What Is Holding Downtown Down

[RedScare]

The second quote you pulled is in reference to El Paso. Right now houston is over the new limit of 12. Good work red.

 

Yes, barely.

 

 

 It shows readings that are slightly above federal standards, 12.1 micrograms per cubic meter on average over the past three years (2010, 2011 and 2012).

 

Show me anyone...ANYONE...who has left Houston because it has a three year average particulate leve 0.1 above an arbitrary limit, that may drop below the acceptable level by the time they take official measurements.

 

ANYONE AT ALL! Remember, this is your made up claim. Prove it!

[livincinco]

Just for clarification, we are discussing what is holding downtown down, not the entire city.

Yeah, my original post that appears to have sparked this was simply a statement that suggested that retail would develop in downtown at the point that the residential population reaches approx. 15,000-20,000. This basically ties to my belief that retail follows residential growth, instead of retail driving residential growth.

From there, it appears to have devolved into the normal HAIF maelstrom of name-calling and unrelated topics.

[Slick Vik]

Translation: Because a couple of dirt farmers live in some 3rd world hellhole without AC, Houstonians should live without it too.

 

Newsflash! That is why they are known as "third world countries". Because they live in deplorable conditions. When you decide to live here without AC, let us know, so that we can laugh at you. Until then, you will continue to be known as the HAIF Hypocrite. You are shaming no one.

 

Calling my family dirt farmers is pretty pathetic and uncalled for.

[Slick Vik]

Yes, barely.

 

 

 

Show me anyone...ANYONE...who has left Houston because it has a three year average particulate leve 0.1 above an arbitrary limit, that may drop below the acceptable level by the time they take official measurements.

 

ANYONE AT ALL! Remember, this is your made up claim. Prove it!

 

You missed the part of the article that said a monitor posted in Galena Park was significantly higher than 12. If you think Houston air is clean, I don't know what to say.

 

And I know people whose kids had such bad asthma problems they left Houston for the sake of their kids. There you go.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Slick Vik

[RedScare]

Calling my family dirt farmers is pretty pathetic and uncalled for.

 

You brought them into the discussion. They are fair game. Speaking of pathetic and uncalled for, comparing Houston to third world countries is also pathetic and uncalled for...oh, and completely unrelated to the discussion.

[RedScare]

You missed the part of the article that said a monitor posted in Galena Park was significantly higher than 12. If you think Houston air is clean, I don't know what to say.

 

And I know people whose kids had such bad asthma problems they left Houston for the sake of their kids. There you go.

 

No you don't. You made that up. Thanks, though.

 

BTW, Galena Park is not Houston. That is like comparing Houston to third world countries. We don't live there.

[Slick Vik]

You brought them into the discussion. They are fair game. Speaking of pathetic and uncalled for, comparing Houston to third world countries is also pathetic and uncalled for...oh, and completely unrelated to the discussion.

 

That's personal, and it's uncalled for.

[RedScare]

That's personal, and it's uncalled for.

 

When you bring your personal life up in your posts, you invite comparisons. That I question your mental and physical toughness is based only on your posts, nothing that I brought up.

[barracuda]

So Clinton Drive is Houston?

 

So only one street in Houston has high particulate pollution, and that's due to a high degree of truck traffic? It sounds like we're doing quite well then since the problem is isolated away from where most folks live.

[mfastx]

Nonsense. That's like saying it cheaper to transport a passenger on the Queen Marry 2 vs my personal motor vessel. Yes it may be cheaper to operate on a passenger per mile basis, but you're ignoring the billion(s) of dollars it cost to design and build the thing. And let me know if it's still cheaper to operate in a few months once the red line is complete.

 

Actually, I am taking into account the $300 million in capital costs for the original red line. 

 

Over a period of 10-15 years, the Red line has made up its capital cost in the difference of operating costs per passenger.  Don't forget, with each passing year, millions more boardings are occurring on the train.  Rail lines are there for over 100 years, in the long run it is cheaper. 

 

Other systems haven't fared so well.  DART's system, for example, hasn't come close to covering it's capital costs with higher efficiency operations.  Not all rail systems are successful like Houston's Red Line. 

 

And the jury is still out on whether the new rail lines will have enough ridership to keep operating costs per boarding down.  It will likely take a few years like it did for the Red Line for the new lines to reach their highest potential ridership, and another 15-20 years to make up the capital costs. 

 

I am also in favor of making a better bus system.  But we are going to have to fork over more taxpayer dollars if we are serious about improving our transit system.

[livincinco]

Actually, I am taking into account the $300 million in capital costs for the original red line.

Over a period of 10-15 years, the Red line has made up its capital cost in the difference of operating costs per passenger. Don't forget, with each passing year, millions more boardings are occurring on the train. Rail lines are there for over 100 years, in the long run it is cheaper.

Other systems haven't fared so well. DART's system, for example, hasn't come close to covering it's capital costs with higher efficiency operations. Not all rail systems are successful like Houston's Red Line.

And the jury is still out on whether the new rail lines will have enough ridership to keep operating costs per boarding down. It will likely take a few years like it did for the Red Line for the new lines to reach their highest potential ridership, and another 15-20 years to make up the capital costs.

I am also in favor of making a better bus system. But we are going to have to fork over more taxpayer dollars if we are serious about improving our transit system.

I think that's absolutely the key question once we get all the hyperbole out of the way. I don't think that anyone questions that the transit system needs to be improved, but I do think that there is room for intelligent conversation regarding the best way to achieve that. I personally feel that focusing the tax dollars that are available on drastically improving the bus system is likely to provide better value per dollar than focusing on building a couple of light rail lines.

I would agree with your concern about whether the light rail lines that are under construction are going to generate enough ridership especially if appropriate steps aren't taken to strengthen the bus system.

[Slick Vik]

I think that's absolutely the key question once we get all the hyperbole out of the way. I don't think that anyone questions that the transit system needs to be improved, but I do think that there is room for intelligent conversation regarding the best way to achieve that. I personally feel that focusing the tax dollars that are available on drastically improving the bus system is likely to provide better value per dollar than focusing on building a couple of light rail lines.

I would agree with your concern about whether the light rail lines that are under construction are going to generate enough ridership especially if appropriate steps aren't taken to strengthen the bus system.

 

Even if you have an excellent bus system, at some point you need a rail element to make the heart of a true transit system, especially with the population growing on a daily basis. But I agree, all elements need to be excellent: Rail, bus, and bus rapid transit.

[Slick Vik]

Actually, this is simply your opinion, based completely on your obsession with rail transit. Houston could have a very well run run transit system comprised entirely of busses if it chose to. The only problem with an all bus system would be that you don't like it. There is no protocol anywhere in the world that says transit systems must have rail to be a "true transit system". Only rail fanboys claim that.

 

Buses share traffic with regular vehicles, thereby taking any efficiency out of the equation.

 

Is the rest of the world full of rail fanboys then?

Edited August 11, 2013 by Slick Vik

[livincinco]

Even if you have an excellent bus system, at some point you need a rail element to make the heart of a true transit system, especially with the population growing on a daily basis. But I agree, all elements need to be excellent: Rail, bus, and bus rapid transit.

It's not a question of whether the population is growing, it's a question of how the population is growing. While Houston is getting a little denser, it will continue to have a reasonably low density for the foreseeable future and will continue to have scattered job centers. That's not exactly the ideal model for rail.

[RedScare]

Buses share traffic with regular vehicles, thereby taking any efficiency out of the equation.

 

Is the rest of the world full of rail fanboys then?

 

This does not change the fact that rail is not required in order to have a "true transit system".

[mfastx]

I think that's absolutely the key question once we get all the hyperbole out of the way. I don't think that anyone questions that the transit system needs to be improved, but I do think that there is room for intelligent conversation regarding the best way to achieve that. I personally feel that focusing the tax dollars that are available on drastically improving the bus system is likely to provide better value per dollar than focusing on building a couple of light rail lines.

I would agree with your concern about whether the light rail lines that are under construction are going to generate enough ridership especially if appropriate steps aren't taken to strengthen the bus system.

 

While the light rail lines under construction will serve their respective areas well, I do wish that the most justified line IMO, the University Line, would have been built first. 

 

And I'm very hopeful that METRO's "reimagining" campaign to improve the bus system does some good things.  When used correctly, rail lines can be very effective along side a good bus system.  I'm particularly excited about the proposed "next bus" indicators at certain stops that show when the next bus is coming.  I've seen those in Europe and they are extremely helpful. 

 

For the next several years METRO is putting their resources towards buses and not rail so hopefully some real improvements are made. 

[livincinco]

ile the light rail lines under construction will serve their respective areas well, I do wish that the most justified line IMO, the University Line, would have been built first. 

 

And I'm very hopeful that METRO's "reimagining" campaign to improve the bus system does some good things.  When used correctly, rail lines can be very effective along side a good bus system.  I'm particularly excited about the proposed "next bus" indicators at certain stops that show when the next bus is coming.  I've seen those in Europe and they are extremely helpful. 

 

For the next several years METRO is putting their resources towards buses and not rail so hopefully some real improvements are made. 

 

I think its a good strategy.  I agree that the University line is a logical next step, but I'd hesitate to make any further investment in rail beyond that until the bus system has improved.  There's a lot of ground that needs to be covered and the miles per dollar value that buses provide seems to be a better fit at this time.  

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Let me get this straight... most of your family lives in some country in which AC just became available? And you family wont buy one? But you think it's too hot to move outside in Houston and the air is dirty? And yet, you ride the bus all the time despite owning several cars, including some exotic ones?

 

Did I get it right?

 

Yes

[RedScare]

[editor]

Even if you have an excellent bus system, at some point you need a rail element to make the heart of a true transit system, especially with the population growing on a daily basis. But I agree, all elements need to be excellent: Rail, bus, and bus rapid transit.

 

Vik is actually onto something here.

 

The best transit systems are those that use multiple forms of interconnected transit.  

 

I'll cite Seattle as an example, because it's the city I'm most familiar with in this aspect.

 

It tried for decades to get along with a bus-only transit system, but eventually you reach a saturation point where adding more buses doesn't improve mobility.  It tried express buses, dedicated bus lanes, bus priority lanes, and even putting half of the downtown buses underground in a bus-only tunnel.  The last part bought them ten years, but eventually it reached a bus saturation point and had to finally, begrudgingly, add train.

 

I don't know what it is about buses that cause them to reach this saturation point, but riding King County Transit and Sound Transit daily showed me that it's true.  You'd think the bottle neck would be at ticketing and boarding, but that's not it.  In downtown Seattle (until very recently), you just board and then pay when you get off.  The idea was to speed up boarding and get everyone out of the congestion zone to deal with fares where there's more space.  But that didn't help.

 

You can sit at a station in the bus tunnel and watch an articulated bus pull up and see 50 people get on and off.  You can then see a train pull up and handle the same number of people in half the time.  I can't explain why it is true, but it is.  Even with people boarding the articulated buses using both doors and not having to stop at a farebox.  So it's not about boarding.

 

Again, I don't know why there is a bus saturation point, but there is.  And cities that are serious about transit are diversifying their systems.  Chicago, for example, is on a huge push to put people onto bicycles and (to a lesser extent) boats to avoid reaching a bus saturation point.  CDOT has an entirely new philosophy for the whole city: Pedestrians first, bicycles second, buses third, cars a very distant fourth.  And not just downtown.  That's the plan for the entire city.

 

The thing is, Houston is still VERY far away from reaching a bus saturation point, IMO.  I don't ride Houston Metro, so I can't say for certain.  But it seems that Houston can do a lot more with buses before it needs to go crazy with alternate modes. 

 

Still, the sooner it builds those alternates, the cheaper it will be, and the longer it can stretch the utility of its bus network.

[Subdude]

Reported posts deleted. 

 

Keep your posts on-topic, and not about other posters.

 

 

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Vik is actually onto something here.

 

The best transit systems are those that use multiple forms of interconnected transit.  

 

I'll cite Seattle as an example, because it's the city I'm most familiar with in this aspect.

 

It tried for decades to get along with a bus-only transit system, but eventually you reach a saturation point where adding more buses doesn't improve mobility.  It tried express buses, dedicated bus lanes, bus priority lanes, and even putting half of the downtown buses underground in a bus-only tunnel.  The last part bought them ten years, but eventually it reached a bus saturation point and had to finally, begrudgingly, add train.

 

I don't know what it is about buses that cause them to reach this saturation point, but riding King County Transit and Sound Transit daily showed me that it's true.  You'd think the bottle neck would be at ticketing and boarding, but that's not it.  In downtown Seattle (until very recently), you just board and then pay when you get off.  The idea was to speed up boarding and get everyone out of the congestion zone to deal with fares where there's more space.  But that didn't help.

 

You can sit at a station in the bus tunnel and watch an articulated bus pull up and see 50 people get on and off.  You can then see a train pull up and handle the same number of people in half the time.  I can't explain why it is true, but it is.  Even with people boarding the articulated buses using both doors and not having to stop at a farebox.  So it's not about boarding.

 

Again, I don't know why there is a bus saturation point, but there is.  And cities that are serious about transit are diversifying their systems.  Chicago, for example, is on a huge push to put people onto bicycles and (to a lesser extent) boats to avoid reaching a bus saturation point.  CDOT has an entirely new philosophy for the whole city: Pedestrians first, bicycles second, buses third, cars a very distant fourth.  And not just downtown.  That's the plan for the entire city.

 

The thing is, Houston is still VERY far away from reaching a bus saturation point, IMO.  I don't ride Houston Metro, so I can't say for certain.  But it seems that Houston can do a lot more with buses before it needs to go crazy with alternate modes. 

 

Still, the sooner it builds those alternates, the cheaper it will be, and the longer it can stretch the utility of its bus network.

 

I agree. I saw this in Istanbul and Bogota. The buses are totally full, even though they run often. In Istanbul, since it has metro and buses, I was able to make the comparison directly with BRT and metro. Maybe it's because the buses have a maximum capacity of two connected buses and trains have many more cars hooked together, or the ease of walking into a spacious train against a narrow bus, but trains seemed to be able to take in more people faster than buses. Also, agreed on the last point. With time, the price of construction and acquiring land becomes only more expensive. We've already pushed it off by 30 years, the longer it takes the more costly it will be for the next generations.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Slick Vik

[Ross]

I agree. I saw this in Istanbul and Bogota. The buses are totally full, even though they run often. In Istanbul, since it has metro and buses, I was able to make the comparison directly with BRT and metro. Maybe it's because the buses have a maximum capacity of two connected buses and trains have many more cars hooked together, or the ease of walking into a spacious train against a narrow bus, but trains seemed to be able to take in more people faster than buses. Also, agreed on the last point. With time, the price of construction and acquiring land becomes only more expensive. We've already pushed it off by 30 years, the longer it takes the more costly it will be for the next generations.

 

There is no comparison between Bogota and Houston. Bogota is more than 3 times as dense as Houston, more if you include the metro areas. Bogota is also less economically advanced, with fewer cars per capita, and thus more reliance on mass transit. Istanbul is also far more dense than Houston, and has the same socio-economic factors as Bogota when it comes to car ownership. Houston is decades or centuries away from that sort of density, and I really couldn't care less what is happening in 50 years, since I'll be dead by then.

[editor]

And I wouldn't compare Istanbul to Houston, either.  Istanbul has MANY modes of transportation, including very heavy ferry and funicular use.  And in addition to light rail it has a full subway system as well.  

 

Plus, I didn't think Istanbul's buses were all that maxed.  Sure, some of them were full.  But there's still plenty of room in the system for more buses.

 

That said, please stop steering every single topic towards transportation and rail.  The downtown issue is a lot more complex than just transportation.  If you only have one horse to beat, that's fine -- do it in appropriate threads at appropriate levels.  But this thread is getting dangerously off topic and will be closed if people don't start talking about the issue, and not about trains or launching personal attacks.

[Howard Huge]

Vik is actually onto something here.

The best transit systems are those that use multiple forms of interconnected transit.

Coming from yourself, a person who has lived in multiple big cities and had to rely on the transit systems of each, Im not surprised you validate this opinion.

You're not the only one. I know countless people from Chicago and NYC. All of my wifes relatives live in Manhattan or Brooklyn and they all laugh when we talk about Houston transit, especially our "one little toy train". Our transit system is a joke to them and everyone else from NY and Chicago Ive ever asked. My brother in law was thinking about moving down here but he doesnt have a car, he just gets around on the NYC subways. When he made a trip down here to try out our Metro system for a few days he quickly said "fuhgeddaboutit". I guess you could call their stories and yours "anecdotal", I just view it all as coming straight from the horses mouth.

I'll wait for some of the posters here talk to you in a snide jerkoff, condescending way like they do to Vik, just because your opinion is different from theirs, but Im sure they wont since you're the Administrator here. These kind of posts are really deteriorating the board quality and Im glad you called them out.

And I agree, theres more to a discussion on our downtown than just pro-rail/anti-rail.

[Howard Huge]

Fwiw, getting back on the original topic, I dont think there is much "holding our downtown down".

It's not hard to see the tremendous strides our downtown is making, the excitement of it is why I come to this website every day. The city is blowing up unlike any other in the country right now, and with every new development announced our momentum grows. I cant wait to see downtown in five/ten years.

That said, I dont think Houston is perfect and am open to discussing peoples ideas for improvement, I think that was the original point of this thread.

[Hugh Stone]

Thanks for giving us a great example of the deteriorating the board quality.

 

Edited August 12, 2013 by Hugh Stone

[editor]

Coming from yourself, a person who has lived in multiple big cities and had to rely on the transit systems of each, Im not surprised you validate this opinion.

You're not the only one. I know countless people from Chicago and NYC. All of my wifes relatives live in Manhattan or Brooklyn and they all laugh when we talk about Houston transit, especially our "one little toy train". Our transit system is a joke to them and everyone else from NY and Chicago Ive ever asked. My brother in law was thinking about moving down here but he doesnt have a car, he just gets around on the NYC subways. When he made a trip down here to try out our Metro system for a few days he quickly said "fuhgeddaboutit". I guess you could call their stories and yours "anecdotal", I just view it all as coming straight from the horses mouth.

I'll wait for some of the posters here talk to you in a snide jerkoff, condescending way like they do to Vik, just because your opinion is different from theirs, but Im sure they wont since you're the Administrator here. These kind of posts are really deteriorating the board quality and Im glad you called them out.

And I agree, theres more to a discussion on our downtown than just pro-rail/anti-rail.

 

Please try to disagree without being condescending.  

[Slick Vik]

And I wouldn't compare Istanbul to Houston, either. Istanbul has MANY modes of transportation, including very heavy ferry and funicular use. And in addition to light rail it has a full subway system as well.

Plus, I didn't think Istanbul's buses were all that maxed. Sure, some of them were full. But there's still plenty of room in the system for more buses.

That said, please stop steering every single topic towards transportation and rail. The downtown issue is a lot more complex than just transportation. If you only have one horse to beat, that's fine -- do it in appropriate threads at appropriate levels. But this thread is getting dangerously off topic and will be closed if people don't start talking about the issue, and not about trains or launching personal attacks.

I took one bus rapid transit route, from the Asia side to edirnekapi. The buses were constantly full to the point where I had to wait three times until I could get on a bus. That route would be better served with rail. But I didn't take any other bus routes so ill reserve comment on them.

[editor]

I took one bus rapid transit route, from the Asia side to edirnekapi. The buses were constantly full to the point where I had to wait three times until I could get on a bus. That route would be better served with rail. But I didn't take any other bus routes so ill reserve comment on them.

 

Bussing across is the least efficient method, so no wonder the one you were on was packed.  Most people take the ferry.  Buses on the Asia side are always packed, but that's not a transit issue, it's a development issue.

 

As for rail, that connection opens in October.