Rail Segments Get Federal Ok

[GovernorAggie]

Transit planners who are honest will tell you that transit does not relieve congestion--it provides another option for travel.

[kjb434]

True.

Mass transit is never considered in the world of transportaion engineering as a solution to congestion. Just look at the example above with DC. It has an extensive Metro system that is highly used, yet traffic is still a nightmare. DC's metro even has far outlying suburban stations that suburbanits can park and ride into the commercial areas. Boston, New York City, and Chicago still have horrible traffic with great mass transit systems.

London has a really awesom transit system, but it's commuter freeways are still crowded. Same goes for Berlin, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Kuala Lumpur.

Los Angeles is building extensive commuter rail systems that give you options. But these alternatives will not solve traffic problems.

I think we should relish in the fact that Houston, the Metroplex, and San Antonio have better traffic than most major cities in the US and the World. Austin has it bad, but that happens with the explosive growth they've experienced. The are making inroads to ease the problems with the tolled loop.

We are lucky to have the TTI to solve our problems locally and implement new strategies.

Remember, just because someone is pro freeway expansion (such as I), it doesn't mean anti-rail. I hope Houston has a massive rail system. The rail system is going to allow Houston to densify more in the core while still allowing suburbanites to use the freeway system. Removing short range trips say from the edges of the 610 loop to downtown, uptown, TMC and Greeway plaza will allow the suburban traffic to drive in easier.

The concept that rail won't solve traffic problems is something transportation textbooks stress. But they do emphasize the concept of choice to give the commuter the power to be in control of his or her travel.

[The Voice of University Oaks]

The concept that rail won't solve traffic problems is something transportation textbooks stress.  But they do emphasize the concept of choice to give the commuter the power to be in control of his or her travel.

Exactly. This is something that both rail proponents and rail opponents oftentimes get wrong. People who support urban rail construction oftentimes assume that it will relieve congestion, when in fact there really is little evidence to support that contention. Rail opponents, on the other hand, argue that rail is a wasteful failure because congestion is always increasing in cities with rail, like Atlanta or Washington or Dallas. (Never mind the fact that sixty years of highway-building in those cities hasn't improved congestion, either...)

The simple fact is this: in an urban area that is constantly growing and adding people, houses, jobs and cars, there is ALWAYS going to be congestion. That's just a fact of modern life. Whether it's rail or more freeways, we cannot "build our way out of congestion." This is not to say that more highways or tollways or busways or heavy/light/commuter rail projects should not be built. We need every piece of the puzzle we can in oder to keep up with ever-growing travel demand in our nation's cities. But we also need to accept that traffic congestion is going to be a problem that will always be with us as long as our citites are vibrant and growing.

What rail can do is provide an extra layer of capacity to the transt network and give commuters a choice as to how to travel to work. It is highly efficient at moving large volumes of people along heavily-traveled corridors, people that would otherwise be mixed in with the traffic flow. Washington Metro carries 853,000 trips per day, according to the latest APTA figures. How much worse would the traffic situation in DC be if there were no Metro and all those trips were added to the road and freeway network? This is something the anti-rail folks (including self-proclaimed "experts" like Wendell Cox, who is in fact a charlatan) continually fail to understand. It's about adding capacity and travel options, not about solving congestion.

Buses are also good at adding capacity and providing alternatives, and they've worked very well in Houston because of the HOV network, but as traffic volume rises trains become more efficient than buses.

On the other hand, commuters aren't going to jump out of their cars and onto trains just because a parallel rail line is built, either. Some will opt for the train, but others will continue to drive because they like the convenience, privacy and autonomy that their own car offers. Rail isn't convenient for everyone because it can't go everywhere, like the car. And some people have commitments (like picking up family members after work) that can only be handled by the car.

There is no one solution to traffic problems, and this is something that the TTI report stresses every year. It's going to take a little bit of everything - more freeways, more vanpools, more buses, more cars, managed lanes, telecommuting, parking cash-outs, incident management, etc. - in order to keep our cities from becoming hopelessly clogged.

[GovernorAggie]

Funny you mention TTI emphasizing that there is no ONE solution to traffic problems. The wise guys over on SSP seem to think that TTI is biased and really doesn't know what they're talking about.

Nevermind the fact that TTI's work is sponsored by several different states.

[kjb434]

And is often used to back up studies around the world.