What is your ideal transit plan for Houston?

[David Crossley]

I suggest this (assuming an image loads; don't understand how to load them):

[Montrose1100]

On light rail, I'm a bit shaken on all the people who want to add light rail down any major road corridor that has those wide medians in them.

 

(artist's interpretation)

 

If it went Down Memorial it could be the Median until the park, and sink underground after Shepherd and re-emerge IN the park, instead of ON Memorial, cut under 610, and make it's way to Post Oak.

[Naviguessor]

David,

I love the work you do with Houston Tomorrow.  I would love to see your concept above...but the image doesn't seem to have uploaded successfully.  Please...try again. 

[David Crossley]

Thanks, just can't figure out how to attach an image. But here's a link to it. What you'll see is basically a full tilt BRT system that I think is completely rational and gets to all of the top 25 job centers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj3uo52b9oj7hn5/job-centers-master-2040-15.jpg

[august948]

Thanks, just can't figure out how to attach an image. But here's a link to it. What you'll see is basically a full tilt BRT system that I think is completely rational and gets to all of the top 25 job centers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj3uo52b9oj7hn5/job-centers-master-2040-15.jpg

 

LarryDierker was kind enough to explain it to me here...

 

http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/29508-how-to-post-a-picture-to-haif/

 

[cloud713]

Thanks, just can't figure out how to attach an image. But here's a link to it. What you'll see is basically a full tilt BRT system that I think is completely rational and gets to all of the top 25 job centers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj3uo52b9oj7hn5/job-centers-master-2040-15.jpg

First off, its great to see you posting on the forums. I am also a long time reader of Houston Tomorrow and support what you are trying to do.

Second, do the different colors in your map represent anything? Like the purple, green, yellow, and light blue? Or is everything just BRT? I find it interesting you would go with a majority BRT system.

And I like your idea of linking i10 and i45 through highway 6/1960.

Here is a new report i found posted on Swamplot discussing the need for commuter rail to the suburbs.. i definitely think Houston could use commuter rail. at least to Katy, The Woodlands, Galveston (could/should be an extension of the HSR line), Cypress, and maybe even Sugar Land.

http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/1386612605-Expert-Says-Houstons-Freeway-Congestion-Could-Spread-To-Neighborhood-Streets.html

[David Crossley]

Thanks for the kind words. 

All the colors except dark blue mean there is already some sort of regional bus transit in those facilities. Some of it is pretty good - I-10 is two ways 24 hours - some not so much. But the point is we would simply be talking about expansion of what we already have and a new paradigm to drive it. Note that this system reaches every one of the top 25 job centers in the region. The commuter rail plan only reaches a few, very few, and costs a fortune to arrive at ridership that is less than the current park and ride service delivers.

[Slick Vik]

Thanks for the kind words.

All the colors except dark blue mean there is already some sort of regional bus transit in those facilities. Some of it is pretty good - I-10 is two ways 24 hours - some not so much. But the point is we would simply be talking about expansion of what we already have and a new paradigm to drive it. Note that this system reaches every one of the top 25 job centers in the region. The commuter rail plan only reaches a few, very few, and costs a fortune to arrive at ridership that is less than the current park and ride service delivers.

10 has 2 way bus traffic 24 hours?

[august948]

Thanks, just can't figure out how to attach an image. But here's a link to it. What you'll see is basically a full tilt BRT system that I think is completely rational and gets to all of the top 25 job centers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mj3uo52b9oj7hn5/job-centers-master-2040-15.jpg

 

I like what you've done here, but I would extend the 1960/hwy 6 route down to 59/Sugar Land Town Center.  I'd also have extensions out into the purple areas since those areas already have substantial and growing populations.  The more convenient you make it, the more people will ride.  I'd also tend towards P&R rather than BRT either in parallel or replacing so that you can have more seamless routing to the major employment centers.  For instance, from the same station/P&R in The Woodlands run to the Energy Corridor, Downtown, TMC, etc.  That way riders would be able to get on one bus for most if not all the journey.  I suspect that likelihood of riding decreases as the number of connections increases.  Also, though the system should be set up mainly to serve workers goiing to and from work, having easy connections to shopping and other destinations would help with non-peak mobility as well.

 

[David Crossley]

10 has 2 way bus traffic 24 hours? 

No, I meant that the facility is two way and open 24 hours. 

• Like This
  

• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
   
  
  
  
•  
  
• N
  

[David Crossley]

I like what you've done here, but I would extend the 1960/hwy 6 route down to 59/Sugar Land Town Center.  I'd also have extensions out into the purple areas since those areas already have substantial and growing populations.  The more convenient you make it, the more people will ride.  I'd also tend towards P&R rather than BRT either in parallel or replacing so that you can have more seamless routing to the major employment centers.  For instance, from the same station/P&R in The Woodlands run to the Energy Corridor, Downtown, TMC, etc.  That way riders would be able to get on one bus for most if not all the journey.  I suspect that likelihood of riding decreases as the number of connections increases.  Also, though the system should be set up mainly to serve workers goiing to and from work, having easy connections to shopping and other destinations would help with non-peak mobility as well.

 

One of the things we need to come to grips with eventually is that about 80% of our trips each day are not commuting. Even at rush hour, the majority of the vehicles on I-10, for instance, are not carrying commuters. 

The Main Street rail line is busy all the time. So the BRT, or whatever, wouldn't just be carrying people to and from work.

The beauty of the P&R buses now is that they're mostly nonstop trips, so they're very fast. I think any such system as I describe would have to include frequent express buses at rush hours.

One interesting side note is that the concept of driverless or autonomous cars is moving along pretty fast and of course buses could operate the same way. This would mean very tight headways would be possible, just seconds apart, so capacity would be pretty spectacular.

And the file is now attached.

[august948]

While I would like to see and would champion the inclusion of non-commuting transit options and stops, applying the 80/20 rule to this means we should concentrate on the commuters.  The non-commuting trips aren't as tractable as the commuting trips since, with commuters, you are usually talking about individuals who are carrying everything they need with them (briefcases, laptops, purses, etc) and are mostly moving from point a to point b and back.  The non-commuting trips more frequently involve a group (parents and children, etc), multiple stops and the need to carry goods (can I bring a couple of 4x8 sheets of plywood on the bus?).  So, I don't think you can transition as many of those trips to transit.  But, in the end that might not matter if those trips are more distributed throughout the city (as I believe they are).  Somewhat related, I'd also advocate whatever measures we can to induce the distribution of jobs across the city, particularly out of downtown.

 

[Slick Vik]

One of the things we need to come to grips with eventually is that about 80% of our trips each day are not commuting. Even at rush hour, the majority of the vehicles on I-10, for instance, are not carrying commuters.

The Main Street rail line is busy all the time. So the BRT, or whatever, wouldn't just be carrying people to and from work.

The beauty of the P&R buses now is that they're mostly nonstop trips, so they're very fast. I think any such system as I describe would have to include frequent express buses at rush hours.

One interesting side note is that the concept of driverless or autonomous cars is moving along pretty fast and of course buses could operate the same way. This would mean very tight headways would be possible, just seconds apart, so capacity would be pretty spectacular.

And the file is now attached.

There are certain hours of the day when there are many commuters, otherwise there would be the same traffic all day and not more at rush hour.

[Slick Vik]

Somewhat related, I'd also advocate whatever measures we can to induce the distribution of jobs across the city, particularly out of downtown.

Terrible idea. The center of the city matters and anyhow development is finally beginning residentially.

[Ross]

Terrible idea. The center of the city matters and anyhow development is finally beginning residentially.

Why is it a terrible idea? Or do you think having a huge portion of the population streaming into and out of the center city a good idea? Having multiple employment centers is a good thing, and allows for people to live closer to work without requiring the city to grow vertically.

[gmac]

The "center" of the city is an antiquated notion that will go away as more employers figure out it's easier to get people to come to work minus the hassles of herding with thousands of other drones into one location.

[august948]

Terrible idea. The center of the city matters and anyhow development is finally beginning residentially.

 

Perfect. then.  Move employment out and residents in.  You get a more lively downtown and those who have to slog in from outside the loop can get a break on their commute times.  Everyone wins.

 

[cloud713]

not picking on you Ross, as there were multiple others advocating the same thing, your quote was just worded the best for my reply..
 

Why is it a terrible idea? Or do you think having a huge portion of the population streaming into and out of the center city a good idea? Having multiple employment centers is a good thing, and allows for people to live closer to work without requiring the city to grow vertically.

dont we already have multiple employment centers spread out across town? downtown, uptown, greenway, the medical center, the energy corridor, the woodlands, briarlake/westchase, greenspoint, ect... most major cities have zoning, so all of their urban districts are centralized in one large area.. Houstons lack of zoning led to developing these employment centers all across town.
the point is, we already have spread out employment centers (much more so than most cities).. are you guys advocating we spread them out even more?

[IronTiger]

Post eaten

Edited January 25, 2014 by IronTiger

[Ross]

not picking on you Ross, as there were multiple others advocating the same thing, your quote was just worded the best for my reply..

 

dont we already have multiple employment centers spread out across town? downtown, uptown, greenway, the medical center, the energy corridor, the woodlands, briarlake/westchase, greenspoint, ect... most major cities have zoning, so all of their urban districts are centralized in one large area.. Houstons lack of zoning led to developing these employment centers all across town.

the point is, we already have spread out employment centers (much more so than most cities).. are you guys advocating we spread them out even more?

 

If that leads to growth and continued economic success, then yes. I don't see anything wrong with outward growth, especially since we don't have any real geographic constraints here.

[Sky-guy]

Terrible idea. The center of the city matters and anyhow development is finally beginning residentially.

Houston has more than one "center of the city".

[Slick Vik]

The "center" of the city is an antiquated notion that will go away as more employers figure out it's easier to get people to come to work minus the hassles of herding with thousands of other drones into one location.

Maybe in houston but not 99% of the modern world.

Why is it a terrible idea? Or do you think having a huge portion of the population streaming into and out of the center city a good idea? Having multiple employment centers is a good thing, and allows for people to live closer to work without requiring the city to grow vertically.

Having people going in every direction is worse than having one center.

If that leads to growth and continued economic success, then yes. I don't see anything wrong with outward growth, especially since we don't have any real geographic constraints here.

Sprawl is not an indicator of success

Houston has more than one "center of the city".

No it doesn't unless you're ignoring geography

[Slick Vik]

Perfect. then. Move employment out and residents in. You get a more lively downtown and those who have to slog in from outside the loop can get a break on their commute times. Everyone wins.

That's what you think but traffic will get worse if you spread centers out because it puts more people on the roads. If you have one center it makes it easier to create alternatives around it.

[Ross]

Maybe in houston but not 99% of the modern world.

Having people going in every direction is worse than having one center.

Sprawl is not an indicator of success

No it doesn't unless you're ignoring geography

 

You don't get out much do you? Never travel to any "modern" city. London has employment all over town. Paris has employment centers around town. Los Angeles has employment centers around town. Only second rate cities have all their employment in the center.

 

I cannot fathom why you think it is reasonable to force all the employment into one part of a city.

 

[Slick Vik]

You don't get out much do you? Never travel to any "modern" city. London has employment all over town. Paris has employment centers around town. Los Angeles has employment centers around town. Only second rate cities have all their employment in the center.

I cannot fathom why you think it is reasonable to force all the employment into one part of a city.

London has a city center. So does Paris. And rome. And Delhi. And San Francisco. And Chicago. And Vancouver. Maybe you've heard of Champs Elysees? The list goes on and on and on. I agree LA's downtown isn't much of a center.

[Ross]

All those cities have centers, but they also have  multiple employment centers. London has The City, but also has Westminster, Canary Wharf, which was pretty much purpose built to distribute employment, plus several other areas where employment has moved to get away from The City.

 

In Paris, there's La Defense, which is located on an orbital motorway outside the center of the city. There's not going to be much expansion along the central Champs Elysee due to building height restrictions and preservation issues.

[Slick Vik]

All those cities have centers, but they also have multiple employment centers. London has The City, but also has Westminster, Canary Wharf, which was pretty much purpose built to distribute employment, plus several other areas where employment has moved to get away from The City.

In Paris, there's La Defense, which is located on an orbital motorway outside the center of the city. There's not going to be much expansion along the central Champs Elysee due to building height restrictions and preservation issues.

Yes but the way the European cities were designed were for the center to be the focal centers of the city. Thus the highways not plowing through centers and instead going around.

[IronTiger]

No it doesn't unless you're ignoring geography

The geographical center of Houston is not downtown.

Yes but the way the European cities were designed were for the center to be the focal centers of the city. Thus the highways not plowing through centers and instead going around.

Most of them were "designed" in pre-industrial settings centuries ago when the rich lived in the city and actively had to defend from barbarians. To note is Paris, which looked nothing like it did prior to the mid-19th century when Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann designed wide boulevards throughout the city, replacing the spider-web of narrow medieval roads and the cramped slums, in which (in some areas, reached 250k people per square mile--that's three times the density of Manhattan) the poor suffered from extremely poor sanitation (and lots of disease). And you know what? The renovations worked, and disease outbreaks among the poor were significantly reduced. (Wikipedia)

[august948]

not picking on you Ross, as there were multiple others advocating the same thing, your quote was just worded the best for my reply..

 

dont we already have multiple employment centers spread out across town? downtown, uptown, greenway, the medical center, the energy corridor, the woodlands, briarlake/westchase, greenspoint, ect... most major cities have zoning, so all of their urban districts are centralized in one large area.. Houstons lack of zoning led to developing these employment centers all across town.

the point is, we already have spread out employment centers (much more so than most cities).. are you guys advocating we spread them out even more?

 

Yes.

 

[august948]

Yes but the way the European cities were designed were for the center to be the focal centers of the city. Thus the highways not plowing through centers and instead going around.

 

The lack of highways plowing throught the center of European cities has more to do with historical preservation than with anything else.  Not an issue here.  Apples to oranges once again.