old el train line, I would like to see a freeway that last even half that long without total reconstruction. Oh and one more thing, the Center for Smart Growth in Maryland came out with a study that says that even if everyone were to switch to Hybrid cars that it wouldn't have nearly the impact as changes in land use and transit modes that promote dense green pedestrian friendly places. I am sorry, Pearland, Katy, and The Woodlands, but places like inner loop are the wave of the future. However, Katy, Pearland, have historic downtowns/centers near rail lines that will be perfect catalyst for TOD if commuter rail comes their way.

Please support your assertion.

the Center for Smart Growth in Maryland came out with a study that says that even if everyone were to switch to Hybrid cars that it wouldn't have nearly the impact as changes in land use and transit modes that promote dense green pedestrian friendly places.

I don't doubt this. However, the kind of development that you advocate 1) doesn't exist yet, meaning that there are legacy issues that'll likely stick around for the next century or so whether you like it or not, and 2) that it would be more impactful doesn't make it better. You've got to think of the costs along with the benefits.

I am sorry, Pearland, Katy, and The Woodlands, but places like inner loop are the wave of the future. However, Katy, Pearland, have historic downtowns/centers near rail lines that will be perfect catalyst for TOD if commuter rail comes their way.

I'd suspect that sustainable development is often more easily built from scratch to exacting specifications than within the context of existing infrastructure.

I can't say I've ever heard that one before. Is this a serious post?

Yes and no.

If I were a benevolent dictator, it'd be serious. It really is my vision, just as woolie asked for. But I don't pretend to think that it'd actually come about.

[Trae]

Convert all existing freeways to toll roads, which would then be sold off to private investors. Sell off rights to construct new toll road corridors as well as tolled grade seperations at major intersections of grade-level arterials and at railroad tracks. Use the many billions of dollars of proceeds to set up a program by way of which poor people may lease inexpensive fuel-efficient vehicles at such a discount as they wouldn't dare drive around an old unreliable junker, forgo insurance, or ever under any circumstances use local transit provided by METRO. Eliminate all METRO services except for P&R, which would be expanded, adding more origins and destinations and providing more express service. Use remaining proceeds from the toll program (and there ought to be plenty) to purchase and hold straight-line corridors which may be used for inter-city transit on the order of maglev or TGV technology connecting the central business districts of major cities within Texas.

Any additional proceeds would be sold for a perpetuity, thus permenantly relieving some amount of the tax burden.

More like, commuter rail going out in the same radial directions of the major freeways (I-10, 290, 59, 288, and 45). Create TOD's at each commuter rail stop, too. Next, have light rail throughout the Inner Loop (like the plan is), but have three light rail lines extending further: one to IAH, one to Hobby, and another to Westchase. Have local bus routes feed into the light rail stations (like DART). Have a spot for bus pick-ups and drop-offs. This is pretty simple, and I don't have time to go in detail like I want. But I will tomorrow.

Where do we get the money from? Feds, Metro, local taxes (from member cities), etc.

I do agree with you about adding some freeways/tollways. For example, there is too much of a gap between I-10 and 290. I think FM 529 would have been a perfect location for a freeway/tollway. The Woodlands Parkway, too. No sense to have that big of a suburb not to have some kind of freeway/tollway going through it (parkway would be a better term).

[TheNiche]

Where do we get the money from? Feds, Metro, local taxes (from member cities), etc.

When it comes down to it, that's the crux of the matter. Who pays?

That's how I arrived at my plan. It pays for itself and then some.

[Trae]

If people use those new tollroads you build.

[woolie]

I can't say I've ever heard that one before. Is this a serious post?

it's kindof the libertarian party line. can't say I haven't heard it to death.

I don't have a personal problem with adding direct usage fees to the freeways, but I'm wary of selling it off to private firms. And of course as I stated above I think cars are a dead end technology, even hybrid cars, because of the density limits imposed by parking and big roads. So I of course want big inner city transit systems to promote and sustain high density. This is much closer to any "sustainability" vision than a motoring utopia. As far as constructing high speed intercity rail I think this is a no brainer.

[TheNiche]

If people use those new tollroads you build.

Oh, I'm not going to build them. I'm only selling the rights to build them.

it's kindof the libertarian party line. can't say I haven't heard it to death.

No, Libertarians shun me because I want to provide better transportation options to poor people and because I support public transportation which is subsidized.

I'm what one might best decribe as...TheNiche. That is my party affiliation. 'Genius' also would've been an acceptable answer.

I don't have a personal problem with adding direct usage fees to the freeways, but I'm wary of selling it off to private firms. And of course as I stated above I think cars are a dead end technology, even hybrid cars, because of the density limits imposed by parking and big roads. So I of course want big inner city transit systems to promote and sustain high density. This is much closer to any "sustainability" vision than a motoring utopia. As far as constructing high speed intercity rail I think this is a no brainer.

How is limited density a problem?

And having a lot of big roads around could come in handy when the technology shifts to something else. You don't think that the replacement technology is going to be zero-dimensional, do you?

[KinkaidAlum]

Convert all existing freeways to toll roads, which would then be sold off to private investors. Sell off rights to construct new toll road corridors as well as tolled grade seperations at major intersections of grade-level arterials and at railroad tracks. Use the many billions of dollars of proceeds to set up a program by way of which poor people may lease inexpensive fuel-efficient vehicles at such a discount as they wouldn't dare drive around an old unreliable junker, forgo insurance, or ever under any circumstances use local transit provided by METRO. Eliminate all METRO services except for P&R, which would be expanded, adding more origins and destinations and providing more express service. Use remaining proceeds from the toll program (and there ought to be plenty) to purchase and hold straight-line corridors which may be used for inter-city transit on the order of maglev or TGV technology connecting the central business districts of major cities within Texas.

Any additional proceeds would be sold for a perpetuity, thus permenantly relieving some amount of the tax burden.

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!

[roadrunner]

Here's a random pro-rail post.

I live in the Med Center/Reliant Park area in a crappy apartment, but I got it for the location. I work downtown, frequent the Village and Midtown on weekends, and enjoy the affordable housing in the area.

It takes me 30 minutes to drive to work, park my car, pay for parking, and walk to the front door of my building.

When I take the light rail, which is as much as possible, it takes me 35-40 minutes to walk from my front door, get on the train at the Reliant Park station, get off the train at the Main St Square station, and walk to the front door of my building. That's close to the longest trip you can take on the Red Line. It is very much worth the extra 5-10 minutes that I get sitting on the train reading the paper and drinking a cup of coffee.

Now, that is during the peak traffic hours during the day. I admit that taking the Red Line on weekends for non-major events is silly. But, if I ever wanted to go to the Galleria on a Saturday, it would take me at least 35-40 minutes to hop on 610, sit in traffic at the Westheimer exit, slug through the Post Oak intersection, try to find a parking spot, and finally walk to the elevators. If the University Line was built, it would probably take me about the same time. I wouldn't be paying for parking, paying for gas, sitting in awful traffic, wear and tear on my car, etc.

All of this is true for me, who is someone who lives at the second to last stop at the rail line. It would be even more convenient for Midtown, Montrose, Greenway Plaza people. I have a friend who is living north of Central Park in Manhattan and works downtown. He has a 45 minute commute. The Inner West Loop is Houston's Manhattan. The density is a different animal, but the transportation is comparable.

Finally, I don't understand the congestion around the Red Line argument. I fly down Fannin in the morning to go to work without any problems, including the Med Center. The only bad light I hit is the Braeswood light, and I only have to sit through it once. If you're driving on Main St in Midtown or Downtown, then you are an idiot. It's a grid system....there are other routes.

Edited April 9, 2008 by roadrunner