Rail To Uptown In Time For The Super Bowl?

[Slick Vik]

I'm going to have to disagree here and say that building inter-city HSR is most certainly that kind of project in many respects.

And low density cities have to pick their spots with rail, in Houston, for example, rail is really only feasible in certain corridors within the city. If it were up to me, I'd have a line connecting both airports to downtown, then one connecting downtown, Greenway Plaza, and the Galleria. Perhaps a stub for the TMC. That's about it honestly, I don't think that it's worth it to build rail anywhere else.

I think using west park right of way would be good also, send it out to beltway 8 or even highway 6. Also a houston-Galveston line would be good also. Fort bend commuter line would be good too in addition to Hempstead. Those are the ones that come to mind. Perhaps even one down I 10 to highway 6.

[Slick Vik]

Spending for highways was designed to support the state of the art transportation at the time and the interstate highway system was a visionary accomplishment that has defined the economic growth of the United States over the last 50 years. It enabled interstate commerce at a level that had never been seen before.

Building rail is not that kind of project. It's old technology. It's effective in places where existing infrastructure could be leveraged and/or systems were put in at the point that it was current technology and then expanded. It's an entirely different conversation when you have to build all of that infrastructure from scratch. Low density US cities that have built from scratch, such as Dallas, have had really questionable results.

Yes, I know that you're going to once again bemoan that the rails were torn out years ago. If they were still here, it might make more sense, but they aren't. The costs to rebuild them are real.

I'm kind of surprised to hear that you're an actuary, because I would expect an actuary to be much more cognizant of the costs involved in projects like this.

How do explain turkey, and in particular istanbul? Or even china for that matter? All are making enormous investments in rail.

[Slick Vik]

Though no one could have predicted it, the Interstate Highway was a major impetus for in the development of suburbanization and sprawl of U.S. cities. While Eisenhower never desired the Interstates to pass through or reach into the major cities of the U.S., it happened, and along with the Interstates came the problems of congestion, smog, automobile dependency, drop in densities of urban areas, the decline of mass transit, and others.

From geography.about.com

[Slick Vik]

[The President] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way… [He] was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored.

[Ross]

Interstate highways were built for evacuation and defense purposes not economics. I'm sure that many people against high speed rail today would be just as against interstate highways at that time.

 

You would probably be wrong. I remember as a child in the 60's the trips we took every year, and when we moved from place to place. Prior to the completion of the interstate system, intercity travel was a huge pain, with narrow roads clogged with slower vehicles. Getting through major cities was an exercise in frustration, especially if you hit rush hour. Getting lost was a regular feature of those trips. With interstates and major US highways completed, travel became much easier. And, before you trot out the old "you could have taken the train" spiel, we were going from one small place to another, neither served by rail. The interstates were a major improvement on the horrifically bad road system that existed previously. Of course, Eisenhower's desire for a nationwide road system was driven by the difficulties he had moving troops across the country early in his career.

[Slick Vik]

During the first decade of Interstate highway construction, 335,000 homes were razed, forcing families to look elsewhere for housing ...

In many cases, the ‘urban blight’ targeted by the new road construction simply meant African-American communities—often thriving ones. A great body of work shows that urban freeways destroyed the hearts of African-American communities in the South Bronx, Nashville, Austin, Los Angeles, Durham, and nearly every medium to large American city.

In Tennessee, plans for the construction of Interstate 40 were in fact redrawn to route the highway through the flourishing Jefferson Street corridor, home to roughly 80 percent of Nashville’s African-American-owned businesses. Not only did the construction of I-40 destroy this commercial district; it also demolished 650 homes and 27 apartment buildings while erecting physical barriers separating the city’s largest African-American universities: Fisk University, Tennessee A & I University, and Meharry Medical College.

the Claiborne Expressway in New Orleans bifurcated that city’s culturally rich Tremé district. Among the casualties were a popular Mardi Gras parade route lined with majestic oak trees and a thriving corridor of African-American businesses some called "the black people’s Canal Street."

[Slick Vik]

Writing on his blog Original Green, my friend Steve Mouzon examined property values along an eleven-block stretch of a street that runs perpendicular to and underneath I-65/70 in Indianapolis. Property values per acre drop off precipitously as one gets closer to the freeway, and then rise again on the other side (though not to the same level).

[Slick Vik]

Steve suggests that, although the neighborhood on the east side does not match that on the far west for per-acre value, the increments of change as one moves from west to east likely would have been more gradual, rather than dramatic, without the freeway.

My guess is that freeways have probably created value in the suburbs but frequently diminished value in city centers. I’m sure there are more sophisticated studies on the subject, but I haven’t had time to research them.

freeway corridors are associated with higher crime, reduced walkability, the absence of outdoor seating, high traffic fatalities, and increased vacant property acreage.

But Eisenhower never intended that the Interstates be built through densely populated cities. A memorandum of a 1960 meeting in the Oval Office, available in the archives of Eisenhower’s presidency, makes this crystal-clear:

[The President] went on to say that the matter of running Interstate routes through the congested parts of the cities was entirely against his original concept and wishes; that he never anticipated that the program would turn out this way . . . and that he was certainly not aware of any concept of using the program to build up an extensive intra-city route network as part of the program he sponsored. He added that those who had not advised him that such was being done, and those who steered the program in such a direction, had not followed his wishes.

[Slick Vik]

Some cities have elected not to rebuild freeways when they reach the age where costly repairs are required but, instead, to replace them with surface boulevards. The best known of these is in San Francisco, where a 1989 earthquake famously knocked out the Embarcadero Freeway. It has now been replaced with “a tree-lined boulevard that blends alternative modes of transportation, including a perfect pedestrian promenade, a bicycle corridor and a popular streetcar line.”

The change has increased property values, attracted investment, and restored scenic views previously blocked by freeway infrastructure, all without harmful effects on traffic. Back in Dallas, Kennedy "conservatively" estimates that replacing a segment of I-345 in the city with a surface-level boulevard could attract $750 million worth of new investment and increase tax revenues from adjacent properties six-fold.

[Slick Vik]

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/03/can-urban-highways-be-fixed/1399/

[Slick Vik]

The irony of all this is the interstate system ended up destroying the urban landscape in a similar fashion that the WWII bombers did to the German cities.

[Slick Vik]

This is the point I try to convey to people, particularly this board. American highways were never intended to carry “urban commuters”. They were intended as long-distance cross-country travel like European highways.

Political pressure has forced highway alignments to cut through the city. We don’t like it, highway engineers don’t like it, but to politicians, it’s a good way of saying “we got something accomplished”.

Unfortunately, we as a country are making our cars do what it’s not designed to do: Urban commuting

[Slick Vik]

That’s very standard in Europe as well. Highways don’t simply stop right at a city. It goes around. If it does go “to” a city, it transitions into a limited-access large arterial before it reaches the city. This reduces the amount of traffic being dumped at the city center.

Again, the problem with the U.S. is that we’ve turned highways into short-distance express arterials, which was not its original intent.

[mfastx]

I think using west park right of way would be good also, send it out to beltway 8 or even highway 6. Also a houston-Galveston line would be good also. Fort bend commuter line would be good too in addition to Hempstead. Those are the ones that come to mind. Perhaps even one down I 10 to highway 6.

 

Well now you're talking commuter rail, which is a totally different topic of discussion. 

 

But yeah perhaps the line to Uptown could be extended to the Beltway on a later date. 

[august948]

The irony of all this is the interstate system ended up destroying the urban landscape in a similar fashion that the WWII bombers did to the German cities.

You start out so well and then take a nosedive off the deep end...

Dresden, Germany, Feb 1945

I-40 through Nashville

[august948]

This is the point I try to convey to people, particularly this board. American highways were never intended to carry “urban commuters”. They were intended as long-distance cross-country travel like European highways.

It turns out that sometimes things done for one purpose serve another unanticipated purpose as well. Think of it as getting more return on investment than originally planned.

Political pressure has forced highway alignments to cut through the city. We don’t like it, highway engineers don’t like it, but to politicians, it’s a good way of saying “we got something accomplished”.

YOU don't like it and perhaps some others, but the majority of voters have backed it time and time again. For 60 plus years. It's not just some politicians cramming things down our throats.

Unfortunately, we as a country are making our cars do what it’s not designed to do: Urban commuting

Ok...now this one baffles me. How is a car not designed to go from home to work and back again?

[livincinco]

Slick Vik - there are some many distortions and outright fabrications in your series of posts from last night that I don't have time to address them today, but I will over the weekend. It constantly amazes me that you will dismiss any historical context and economic facts in favor of your conspiracy theories.

[RedScare]

This is the point I try to convey to people, particularly this board. American highways were never intended to carry “urban commuters”. They were intended as long-distance cross-country travel like European highways.

 

 

It does not matter what interstates were originally intended to be used for. Residents and communities found another beneficial use for them, and that was that. What you seem incapable of understanding is that the vast majority of people like and want those freeways. They like a comfortable trip from Houston to Dallas, and that interstate gives it to them. It matters not what your opinion is, because you have been outvoted by tens of millions of Americans. Trying to get freeways torn up is a fools errand.

 

Rail has its place. What you do not seem to understand is so do interstates and buses. You also do not understand the cost and limitations of rail. You attempt to cover up your ignorance of the high costs and limitations by feeding us conspiracy theories, but again, it doesn't matter how we got here...we are here. You cannot rebuild Houston like Chicago. Houston is here. The highways are here. You are tilting at windmills.

 

Call Houstonians and Dallasites stubborn if you like. What we probably more likely are is realists. 12.75 million of us. 

[luciaphile]

I'm not familiar with the history of Eisenhower's hopes for it, but as a non-flier I second your exasperation, Slick Vic, with the interstate highway system. It seems improbable this is what he envisioned.  The interstates through Tennessee are particularly fatiguing.

[Slick Vik]

Another informative post from Patrick Kennedy of Walkable DFW Blow

I've only listed our most conservative estimates of 9 separate models, which is what Kaid is citing here. Our most aggressive (in terms of FAR and land value) raises property tax revenue to nearly $100 million per year (from $3.5M) by year +15 assuming a 95% buildout by then. This new yearly tax revenue would come on the back of $6 billion in new investment (up from the 750M in the conservative model).

A few points of note, the conservative model is EXTREMELY conservative. We're talking one-story buildings and relatively static land values ($60/sf which is fairly typical in the area). The increased investment is almost entirely from dumpin 60 new acres of land onto the market and repositioning 120 of currently underdeveloped land (vacant/surface parking).

The most aggressive scenario sees property values rising to the level of some parts of uptown Dallas with the highest land values in the city. We think we can achieve this (almost as a base line) because we would be closer to downtown (without a freeway dividing as with uptown/downtown) and with better urbanism than what is around the Crescent area of uptown.

In this case we would be proposing land value spikes in the neighborhood of 300%, which seems like quite a bit. However, our confidence in this number was bolstered by the recent ITDP case study of the Embarcadero which showed a 300% increase in land value along the boulevard. Furthermore, we ran network analysis of the street and block network before and after. And if you follow Bill Hillier and his colleagues' line of work, they show that the degree of network interconnecitivity is in proportion with value. Value = desirability = density. In this scenario, we found spikes in "land value" as expressed by the value of the hub within the hierarchy of the network spiking 345% in some locations.

Also, a point of note: many are suggesting/asking if this is a highway to boulevard plan. It is not. While many other cities are doing or planning as such, it didn't make sense to cut/paste that solution here. We explored the option and determined that, while it works on NOLA's Claiborne expressway which tracks with the grid, IH-345 cuts at odd angles making too many fractured, undevelopable parcels. And the overall network isn't improved. Instead, we're relying on existing one-way couplets nearby to handle the local load which doesn't 1) stay on regional highways outside the city like 635 beltway 2) shift to rail 3) disappear as the opposite corollary of capacity induced traffic. These couplets are each 3 and 4 lanes wide and both badly under capacity, carrying between 7 and 10,000 cars per day. The area of these couplets could also use the increased energy as many investors look at traffic counts.

http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2012/02/couple-of-downtown-graphics-old-and-new.html

[Purdueenginerd]

KUHF posted this today. Thought it was interesting... and slightly relevant to vigorous discussions going on

 

http://app1.kuhf.org/vehicle-fatalities-texas.html

 

map of Vehicle fatalities this year in Texas. 

[Slick Vik]

It turns out that sometimes things done for one purpose serve another unanticipated purpose as well. Think of it as getting more return on investment than originally planned.

YOU don't like it and perhaps some others, but the majority of voters have backed it time and time again. For 60 plus years. It's not just some politicians cramming things down our throats.

Ok...now this one baffles me. How is a car not designed to go from home to work and back again?

Tell the numerous African American neighborhoods that got totally destroyed for highways they got more return for their investment than originally planned.

2. I can't recall a single vote regarding highway expansion but can recall numerous rail referendums.

You start out so well and then take a nosedive off the deep end...

Dresden, Germany, Feb 1945

I-40 through Nashville

Do you know what the Bronx used to look like?

[august948]

Tell the numerous African American neighborhoods that got totally destroyed for highways they got more return for their investment than originally planned.

It's unfair and unfortunate that the inner city highways were routed as they were, but it's reflective of American culture and politics of the 50's and 60's. There's no way it would happen again like that today or anytime in the foreseeable future.

2. I can't recall a single vote regarding highway expansion but can recall numerous rail referendums.

Maybe that's because the overwhelming popularity of personal vehicles makes it a political no-brainer. But regardless of whether you recall them or not there have been numerous road and highway bills and appropriations voted on at the federal, state, and local levels.

Do you know what the Bronx used to look like?

Seriously? The combined USAAF and RAF bombing campaigns over Germany flew 1.4 million bomber sorties, dropping 2.7 million tons of bombs. Most major German cities suffered over 50% of their built up areas destroyed. Dresden 59% destroyed, Dusseldorf 64%, Bremen 60%, Hanover 60%, Mainz 80%, and on and on. And you're comparing that to urban blight in the Bronx? Are you taking hyperbole lessons from Sean Hannity?

[livincinco]

You guys are failing to understand how correct Vik is.  Eisenhower always believed that the interstate system had nothing to do with commerce or the movement of freight.  When he said:

 

"Our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods. The ceaseless flow of information throughout the Republic is matched by individual and commercial movement over a vast system of interconnected highways crisscrossing the country and joining at our national borders with friendly neighbors to the north and south"

 

He was clearly employing the type of classic misinformation campaign that he employed during the successful D-Day invasion of Europe during WWII.  The interstate system was built for national defense and evacuation purposes only and there would clearly be no logical reason whatsoever to extend that highway system into cities.  Obviously, evacuation by rail to the edge of the city and then transporting those people into cars at that point is much more logical.

 

I mean the only other alternative would have been that Eisenhower recognized that the goal of the federal government is to regulate interstate and international commerce, not intrastate commerce, and would have been proposing that highways that extended into cities were the responsibility of the state and local governments.  Wow, I mean talk about something that's completely improbable!

[livincinco]

Do you know what the Bronx used to look like?

 

I completely agree and the fact that the Cross-Bronx expressway was originally proposed in 1929 and that construction began on it in 1948 is a perfect example of the heinous effects of the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. The devastation of the construction of the Cross-Bronx expressway destroyed the idyllic neighborhoods that had been created by the railroads as seen in the below picture.

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/syscosteve/8123448479/

[RedScare]

I completely agree and the fact that the Cross-Bronx expressway was originally proposed in 1929 and that construction began on it in 1948 is a perfect example of the heinous effects of the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. The devastation of the construction of the Cross-Bronx expressway destroyed the idyllic neighborhoods that had been created by the railroads as seen in the below picture.

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/syscosteve/8123448479/

 

Will I get in trouble for chuckling at this smackdown?

[livincinco]

Oops.  My mistake.  I meant to show how the Bronx looked back in the 1930's before there were a lot of cars and I linked on wrong image.  Sorry!

 

http://forgotten-ny.com/wp-content/gallery/tribal_custom_1/bruckner1.jpg

 

[Slick Vik]

You guys are failing to understand how correct Vik is. Eisenhower always believed that the interstate system had nothing to do with commerce or the movement of freight. When he said:

"Our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods. The ceaseless flow of information throughout the Republic is matched by individual and commercial movement over a vast system of interconnected highways crisscrossing the country and joining at our national borders with friendly neighbors to the north and south"

He was clearly employing the type of classic misinformation campaign that he employed during the successful D-Day invasion of Europe during WWII. The interstate system was built for national defense and evacuation purposes only and there would clearly be no logical reason whatsoever to extend that highway system into cities. Obviously, evacuation by rail to the edge of the city and then transporting those people into cars at that point is much more logical.

I mean the only other alternative would have been that Eisenhower recognized that the goal of the federal government is to regulate interstate and international commerce, not intrastate commerce, and would have been proposing that highways that extended into cities were the responsibility of the state and local governments. Wow, I mean talk about something that's completely improbable!

However, President Eisenhower was not aware of the urban highway segments. His model for the Interstate System had been Germany’s autobahn: the rural highway network he had seen during and after World War II. In the summer of 1959, rumor has it that he discovered the existence of urban highway segments when he passed construction of the Capital Beltway while being driven to the presidential retreat at Camp David. An alternative theory is that he discovered the truth when he talked with urban planners about the District of Columbia’s freeway network. Whichever way he found out, President Eisenhower asked his friend and adviser, retired General John Bragdon, to conduct a broad review of the Interstate program.

On April 6, 1960, the President met with Bragdon, Secretary of Commerce Frederick Mueller, Federal Highway Administrator Bertram Tallamy, and others, to review Bragdon’s preliminary findings, including his view that the Interstates should include only roads that carry intercity traffic around and into cities. Other urban Interstates should be eliminated. Mueller and Tallamy objected. The President responded that he now knew that the city officials and Members of Congress understood the urban highway segments were part of the program, even if they were contrary to his views. By then, he had heard of, but not seen, the Yellow Book (Mueller handed him a copy) and had been told that it was one of the prime reasons Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Although the concept was against his wishes, he felt his hands were tied. The urban Interstates would remain part of the program.

[Slick Vik]

I completely agree and the fact that the Cross-Bronx expressway was originally proposed in 1929 and that construction began on it in 1948 is a perfect example of the heinous effects of the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. The devastation of the construction of the Cross-Bronx expressway destroyed the idyllic neighborhoods that had been created by the railroads as seen in the below picture.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/syscosteve/8123448479/

I suggest you read the power broker. Any halfway knowledgable person on the subject of New York knows Robert Moses single handedly decimated the Bronx with his policies.

[RedScare]

However, President Eisenhower was not aware of the urban highway segments. His model for the Interstate System had been Germany’s autobahn: the rural highway network he had seen during and after World War II. In the summer of 1959, rumor has it that he discovered the existence of urban highway segments when he passed construction of the Capital Beltway while being driven to the presidential retreat at Camp David. An alternative theory is that he discovered the truth when he talked with urban planners about the District of Columbia’s freeway network. Whichever way he found out, President Eisenhower asked his friend and adviser, retired General John Bragdon, to conduct a broad review of the Interstate program.

On April 6, 1960, the President met with Bragdon, Secretary of Commerce Frederick Mueller, Federal Highway Administrator Bertram Tallamy, and others, to review Bragdon’s preliminary findings, including his view that the Interstates should include only roads that carry intercity traffic around and into cities. Other urban Interstates should be eliminated. Mueller and Tallamy objected. The President responded that he now knew that the city officials and Members of Congress understood the urban highway segments were part of the program, even if they were contrary to his views. By then, he had heard of, but not seen, the Yellow Book (Mueller handed him a copy) and had been told that it was one of the prime reasons Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Although the concept was against his wishes, he felt his hands were tied. The urban Interstates would remain part of the program.

 

This appears to be plagiarized text. Please give proper attribution to the author, including a link.

 

Thank you.