If I Could Redesign the Light Rail

[RedScare]

Houston is about nine years behind DART's rail, and yet, why do they expand every three years or so, and ours doesn't? You'd think METRORail would expand northwest to a certain abandoned rail line. Then those of the "Central" neighborhood can get light rail. In the suburbs, the light rail can parallel existing power line ROWs.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29....mp;t=h&z=16

The reason it doesn't expand is the convoluted system downtown limits the light rail and prevents it from becoming viable.

Umm...what do you call the 30 mile expansion currently underway?

[Houston19514]

Houston is about nine years behind DART's rail, and yet, why do they expand every three years or so, and ours doesn't? You'd think METRORail would expand northwest to a certain abandoned rail line. Then those of the "Central" neighborhood can get light rail. In the suburbs, the light rail can parallel existing power line ROWs.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29....mp;t=h&z=16

The reason it doesn't expand is the convoluted system downtown limits the light rail and prevents it from becoming viable.

You're referring to the "convoluted system" downtown that carries more passengers per mile of track than any other light rail system in America? Is that the one your are referring to that will supposedly prevent "it" from becoming viable?

(and as RedScare said, if the rail system does not expand because it cannot become viable, then, how do you explain the expansion project?) Seriously, you should stop listening to your cousin and try to learn a little before posting.

[IronTiger]

Seriously, you should stop listening to your cousin and try to learn a little before posting.

I formulated that part myself.

[kdog08]

Houston is about nine years behind DART's rail, and yet, why do they expand every three years or so, and ours doesn't? You'd think METRORail would expand northwest to a certain abandoned rail line. Then those of the "Central" neighborhood can get light rail. In the suburbs, the light rail can parallel existing power line ROWs.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29....mp;t=h&z=16

The reason it doesn't expand is the convoluted system downtown limits the light rail and prevents it from becoming viable.

Houston has the unfortunate advantage of having significant employment centers and activity centers within about a 5 mile radius that so happen to be getting connected by LRT. Furthermore, Houston already has grade separated HOV lanes running out to the suburbs on most of our radial highways. Therefore, we already have a commuter system in place; it may not be as modern or flashy as rail though. Point is that Dallas and Houston aren't built the same way and require different mass transit systems.

[VicMan]

This is why Austin doesn't have light rail.

Austin's light rail is scheduled to begin sometime this year; it was delayed for several months.

[Houston19514]

I realize accidents have improved. I think it's because people have learned just to stay away more so than improvements. Still not better than an elevated train in my opinion and never will be. Researching other cities rail systems is not going to change my mind because I still wont know their traffic or unique situations and never will without actually living there.

Now as soon as you admit that I'm right and your wrong than we can move on to something else.

LOL Yeah, right. Building elevated rail in the densest parts of a city is SO much better that, apparently, no city has done it for over 100 years. Meanwhile, back here in the real world, city after city is implementing light rail on the surface.

[IronTiger]

LOL Yeah, right. Building elevated rail in the densest parts of a city is SO much better that, apparently, no city has done it for over 100 years. Meanwhile, back here in the real world, city after city is implementing light rail on the surface.

Just because elevated rail isn't really built anymore doesn't mean its bad. Is Coca-Cola made from pure cane sugar "bad", that's why it's not made anymore?

[Houston19514]

Just because elevated rail isn't really built anymore doesn't mean its bad. Is Coca-Cola made from pure cane sugar "bad", that's why it's not made anymore?

ROFL. Is that really your argument? First, I NEVER said elevated rail was bad. But despite not being BAD, there must be some reason it is not built any more, and hasn't been built by any city for over 100 years (in the densest part of the cities.) Your analogy is laughable. Just as nobody said elevated rail was bad; I suspect nobody ever said Coca-Cola made from pure cane sugar was bad. And yet, apparently, they don't make it any more. I imagine there is probably some pretty good reason for that.

[RedScare]

Just because elevated rail isn't really built anymore doesn't mean its bad. Is Coca-Cola made from pure cane sugar "bad", that's why it's not made anymore?

No, sugar is not used in Coca-Cola anymore because it is EXPENSIVE...just like subways and elevated rail lines. Additionally, elevated rail lines are noisy and butt-ugly. They do not get built because no one that noisy, butt-ugly monstrosity outside their window. The only elevated rail built in recent memory was the Las Vegas monorail. It is ugly, and a financial disaster, costing about $600 million for 3.9 miles.

[Houston19514]

No, sugar is not used in Coca-Cola anymore because it is EXPENSIVE...just like subways and elevated rail lines. Additionally, elevated rail lines are noisy and butt-ugly. They do not get built because no one that noisy, butt-ugly monstrosity outside their window. The only elevated rail built in recent memory was the Las Vegas monorail. It is ugly, and a financial disaster, costing about $600 million for 3.9 miles.

Exactly.

[IronTiger]

How can elevated rails be physically more noisy than light rail? The only example you're going off of is Chicago, so that's invalidated.

The cost issue is valid, however. That brings us back to the original post. Cost can have benefits however, and if we try to get on that issue, we'll still never reach a solid conclusion.

[Houston19514]

How can elevated rails be physically more noisy than light rail? The only example you're going off of is Chicago, so that's invalidated.

The cost issue is valid, however. That brings us back to the original post. Cost can have benefits however, and if we try to get on that issue, we'll still never reach a solid conclusion.

YOU may not reach a final conclusion, but city after city HAS looked at the issue and they are pretty much unanimously reaching the same solid conclusion, to-wit, as noted earlier, nobody is building elevated rail in the densest parts of their cities. Nobody. And many cities are building rail on the surface.

[IronTiger]

YOU may not reach a final conclusion, but city after city HAS looked at the issue and they are pretty much unanimously reaching the same solid conclusion, to-wit, as noted earlier, nobody is building elevated rail in the densest parts of their cities. Nobody. And many cities are building rail on the surface.

(sigh) Well, fine. You may convince me that I'm wrong, but you'll never convince me that you're right. Remember, the thread was about "this is what they should've done", and apparently that's it...it's just too expensive.

[kylejack]

Houston has the unfortunate advantage of having significant employment centers and activity centers within about a 5 mile radius that so happen to be getting connected by LRT. Furthermore, Houston already has grade separated HOV lanes running out to the suburbs on most of our radial highways. Therefore, we already have a commuter system in place; it may not be as modern or flashy as rail though. Point is that Dallas and Houston aren't built the same way and require different mass transit systems.

You know what would be great to lay down those HOV lanes? That's right....

[kylejack]

ROFL. Is that really your argument? First, I NEVER said elevated rail was bad. But despite not being BAD, there must be some reason it is not built any more, and hasn't been built by any city for over 100 years (in the densest part of the cities.) Your analogy is laughable. Just as nobody said elevated rail was bad; I suspect nobody ever said Coca-Cola made from pure cane sugar was bad. And yet, apparently, they don't make it any more. I imagine there is probably some pretty good reason for that.

The reason is that corn production is heavily subsidized in this country and sugar imports are taxed at several hundred percent.

[CALMSP]

You know what would be great to lay down those HOV lanes? That's right....

But that would mean that it would be better utilized by more individuals, and would even mean that it could be utilized in both directions, 7 days a week, with the possibility of having people pay to use it!!!!!!!!

[IronTiger]

Actually I heard they'll convert to regular toll lanes.

[TheNiche]

No, sugar is not used in Coca-Cola anymore because it is EXPENSIVE...just like subways and elevated rail lines. Additionally, elevated rail lines are noisy and butt-ugly. They do not get built because no one that noisy, butt-ugly monstrosity outside their window. The only elevated rail built in recent memory was the Las Vegas monorail. It is ugly, and a financial disaster, costing about $600 million for 3.9 miles.

The economics of cane sugar and confounding. Mexican Coke is marketed to a largely-impoverished population, yet is made with a supposedly more expensive ingredient that Americans apparently can't afford. Something does not compute.

I for one drink Mexican Coke whenever it is an option to me. Coke made with cane sugar tastes better, and elevated light rail enhances mobility. I'll pay a premium for either.

[Houston19514]

The economics of cane sugar and confounding. Mexican Coke is marketed to a largely-impoverished population, yet is made with a supposedly more expensive ingredient that Americans apparently can't afford. Something does not compute.

I for one drink Mexican Coke whenever it is an option to me. Coke made with cane sugar tastes better, and elevated light rail enhances mobility. I'll pay a premium for either.

Probably has something to do with our highly protected (and therefore overpriced) domestic sugar industry.

[TheNiche]

Probably has something to do with our highly protected (and therefore overpriced) domestic sugar industry.

...or (much) more likely the corn industry.

[Houston19514]

...or (much) more likely the corn industry.

Perhaps. But if our sugar prices were not 2-3 times those of the world market, the soft drink makers would never have looked for another sweetener. So it seems that the proximate cause is the protection of the sugar industry.

[TheNiche]

Perhaps. But if our sugar prices were not 2-3 times those of the world market, the soft drink makers would never have looked for another sweetener. So it seems that the proximate cause is the protection of the sugar industry.

Why would sugar growers (as a group) want there to be a price floor? Such measures result in demand destruction and ultimately fewer planted acres. It would only help the growers that are the most efficient and would put less efficient growers out of business.

The corn industry, in contrast, has lobbied for legislation that either reduces their operating costs by way of tax breaks or direct subsidies or forcibly induces more demand for their product. These measures benefit the whole industry rather than only the most efficient growers. However, by virtue of the fact that there is such a gargantuan surplus of corn, the market price is actually lower and that makes corn a more attractive substitute for other agricultural products (including sugar).

EDIT: All this is tangential to the issue that is supposedly the topic of debate.

[Houston19514]

Why would sugar growers (as a group) want there to be a price floor? Such measures result in demand destruction and ultimately fewer planted acres. It would only help the growers that are the most efficient and would put less efficient growers out of business.

The corn industry, in contrast, has lobbied for legislation that either reduces their operating costs by way of tax breaks or direct subsidies or forcibly induces more demand for their product. These measures benefit the whole industry rather than only the most efficient growers. However, by virtue of the fact that there is such a gargantuan surplus of corn, the market price is actually lower and that makes corn a more attractive substitute for other agricultural products (including sugar).

EDIT: All this is tangential to the issue that is supposedly the topic of debate.

Not sure there is a price floor per se. The key, I think, is restrictions and taxes on imported sugar. In any event, if you want to know the logic behind the approach you'll have to ask the sugar growers or the federal government. Whatever the logic, and whatever the precise policy, the result is and has been for many years that we in the US pay far more than world market prices for sugar. Thus the need for soft drink producers to seek out (and I believe even help in the development of) alternative sweeteners.

As an aside, I just saw at Randall's this afternoon that Pepsi now is marketing "Pepsi Throwback" made with sugar (that is old-fashioned sugar, not the high-fructose corn variety).

[IronTiger]

I believe Mexican Coke can be bought at Costco. Is that true?

[IronTiger]

Okay, now show me those that have been built in either this century or the prior century.

Well, Miami built elevated rail in the 1980s...

[CSOM]

Coming in extremely late to this conversation, but check out the DLR in London that has many elevated lines/platforms and is still being expanded, the most recent opening just this year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway

[Houston19514]

Well, Miami built elevated rail in the 1980s...

Well done. Now let's take a look at performance. The Miami rail is roughly 3 times as long, almost twice the number of stations, and yet only about 33% more daily ridership. Also, the fact that their stations are 1 mile apart tells us that this line is intended to serve a different function (less local service, more a collector/commuter rail type of service).

[Houston19514]

State a specific intersection and I'll be happy to prove you wrong with my video camera. I commute from downtown to the Medical Center every day. Are you referring, perhaps, to Main @ Richmond/Wheeler where it changes to Fannin?

Nevermind, I see you said Fannin @ Greenbriar takes you 4+ cycles to turn left. I will take a look.

Kylejack (and anyone else interested in learning the truth about this urban legend of rail-induced congestion), I strongly encourage you to take the time to drive the red-line route during rush hour, as I did this morning, both directions. The only thing on the route even close to earning the term "congestion" were the crowds packed into MetroRail train vehicles and on MetroRail station platforms. Driving the route in a car is ridiculously easy and congestion-free.

[JamesL]

I realize accidents have improved. I think it's because people have learned just to stay away more so than improvements.

Or learned to check their mirrors for a huge, honking, 60 ton vehicle.

[Hartmann]

I don't think light rail in general works, though the one place it does is Portland, OR. The reason it works there is that connects places that actually need to be connected, the airport with the city, the suburban areas with downtown, etc.

If I were to redesign the current light rail, I'd start by turning it into a third rail system with no overhead wires, elevate it in places, such as downtown, make the fare system more like Chicago or Boston, and add turnstiles.