What is your ideal transit plan for Houston?

[IronTiger]

6. Having an ideological  bias against transit or for highways means you're not in the main discussion, which has to focused on reality and what's possible.

No one here is with an "ideological bias against transit", not even me. However, you don't condemn anyone with an "ideological basis against freeways", which some people do have. As painful as it is, we could use more highways. But we could also use more rail.

[David Crossley]

No one here is with an "ideological bias against transit", not even me. However, you don't condemn anyone with an "ideological basis against freeways", which some people do have. As painful as it is, we could use more highways. But we could also use more rail.

Where would you put more highways? We're already wiping out significant parts of our economy with widening and we're replacing about 1,000 square miles of prairie, forest, and wetlands with SH 99 development, and none of that will reduce congestion or make commutes easier. You might be able to make a case for more local streets to improve connectivity and give people options, but I can't see where you'd put a new highway other than to induce sprawl.

[Slick Vik]

Unfortunately, as U.S. cities in the northeast show, driving is still preferred far and above. There's an extensive light rail network in Dallas: I could get from Plano to downtown, but are the highways clogged? Yes.

What a lot of light rail advocates don't realize is that when you ride on mass transit, you eliminate options: you can't stop at a restaurant, store (grocery or otherwise) or otherwise on the way home, or make any other side trips (dry cleaning, etc.)

A "feasible alternative" to driving could probably be rocket jet-packs that you could fly to work, but the technology isn't there yet.

 

The northeast has a significant population that uses mass transit.

 

The problem with Dallas's mass transit is that it's simply a suburban feeder system. Once you get to the city there isn't much of a way to get around except the streetcar. You need both.

 

If the transit system is good enough you can make all those stops. Maybe not in the comfort of your car but it can be done. The main reason our system exists is because of cheap gas. The quickest way to change things would be making all highways tollways and eliminate free parking.

[IronTiger]

Where would you put more highways? We're already wiping out significant parts of our economy with widening and we're replacing about 1,000 square miles of prairie, forest, and wetlands with SH 99 development, and none of that will reduce congestion or make commutes easier. You might be able to make a case for more local streets to improve connectivity and give people options, but I can't see where you'd put a new highway other than to induce sprawl.

Pearland needs a freeway, but it will require demolition. Adding new highways and widening them DOES in fact reduce congestion and make commutes easier, certainly at least more than adding mass transit does. The "induced demand" is a popular argument for anti-highway advocates but (and this is mentioned on a previous post, not by me) the demand was already there. The developments between Katy and Cypress (not literally between them, but I'm talking as a system here) was pent-up for a new freeway, and the continuing growth of Houston (and other city-systems in Texas, for that matter). If that theory was true, all they would need to do for states with declining population (Michigan, Louisiana) is add more freeways and new growth would occur like mushrooms after a rain.

The "wiping out significant parts of our economy" is also nonsense. The widening of Katy Freeway was painful, yes. But it didn't damage the economy in the least: sure there were some 1980s era office buildings lost (but office space isn't particularly tight in Houston), some fast foods and hotels (nothing to worry about unless you get particularly weepy over demolishing that sort of thing), a few hotels (also not a problem), a handful of houses, a few tiny strip malls (like we don't have enough of those), and the Igloo plant (which relocated). In fact, the REI building that was demolished ended up moving to a vacant Albertsons a few miles south. And even if you were worried about economy, the "Energy Corridor" is doing better than ever.

The problem with Dallas's mass transit is that it's simply a suburban feeder system. Once you get to the city there isn't much of a way to get around except the streetcar. You need both.

No, you don't. In New York City, long a favorite example for mass transit enthusiasts, the other way of getting around the city involves taxis.

The quickest way to change things would be making all highways tollways and eliminate free parking.

Awesome, that makes highways only accessible to the rich. The "commoners" are forced to ride mass transit.

[cloud713]

yes i agree the energy corridor is doing better than ever but you cannot continue destroying all the developments that line the highways to widen the ROW.. there were only a few obstacles for the last katy freeway expansion. just imagine all the obstacles along the edges of the freeway that are in the way of a future expansion. eventually that corridor needs a commuter rail or as David suggest a full fledged BRT system to accommodate for the increase in population/traffic.

David, the more i think about your system using BRT, the more it makes sense. while i (and countless others im sure) would love rail, you are right.. its too expensive to put all over the city and not flexible enough for changing demands. admittedly i still hope to see commuter rail along certain corridors though. heh

[David Crossley]

Pearland needs a freeway, but it will require demolition. Adding new highways and widening them DOES in fact reduce congestion and make commutes easier, certainly at least more than adding mass transit does. The "induced demand" is a popular argument for anti-highway advocates but (and this is mentioned on a previous post, not by me) the demand was already there. The developments between Katy and Cypress (not literally between them, but I'm talking as a system here) was pent-up for a new freeway, and the continuing growth of Houston (and other city-systems in Texas, for that matter). If that theory was true, all they would need to do for states with declining population (Michigan, Louisiana) is add more freeways and new growth would occur like mushrooms after a rain.

The "wiping out significant parts of our economy" is also nonsense. The widening of Katy Freeway was painful, yes. But it didn't damage the economy in the least: sure there were some 1980s era office buildings lost (but office space isn't particularly tight in Houston), some fast foods and hotels (nothing to worry about unless you get particularly weepy over demolishing that sort of thing), a few hotels (also not a problem), a handful of houses, a few tiny strip malls (like we don't have enough of those), and the Igloo plant (which relocated). In fact, the REI building that was demolished ended up moving to a vacant Albertsons a few miles south. And even if you were worried about economy, the "Energy Corridor" is doing better than ever.

No, you don't. In New York City, long a favorite example for mass transit enthusiasts, the other way of getting around the city involves taxis.

Awesome, that makes highways only accessible to the rich. The "commoners" are forced to ride mass transit.

There is no evidence in science or the practice that anything reduces congestion other than congestion pricing. Highway space creates congestion and this is very well known and proven. Transit, on the other hand, clearly takes drivers off the road and so is helpful in reducing the growth of congestion. Induced demand is not a "popular argument," it's a proven dynamic. Please see Cervero on induced demand and congestion and the TTI Mobility Report on the effect of transit in Houston.

 

The widening of I-10 removed 90% of the tax base of Spring Valley and shuttered more businesses than I can recall. The 290 expansion is going to move hundreds of acres of productive property from the economy. The idea that TxDOT gets to decide who stays in business and where is outrageous and I'm amazed that conservatives buy the idea that it's appropriate for a government agency to choose winners and losers among economic players.

 

The topic here is some sort of ideal transit system, and your insistence on trying to change the topic discourages others from entering into the discussion, which i assume is your purpose. It might be helpful even to you to move your arguments to a topic that's about highways or not having transit.

[David Crossley]

yes i agree the energy corridor is doing better than ever but you cannot continue destroying all the developments that line the highways to widen the ROW.. there were only a few obstacles for the last katy freeway expansion. just imagine all the obstacles along the edges of the freeway that are in the way of a future expansion. eventually that corridor needs a commuter rail or as David suggest a full fledged BRT system to accommodate for the increase in population/traffic.

David, the more i think about your system using BRT, the more it makes sense. while i (and countless others im sure) would love rail, you are right.. its too expensive to put all over the city and not flexible enough for changing demands. admittedly i still hope to see commuter rail along certain corridors though. heh

The only way to increase highway capacity without destroying economic assets and inducing congestion is to increase the number of people in the existing lanes. That means more people per vehicle (or automated driverless cars, and eventually that doesn't work either).

 

Look at this picture: the number of people in the bus is the same as the number in the cars with the red line around them.

[David Crossley]

Or look at this picture from Istanbul. The 4 Mercedes double buses are carrying 200 people, way more than all the cars you can see in the picture. And carrying them in comfort and safety in a stress-free environment. And if you can read the table you'll see that the system carries 700,000 passengers a day. Metro carries 230,000.

 

Sorry, that should have said 200 people each - 800 people.

[Slick Vik]

istanbul-BRT.jpgOr look at this picture from Istanbul. The 4 Mercedes double buses are carrying 200 people, way more than all the cars you can see in the picture. And carrying them in comfort and safety in a stress-free environment. And if you can read the table you'll see that the system carries 700,000 passengers a day. Metro carries 230,000.

 

Sorry, that should have said 200 people each - 800 people.

 

To be fair the Istanbul BRT is too crowded, i took it last year and the buses are standing room only. I missed a few until I could get on one with space. Istanbul's metro system is far faster and more efficient.

[august948]

istanbul-BRT.jpgOr look at this picture from Istanbul. The 4 Mercedes double buses are carrying 200 people, way more than all the cars you can see in the picture. And carrying them in comfort and safety in a stress-free environment. And if you can read the table you'll see that the system carries 700,000 passengers a day. Metro carries 230,000.

 

Sorry, that should have said 200 people each - 800 people.

 

Undoubtably that's true, yet in the same picture (and the one before it) you see multiple freeway lanes filled to capacity with cars.  Why wouldn't those people also be on the bus?  I think the answer to that is that any mass transit system can only do so much and people want the freedom to move about as they please, thus requiring a good road system that can meet peak capacity.  Either that or you find ways to distribute the load across a larger geographic area, which some would consider a bad thing (sprawl).

 

[Slick Vik]

Pearland needs a freeway, but it will require demolition. Adding new highways and widening them DOES in fact reduce congestion and make commutes easier, certainly at least more than adding mass transit does. The "induced demand" is a popular argument for anti-highway advocates but (and this is mentioned on a previous post, not by me) the demand was already there. The developments between Katy and Cypress (not literally between them, but I'm talking as a system here) was pent-up for a new freeway, and the continuing growth of Houston (and other city-systems in Texas, for that matter). If that theory was true, all they would need to do for states with declining population (Michigan, Louisiana) is add more freeways and new growth would occur like mushrooms after a rain.

The "wiping out significant parts of our economy" is also nonsense. The widening of Katy Freeway was painful, yes. But it didn't damage the economy in the least: sure there were some 1980s era office buildings lost (but office space isn't particularly tight in Houston), some fast foods and hotels (nothing to worry about unless you get particularly weepy over demolishing that sort of thing), a few hotels (also not a problem), a handful of houses, a few tiny strip malls (like we don't have enough of those), and the Igloo plant (which relocated). In fact, the REI building that was demolished ended up moving to a vacant Albertsons a few miles south. And even if you were worried about economy, the "Energy Corridor" is doing better than ever.

No, you don't. In New York City, long a favorite example for mass transit enthusiasts, the other way of getting around the city involves taxis.

Awesome, that makes highways only accessible to the rich. The "commoners" are forced to ride mass transit.

 

Pearland has 288, it does not need another freeway.

 

The induced demand argument is popular because it's true. It has nothing to do with growth but everything to do with congestion.

 

You're saying mass transit is not popular in New York? Mass transit has about a 55.6% share there, which is many millions of people. Taxis are popular with some but I am pretty sure more people rely on subways (and buses to an extent) then they do on taxis to get around daily, just because of economics. Are you seriously saying more than 55.6% of new yorkers ride taxis in a day?

 

Congestion pricing has nothing to do with class warfare and everything to do with clearing up the roadways as much as possible.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Slick Vik

[august948]

yes i agree the energy corridor is doing better than ever but you cannot continue destroying all the developments that line the highways to widen the ROW.. there were only a few obstacles for the last katy freeway expansion. just imagine all the obstacles along the edges of the freeway that are in the way of a future expansion. eventually that corridor needs a commuter rail or as David suggest a full fledged BRT system to accommodate for the increase in population/traffic.

David, the more i think about your system using BRT, the more it makes sense. while i (and countless others im sure) would love rail, you are right.. its too expensive to put all over the city and not flexible enough for changing demands. admittedly i still hope to see commuter rail along certain corridors though. heh

 

If we have congestion pricing on the tollways (which we do) and, as David said, it is a proven way to reduce congestion in freeway lanes, then what would be the overriding advantage to setting up a true BRT system vs using P&R buses and just increasing their frequency, size and destinations?

 

[Slick Vik]

If we have congestion pricing on the tollways (which we do) and, as David said, it is a proven way to reduce congestion in freeway lanes, then what would be the overriding advantage to setting up a true BRT system vs using P&R buses and just increasing their frequency, size and destinations?

 

 

BRT has its own lane on boulevards and can have as many stops as it wants. P&R is limited to HOV lanes only and the limited stops that there are right now. For the rail haters BRT is a good compromise because if it gets to the point where the demand is enough than that can justify rail in a corridor even to the skeptics.

[David Crossley]

To be fair the Istanbul BRT is too crowded, i took it last year and the buses are standing room only. I missed a few until I could get on one with space. Istanbul's metro system is far faster and more efficient.

So does that mean that, for instance, the New York subway system is a failure because too many people use it? And remember, having a "metro system," if you mean heavy rail and subways, is not in the cards for Houston, period. The politics are opposed to that for at least another decade and maybe beyond, and by that time it's just too expensive. What we need to address is, if we can't have any more rail at all, then what should we do?

[cloud713]

So does that mean that, for instance, the New York subway system is a failure because too many people use it? And remember, having a "metro system," if you mean heavy rail and subways, is not in the cards for Houston, period. The politics are opposed to that for at least another decade and maybe beyond, and by that time it's just too expensive. What we need to address is, if we can't have any more rail at all, then what should we do?

uptown is doing a great job of this by moving forward with their BRT lanes on Post Oak since they didnt get funding for rail. and like SlickVic was saying, whenever funding does eventually materialize for rail then it will be very easy for Uptown to convert the BRT to LRT since the ROW is already there.

[David Crossley]

If we have congestion pricing on the tollways (which we do) and, as David said, it is a proven way to reduce congestion in freeway lanes, then what would be the overriding advantage to setting up a true BRT system vs using P&R buses and just increasing their frequency, size and destinations?

 

Absolutely, that would be helpful, but those are one-way buses. In the morning they make about 20-minute trip to downtown and a 40 minute trip in regular traffic lanes to get back out there to get more passengers (except on I-10, where the facility is the minimum I would expect for the whole system, and is probably good enough for a while, until Harris County forces the buses out of the right of way, which they can do, and will if the bus traffic threatens the revenue stream).

 

The minimum system, I think, is ROW like I-10, with flyovers into each of the job centers, perhaps a couple of stops on the street in each of those centers and then back on the system to the next place.

 

BRT means dedicated ROW with high-capacity low floor buses with multiple doors and external ticketing, operating just like light rail, but on rubber tires. Eventually we could get there.

 

However, just as Harris County took away Metro's ROW in I-10, TxDOT is preparing to do that on 290 and 45, so over time all possibility of useful transit goes away. Unless, as I say, the demographics change and urban dwellers - who are already the majority in Texas - get some clout in the State and County governments. 

[David Crossley]

uptown is doing a great job of this by moving forward with their BRT lanes on Post Oak since they didnt get funding for rail. and like SlickVic was saying, whenever funding does eventually materialize for rail then it will be very easy for Uptown to convert the BRT to LRT since the ROW is already there.

 

exactly. the major hurdle is acquiring ROW. Technology is secondary. Although I don't think we'll ever see rail on the freeways, and I hope we never see any significant commuter rail.

[august948]

BRT has its own lane on boulevards and can have as many stops as it wants. P&R is limited to HOV lanes only and the limited stops that there are right now. For the rail haters BRT is a good compromise because if it gets to the point where the demand is enough than that can justify rail in a corridor even to the skeptics.

 

So BRT specifically references a non-highway corridor solution that has multiple stops and is essentially light rail without the rail?

 

[David Crossley]

So BRT specifically references a non-highway corridor solution that has multiple stops and is essentially light rail without the rail?

 

Not quites. it can and does operate in freeways and highways.  Let's just start with the Wikipedia definition:

 

 

Bus rapid transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

TransMilenio buses in Bogotá, Colombia

Transfer station in Curitiba's Linha Verde

Metrobüs in Istanbul

Bus rapid transit (BRT, BRTS) is a bus-based mass transit system. A true BRT system generally has specialized design, services and infrastructure to improve system quality and remove the typical causes of delay. Sometimes described as a "surface subway", BRT aims to combine the capacity and speed of light rail or metro with the flexibility, lower cost and simplicity of a bus system.^{[1][verification needed]}

To be considered BRT, buses should operate for a significant part of their journey within a fully dedicated right of way (busway), in order to avoid traffic congestion. In addition, a true BRT system will have most of the following elements:

• alignment in the center of the road (to avoid typical curb-side delays)
• Stations with off-board fare collection (to reduce boarding and alighting delay related to paying the driver)
• Station platforms level with the bus floor (to reduce boarding and alighting delay caused by steps)
• Bus priority at intersections (to avoid intersection signal delay)

The first BRT system was the Rede Integrada de Transporte ('Integrated Transportation Network') in Curitiba, Brazil, which entered service in 1974. This inspired many similar systems around Brazil and the world, such as TransMilenioin Bogotá, Colombia, which opened in 2000. As of November 2013 more than 166 cities have implemented BRT, accounting for 4,336 km (2,694 mi) of BRT lanes.^[2] It is estimated that about 27 million passengers use BRT worldwide everyday, of which about 17 million are in Latin America, which has the most systems, with 55.^[2]

Due to the many differences and distinct features among existing BRT systems, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy formed a BRT Standard Technical Committee in 2011, and in 2013 it set a minimum definition of what features must be part of a system to qualify as BRT and created a BRT Standard to rate existing systems.^[3]

 

[IronTiger]

The topic here is some sort of ideal transit system, and your insistence on trying to change the topic discourages others from entering into the discussion, which i assume is your purpose. It might be helpful even to you to move your arguments to a topic that's about highways or not having transit.

I'm not changing the topic, I stated that my ideal transit plan did include more highways and widened highways as part of it and you're complaining because it didn't fit your view of how the topic should be. I'm sorry that my ideals disagree with yours, but if the question is posed, there's no need to go into a fit because someone suggested *gasp* new highways.

 

Pearland has 288, it does not need another freeway.

It needs an east-west freeway that is a relief route to the crowded Pearland Parkway, but there's houses everywhere and it can't be done without a lot of demolition. Realistically, it won't happen for years.

 

You're saying mass transit is not popular in New York? Mass transit has about a 33% share there, which is many millions of people. Taxis are popular with some but I am pretty sure more people rely on subways (and buses to an extent) then they do on taxis to get around daily, just because of economics.

I never said mass transit wasn't popular, I was saying that additional streetcars that aren't the light rail in Dallas aren't necessary. Dallas does have a little trolley in the downtown system, but that's probably not what you had in mind.

 

The widening of I-10 removed 90% of the tax base of Spring Valley and shuttered more businesses than I can recall.

Thanks to some HAIFers here, I got a PDF that does detail which businesses were lost in the widening of Interstate 10 West. I myself maintain an ongoing list of what was lost for the Katy Freeway and what will be lost for 290. You're welcome to contribute to either of them.

Now, yes, I was saddened a bit to see all that go away--those tall fast food signs near Beltway 8 still occupy a little place in my heart, but what do you expect them to do? Do nothing? We both want to talk progress, right?

 

I'm amazed that conservatives buy the idea that it's appropriate for a government agency to choose winners and losers among economic players.

Based on what you've said in this thread about transit, I doubt that you are a conservative yourself, but building roads and transit is a fairly universal idea in politics (unless you lean a bunch toward libertarian views). Mass transit requires demolitions, too: yeah, eminent domain sucks, but something will have to give eventually.

As an aside, I think I may have posted earlier that I would like to see BRT lanes running on the Columbia Tap Rail Trail, personally.

 

However, just as Harris County took away Metro's ROW in I-10, TxDOT is preparing to do that on 290 and 45, so over time all possibility of useful transit goes away.

While I think 290 needs to be widened, I never said I liked all the plans they proposed. Edited January 28, 2014 by IronTiger

[Slick Vik]

I'm not changing the topic, I stated that my ideal transit plan did include more highways and widened highways as part of it and you're complaining because it didn't fit your view of how the topic should be. I'm sorry that my ideals disagree with yours, but if the question is posed, there's no need to go into a fit because someone suggested *gasp* new highways.

It needs an east-west freeway that is a relief route to the crowded Pearland Parkway, but there's houses everywhere and it can't be done without a lot of demolition. Realistically, it won't happen for years.

I never said mass transit wasn't popular, I was saying that additional streetcars that aren't the light rail in Dallas aren't necessary. Dallas does have a little trolley in the downtown system, but that's probably not what you had in mind.

Thanks to some HAIFers here, I got a PDF that does detail which businesses were lost in the widening of Interstate 10 West. I myself maintain an ongoing list of what was lost for the Katy Freeway and what will be lost for 290. You're welcome to contribute to either of them.

Now, yes, I was saddened a bit to see all that go away--those tall fast food signs near Beltway 8 still occupy a little place in my heart, but what do you expect them to do? Do nothing? We both want to talk progress, right?

Based on what you've said in this thread about transit, I doubt that you are a conservative yourself, but building roads and transit is a fairly universal idea in politics (unless you lean a bunch toward libertarian views). Mass transit requires demolitions, too: yeah, eminent domain sucks, but something will have to give eventually.

As an aside, I think I may have posted earlier that I would like to see BRT lanes running on the Columbia Tap Rail Trail, personally.

While I think 290 needs to be widened, I never said I liked all the plans they proposed.

Houston doesn't need any more or widened highways. It has more than enough.

Dallas does need streetcars or subway or something in the city to give the dart a useful connector once you get into the city.

exactly. the major hurdle is acquiring ROW. Technology is secondary. Although I don't think we'll ever see rail on the freeways, and I hope we never see any significant commuter rail.

Row gets more expensive over time.

[Slick Vik]

So does that mean that, for instance, the New York subway system is a failure because too many people use it? And remember, having a "metro system," if you mean heavy rail and subways, is not in the cards for Houston, period. The politics are opposed to that for at least another decade and maybe beyond, and by that time it's just too expensive. What we need to address is, if we can't have any more rail at all, then what should we do?

No I'm saying istanbul's brt needs to be converted. You can't get more efficient with subways once you've reached peak capacity and frequency.

[IronTiger]

Houston doesn't need any more or widened highways. It has more than enough.

Dallas does need streetcars or subway or something in the city to give the dart a useful connector once you get into the city.

I was going to refute your first statement, but then I realized that I was saying this earlier:

I was saying that additional streetcars that aren't the light rail in Dallas aren't necessary.

More transit, whether it means bus, highway, or rail, IS necessary, but specifically what we think is needed (or isn't needed) is rather subjective. I think we could all agree on that.

[David Crossley]

I was going to refute your first statement, but then I realized that I was saying this earlier:

More transit, whether it means bus, highway, or rail, IS necessary, but specifically what we think is needed (or isn't needed) is rather subjective. I think we could all agree on that.

I"m not going to participate in this transit/no transit argument any more, but when you say "More transit is needed" and you include highways, are you defining drivers in cars on highways as transit? Let's not do that, okay?  Transit is transit, highways are not, although they could carry transit as they do now. But we definitely don't need more highways in order to have more transit.

[mfastx]

So does that mean that, for instance, the New York subway system is a failure because too many people use it? And remember, having a "metro system," if you mean heavy rail and subways, is not in the cards for Houston, period. The politics are opposed to that for at least another decade and maybe beyond, and by that time it's just too expensive. What we need to address is, if we can't have any more rail at all, then what should we do?

 

That's a very unfortunate reality and a huge shame.  IMO heavy rail technology would be the best way to gain the most ridership, cover the largest areas faster, and overall make the biggest impact of any new construction on the transit system. 

 

LRT and BRT are great in shorter corridors, but when you try to cover vast distances with them (something that is necessary in a comprehensive transit system in Houston) their effectiveness is limited due to slow speeds.  In order for BRT/LRT to be faster they need their own ROW and when it's not in the middle of a freeway it's extraordinarily expensive. 

[David Crossley]

That's a very unfortunate reality and a huge shame.  IMO heavy rail technology would be the best way to gain the most ridership, cover the largest areas faster, and overall make the biggest impact of any new construction on the transit system. 

 

LRT and BRT are great in shorter corridors, but when you try to cover vast distances with them (something that is necessary in a comprehensive transit system in Houston) their effectiveness is limited due to slow speeds.  In order for BRT/LRT to be faster they need their own ROW and when it's not in the middle of a freeway it's extraordinarily expensive. 

It is a shame. But heavy rail is not inherently any faster than light rail or even BRT. What makes it fast is dedicated right of way and minimal stops. Denver and Dallas and LA have LRT running in long dedicated corridors and it's as fast as any heavy rail anywhere. So dedicated ROW for heavy rail is just as expensive as for LRT. 

[arche_757]

Congestion is not a product of freeways, but rather the product of badly designed roads and city streets that then enter/exit said freeway.  Take for instance the Gulf Freeway between FM 528 (aka Nasa Road 1) and Eldorado... the traffic on the freeway is horrendous 90% of the time.  Why?  Because of the over populated (for lack of better word) main roads feeding into/out of the freeway.  Better engineered main roads and side roads - and by engineered I mean designed to handle future traffic - would reduce a good amount of that congestion.

 

Ideal transit plan would have better non-heavy rail options for certain districts (eg: Pearland, Sugar Land, The Woodlands etc) that would eventually be built to connect to a transit hub that would allow access to Houston/other "satilite cities" and airpots etc.  Obviously Pearland is not going to build a standalong LR, but they could work in unison with Island Transit/Sugar Land area transit and build a comprehensive plan to eventually turn the buses/bus routes into dedicated lines sometime later.  Eventually these will connect to HR that will move people to Downtown/Uptown/TMC/IAH etc.

[IronTiger]

I"m not going to participate in this transit/no transit argument any more, but when you say "More transit is needed" and you include highways, are you defining drivers in cars on highways as transit? Let's not do that, okay?  Transit is transit, highways are not, although they could carry transit as they do now. But we definitely don't need more highways in order to have more transit.

 

"Transit" is not necessarily "mass transit" and CAN mean other forms of transportation, which includes highways and things like tollways and HOV lanes. The backbone of any mass transit system involves roads of some sort, and if you don't figure highway builds and expansions into the future of the city, fine. I'm cool with that. This is a subjective thread, remember?

[mfastx]

It is a shame. But heavy rail is not inherently any faster than light rail or even BRT. What makes it fast is dedicated right of way and minimal stops. Denver and Dallas and LA have LRT running in long dedicated corridors and it's as fast as any heavy rail anywhere. So dedicated ROW for heavy rail is just as expensive as for LRT. 

 

Right, heavy rail configurations usually have higher average speeds than LRT/BRT because of stops and grade separations, but it is also more efficient on a cost-per-rider basis, and can travel up to 85mph. 

 

But of course it's a lot more expensive.  Kind of wish we got started on heavy rail when Kiepper proposed it in the 80s when the feds were handing out money for transit systems. 

 

We are going to have to build a ton of BRT for it to be as effective and transformative, and I don't see how we can even afford that with METRO's financial structure the way it is. 

[David Crossley]

Congestion is not a product of freeways, but rather the product of badly designed roads and city streets that then enter/exit said freeway.  Take for instance the Gulf Freeway between FM 528 (aka Nasa Road 1) and Eldorado... the traffic on the freeway is horrendous 90% of the time.  Why?  Because of the over populated (for lack of better word) main roads feeding into/out of the freeway.  Better engineered main roads and side roads - and by engineered I mean designed to handle future traffic - would reduce a good amount of that congestion.

 

Ideal transit plan would have better non-heavy rail options for certain districts (eg: Pearland, Sugar Land, The Woodlands etc) that would eventually be built to connect to a transit hub that would allow access to Houston/other "satilite cities" and airpots etc.  Obviously Pearland is not going to build a standalong LR, but they could work in unison with Island Transit/Sugar Land area transit and build a comprehensive plan to eventually turn the buses/bus routes into dedicated lines sometime later.  Eventually these will connect to HR that will move people to Downtown/Uptown/TMC/IAH etc.

While those design issues may be real bottlenecks, it is freeways and other free roads that cause congestion. There's a market principle that if something is free people will use it until it's gone. Likewise if a road is free, people will use it until it's full. Unless, as someone pointed out, you're building new freeway capacity in markets that are declining in population and that's just stupid. Of course there won't be congestion there, but there already isn't.

 

Actually, to be fair, it's elected officials that cause congestion because for political reasons they want to encourage sprawl in the unincorporated areas and do so by funding roads in those areas instead of transportation options where people already are, or relative to jobs.

 

Sugar Land and Pearland and the others need to greatly grow both their jobs and their populations before you can talk about adding high-capacity transit. And except for Pearland none of the places people think Metro should deliver transit are in the Metro service area, again thanks to local politicians.

 

I like the dreaming about heavy rail and so on, but I'm sorry, that is never going to happen in Houston. We might get some commuter rail, which is not heavy rail as that's defined, but that would only be because suburban politicians found some significant money to waste. The 5-line commuter rail system recommended by H-GAC would cost $3 billion and carry 41,000 riders a day. That's approximately what the Main Street light rail line carries now, and I suspect now that it goes up to Northline mall it carries more than already.