The future lies in rail

[Slick Vik]

 

Excerpts of an interview with Peter Newman, director, Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Perth, Australia.

 

Sustainable transportation holds the key to health of cities. Car-dependent cities are vulnerable to several pollution-related health hazards apart from congested traffic arteries. Most metropolitan cities in India are facing the ‘death sentence’ in the wake of unprecedented rise of personalised automobiles. Dependency on personal vehicles will need to be replaced by clean, efficient and dependable public transport.

 

What could ensure sustainability of transportation in our cities?

Cities that were built around cars no longer function. The poor are getting out farther and farther. Politics somehow revolves round cars, and it is very robust in nature.

We should provide space for pedestrians, bikes and public transport, in that order of priority. We in Australia have changed the discourse. We have won five elections successively while advocating public transport. We mobilised public opinion for more and more public transport.

 

But it seems difficult to wean away people from private transport in this globalised era…

You have to provide options that are dependable, efficient and sound. Too many cars would ruin our cities. The trend in Europe is already in favour of public transport. In Central London, traffic fell by 19 per cent between 2000 and 2009. In the U.S., public transport, particularly rail, is becoming popular.

 

But last-mile connectivity remains a major issue in the context of public transport?

It is not an issue at all. There are several alternatives available. Rail stations need to be integrated with bus. There are also options such as park (private vehicle near the station) and ride, or kiss and ride (drop off at the stations and return of vehicle to home). In Perth (Australia), we have ‘Fast Rail’ that is a bit like Metro which runs at the speed of 130 km per hour with stations at every three kilometres. Melbourne has a vast tram network, the largest in the world.

 

 

http://www.thehindu.com/features/homes-and-gardens/the-future-lies-in-rail/article5224987.ece?homepage=true

 

[samagon]

Um, the drop in car use in London was thanks to a hefty congestion charge for driving in the city.

[livincinco]

This same guy has predicted that civilization is going to collapse and that the world's population will be reduced to a maximum of two billion people living a semi-rural life.

[JJxvi]

Probably not a good idea to waste money on rail then.

[HTX]

I'm trying to imagine going from zero to 130 KPH per hour  then stopping to pick up my friends every 3 kilometers.

 

HTX

[nativehoustonion]

I tried to go to the BOFA off Kirby yesterday around 3pm. The traffic was so horrible I came back home. I walked to Brio's for HH and Alabama was back up from Kirby to Revere and Kirby was backed up from Alabama to Richmond. We need to do something because they are building mid rises every where and just wait when the 2929 Weslayen opens. METRO should have build the University Line.

[livincinco]

I tried to go to the BOFA off Kirby yesterday around 3pm. The traffic was so horrible I came back home. I walked to Brio's for HH and Alabama was back up from Kirby to Revere and Kirby was backed up from Alabama to Richmond. We need to do something because they are building mid rises every where and just wait when the 2929 Weslayen opens. METRO should have build the University Line.

I agree that there are good arguments for building better transit on that corridor, but I am personally inconvenienced is not the one I would go with.

The University Line is stalled because of lack of funds. Move it to BRT to reduce initial costs and you increase mobility in the corridor much faster than holding out for rail.

[Slick Vik]

I agree that there are good arguments for building better transit on that corridor, but I am personally inconvenienced is not the one I would go with.

The University Line is stalled because of lack of funds. Move it to BRT to reduce initial costs and you increase mobility in the corridor much faster than holding out for rail.

Be honest the real reason it was held up is because of the protests of afton oaks and the tactics of one john culberson.

[livincinco]

Be honest the real reason it was held up is because of the protests of afton oaks and the tactics of one john culberson.

I know that you love to say that and certainly both of those were contributing factors, but METRO is not in a a position where starting on a project that is estimated at $1.3 billion makes financial sense.

Dallas is even worse, their light rail binge has put them in a difficult financial position that might take them decades to recover from. DART has an annual financing expense that is more than double their passenger revenue and that number isn't even part of their more than $500 million annual operating loss. Look through their financial report from last year. It's pretty scary.

http://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/debtdocuments/FY2012ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReport.pdf

[ricco67]

I think metro was doing it in a more financially responsible way than Dallas.

Two of the lines were built paid for by metro, with the red line extension with government help.

The expansion would have been fairly piecemeal That would have fairly significant ridership numbers.

Dallas method was to build out to the burbs with little thought of inner city transportation, so you have a higher cost per mile per passenger.

The u line would have been a substantial relief in the traffic in the area today is quickly turning into gridlock with all the development that is occurring there.

[livincinco]

I think metro was doing it in a more financially responsible way than Dallas.

Two of the lines were built paid for by metro, with the red line extension with government help.

The expansion would have been fairly piecemeal That would have fairly significant ridership numbers.

Dallas method was to build out to the burbs with little thought of inner city transportation, so you have a higher cost per mile per passenger.

The u line would have been a substantial relief in the traffic in the area today is quickly turning into gridlock with all the development that is occurring there.

Dallas has additional problems too, because I think that they're going to have to go back to the taxpayers at some point in the next couple of years to ask for a new bond measure or new taxes to cover the cost of the existing network and I think that's going to be a really tough sell.

I agree that transit on the u line route needs to be addressed (by BRT), but to get back to the original topic, I just don't agree that the future lies in rail. I really expect that we will be seeing a lot of cities, such as Dallas, experiencing financial hangovers over the next 5-10 years.

[Slick Vik]

Dallas has additional problems too, because I think that they're going to have to go back to the taxpayers at some point in the next couple of years to ask for a new bond measure or new taxes to cover the cost of the existing network and I think that's going to be a really tough sell.

I agree that transit on the u line route needs to be addressed (by BRT), but to get back to the original topic, I just don't agree that the future lies in rail. I really expect that we will be seeing a lot of cities, such as Dallas, experiencing financial hangovers over the next 5-10 years.

 

BRT? Give me a break cinco. The voters voted for rail, and that should be what is built. Again, I can name you cities and countries all around the world that are expanding rail systems. Just because Houston is being stubborn and holding out doesn't mean it's how things should be, it's more like that's an alternate reality that at some point will crumble. 

[Ross]

Be honest the real reason it was held up is because of the protests of afton oaks and the tactics of one john culberson.

 

If I lived in Afton Oaks, I would be mad too if you were going to make it almost impossible for me to get to my house.

 

[livincinco]

Actually your statement is fundamentally incorrect and it's a mistake that is frequently quoted around here. In 2003, voters authorized $640 million worth of bonds toward the construction of 21.5 miles of light rail lines. That's not blanket authorization of construction of 21.5 miles of light rail, that's approval to spend $640 million towards the construction of those lines. METRO doesn't have anauthorization to overspend that amount. They've used federal funds to cover part of that gap, but they don't have the money to build the u line. They either need to go back to the voters to ask for more bond money or they need to uncover another funding source. So far they haven't been able to do that. They get sales tax money, but that money is already committed to covering the $500 million annual operating loss that they incur.

[Howard Huge]

I know that you love to say that and certainly both of those were contributing factors, but METRO is not in a a position where starting on a project that is estimated at $1.3 billion makes financial sense.

Dallas is even worse, their light rail binge has put them in a difficult financial position that might take them decades to recover from. DART has an annual financing expense that is more than double their passenger revenue and that number isn't even part of their more than $500 million annual operating loss. Look through their financial report from last year. It's pretty scary.

http://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/debtdocuments/FY2012ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReport.pdf

Why do you continuosly use DART as an example, as if thats proof that the EXACT SAME THING will happen in Houston?

[Slick Vik]

Actually your statement is fundamentally incorrect and it's a mistake that is frequently quoted around here. In 2003, voters authorized $640 million worth of bonds toward the construction of 21.5 miles of light rail lines. That's not blanket authorization of construction of 21.5 miles of light rail, that's approval to spend $640 million towards the construction of those lines. METRO doesn't have anauthorization to overspend that amount. They've used federal funds to cover part of that gap, but they don't have the money to build the u line. They either need to go back to the voters to ask for more bond money or they need to uncover another funding source. So far they haven't been able to do that. They get sales tax money, but that money is already committed to covering the $500 million annual operating loss that they incur.

In 2003 Houston voters passed a METRO Solutions referendum that provided for several major transportation infrastructure improvements, including

5 new light rail lines for an additional 64.8 miles of light rail and 50 rail stations

50% increase in bus service

28 miles of commuter rail that will operate on old railroad tracks and connect to the light rail and bus networks

[Slick Vik]

If I lived in Afton Oaks, I would be mad too if you were going to make it almost impossible for me to get to my house.

It's not about that. They are scared that trains will bring "criminals." The fact that one neighborhood can stop a huge project that has positive impact on a city is absurd.

[gmac]

It's not about that. They are scared that trains will bring "criminals." The fact that one neighborhood can stop a huge project that has positive impact on a city is absurd.

 

Now you're just pulling stuff out of your behind. Your assertion is absurd.

[IronTiger]

Here's another thing about your stance, Slick: why is it that those who block freeways are heroes, while those who block light rail are villains. Is the world really that black and white to you?

[Slick Vik]

Now you're just pulling stuff out of your behind. Your assertion is absurd.

I've heard it myself from residents of afton oaks. It isn't limited to that neighborhood. It happens in other neighborhoods with similar projects all around the country too. Sad but there are people that still think like this.

[livincinco]

In 2003 Houston voters passed a METRO Solutions referendum that provided for several major transportation infrastructure improvements, including

5 new light rail lines for an additional 64.8 miles of light rail and 50 rail stations

50% increase in bus service

28 miles of commuter rail that will operate on old railroad tracks and connect to the light rail and bus networks

That is not correct. METRO provided a solutions plan which defined the items that you've listed. The measure authorized a bond not to exceed $640 million to execute that plan and defined terms and conditions for use of that money as well as METRO's use of sales tax proceeds. It wasn't an open checkbook to implement the full plan. I've attached a copy of the actual text of the initiative for reference.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/100253658#fullscreen

[nativehoustonion]

I'm sorry but all of the blame goes to Culberson. If we had the U line and the others lines that removes 100 buses per line that METRO can utilize in different areas. And Richmond is a mess don't drive down it or you will get a flat.

[livincinco]

I'm sorry but all of the blame goes to Culberson. If we had the U line and the others lines that removes 100 buses per line that METRO can utilize in different areas. And Richmond is a mess don't drive down it or you will get a flat.

I'm not a fan of Culberson, and I agree that he deserves some blame, but you would have preferred to give METRO a blank check to spend whatever it took to build out the system? What in METRO's track record leads you to believe that would have been handled efficiently?

[nativehoustonion]

No but METRO spend millions on the study. Where the tracks will be the impact to the business and residents which is required. Then all that money just wasted.

[livincinco]

No but METRO spend millions on the study. Where the tracks will be the impact to the business and residents which is required. Then all that money just wasted.

 

Yeah, that's kind of exactly my point.  METRO doesn't have any track record of showing that it spends money well, yet there seems to be this perception that if we give METRO a whole bunch of money, they'll all of a sudden figure out how to spend it efficiently.

 

I'd really like METRO to focus on proving that they can spend money efficiently and then figure out how much to give them.

[nativehoustonion]

The only good news is they bought some land off where Astroworld just to be. They want commuter rail to hook up with the south station. Who knows when they will happen. With Forth Bend nows has 700,000 people something must be done.

[Slick Vik]

Yeah, that's kind of exactly my point. METRO doesn't have any track record of showing that it spends money well, yet there seems to be this perception that if we give METRO a whole bunch of money, they'll all of a sudden figure out how to spend it efficiently.

I'd really like METRO to focus on proving that they can spend money efficiently and then figure out how much to give them.

Taking 25% doesn't help the matter.

[Ross]

Taking 25% doesn't help the matter.

 

Sure it does, since roads are a vital part of transit. Besides, you can't just make people who never come inside the Loop pay for rail. They need to get somethoing for their tax dollars. The alternative is that the far reaches of the County drop out of Metro, and that money is lost completely

 

 

[Slick Vik]

Sure it does, since roads are a vital part of transit. Besides, you can't just make people who never come inside the Loop pay for rail. They need to get somethoing for their tax dollars. The alternative is that the far reaches of the County drop out of Metro, and that money is lost completely

Why does money have to be taken from the transit authority for roads when TXDOT doesn't spend any money on mass transit? It's ludicrous and absurd. Also why should I have to pay for highway expansion if I never go on those highways. It works both ways.

[livincinco]

Why does money have to be taken from the transit authority for roads when TXDOT doesn't spend any money on mass transit? It's ludicrous and absurd. Also why should I have to pay for highway expansion if I never go on those highways. It works both ways.

I don't think you really want to make that argument because most federal transportation funding comes from the highway trust fund which gets its revenue from the federal gas tax.