Congestion Pricing Yielding Results On Katy Freeway

[Slick Vik]

More justification for distributed commuting. Add in the coming twin revolutions of practical electric vehicles and self-driving cars and we're set to improve commuting, productivity, and the environment in such a way that will have other cities tearing up commuter rail tracks. Why go with 19th century technology when you can do things in a truly modern and efficient way?

 

TXDOT doesn't have enough money to maintain roads, yet you are pushing for more of an automobile culture. That makes no sense. Eventually the population will be so great that alternative transportation will have its place. But enjoy the unsustainable model as long as you can, because it will be gone at some point.

[august948]

1. Salt Lake City population density 1668.68 per square mile

2. Denver, population density 3881.22 per square mile

3. Phoenix, population density 2791.08 per square mile

 

All are aggressively expanding rail projects. Salt Lake City has had great success on its expansions thus far. Those are comprable to Houston. What makes Houston different from them?

 

They're fighting the last war using 19th century technology.  Not too surprising, though, as that is almost always how governmental organzations operate.  That mentality is why the French built the Maginot Line and out-of-the-box thinking combined with modern technology is why the Wehrmacht outflanked them with ease.

 

[Slick Vik]

They're fighting the last war using 19th century technology. Not too surprising, though, as that is almost always how governmental organzations operate. That mentality is why the French built the Maginot Line and out-of-the-box thinking combined with modern technology is why the Wehrmacht outflanked them with ease.

Glorifying nazis. Wow.

[IronTiger]

Glorifying nazis. Wow.

And once again, Slick completely misses the point.

TXDOT doesn't have enough money to maintain roads, yet you are pushing for more of an automobile culture. That makes no sense.

You stated yourself that there's no budget in the taxpayer-funded transportation department, yet you are pushing for expensive taxpayer-funded transit. That makes no sense.

[Slick Vik]

And once again, Slick completely misses the point.

You stated yourself that there's no budget in the taxpayer-funded transportation department, yet you are pushing for expensive taxpayer-funded transit. That makes no sense.

The difference is once it's built the cost to maintain rail is much lower than freeways. So in the long run it's a better investment especially in houston where freeway expansion has run its course.

[mfastx]

They're fighting the last war using 19th century technology.  Not too surprising, though, as that is almost always how governmental organzations operate.  That mentality is why the French built the Maginot Line and out-of-the-box thinking combined with modern technology is why the Wehrmacht outflanked them with ease.

 

 

Light rail is not 19th century technology, lol.  Not even close. 

[august948]

Glorifying nazis. Wow.

Feel the wind ruffling your hair as the point sails right over you?

I'll make it simpler then. Once upon a time mail was delivered from coast to coast via the pony express. Then along came the railroad and the pony express went away. Why? The railroad (new technology) was more efficient than the old (horses). Then along came the internal combustion engine (new technology) and it took almost all of the people transport and a good chunk of goods transport from the railroads (old technology).

You may favor a return to 19th century technology and industrial age work models but you're going to find yourself a luddite in the modern world.

[august948]

Light rail is not 19th century technology, lol. Not even close.

Rail of any sort is 19th century technology. Just as the internal combustion engine is 20th century technology.

[Slick Vik]

Feel the wind ruffling your hair as the point sails right over you?

I'll make it simpler then. Once upon a time mail was delivered from coast to coast via the pony express. Then along came the railroad and the pony express went away. Why? The railroad (new technology) was more efficient than the old (horses). Then along came the internal combustion engine (new technology) and it took almost all of the people transport and a good chunk of goods transport from the railroads (old technology).

You may favor a return to 19th century technology and industrial age work models but you're going to find yourself a luddite in the modern world.

 

Luddite is you. Countries all around the world are investing in rail. Indonesia, China, Laos, Singapore, Qatar, India, Turkey, the list goes on and on and on. You are just stuck in the bubble of west houston.

[ToryGattis]

Rail of any sort is 19th century technology. Just as the internal combustion engine is 20th century technology.

 

I don't think people truly appreciate how much self-driving vehicles will change things 10 and 20 years from now.  Not only will the capacity of the freeways vastly increase (automatic vehicles can travel much closer together and at higher speeds), but imagine this: waves of automated small shuttle buses and taxis wandering the city all the time.  You tell your smartphone where you want to go, and the network automatically sends the right shuttle your way to pick you up and take you nearly directly to your destination, with the potential for a few stops along the way to disembark other passengers.  Now imagine the capacity of the freeways if they not only have more vehicles much closer together at higher speeds, but they're also carrying multiple passengers each.  And congestion price them to keep them free-flowing.  Rail can't compete with that, either on a travel time or overall cost basis.

 

That's 21st century transportation technology...

[IronTiger]

The difference is once it's built the cost to maintain rail is much lower than freeways. So in the long run it's a better investment especially in houston where freeway expansion has run its course.

Do you have actual evidence of that or are you going to use just numbers that your view supports / good old B.S.? I think we've done this with the Roman highway analogy already.

 

Indonesia, China, Laos, Singapore, Qatar, India, Turkey, the list goes on and on and on.

Comparing Houston to Indonesia, Qatar, and India is laughable. If we're going to play that game, then I'm going to say that you can at least drink Houston tap water without getting sick.

[Ross]

Do you have actual evidence of that or are you going to use just numbers that your view supports / good old B.S.? I think we've done this with the Roman highway analogy already.

 

Comparing Houston to Indonesia, Qatar, and India is laughable. If we're going to play that game, then I'm going to say that you can at least drink Houston tap water without getting sick.

 

In all fairness, the water in Qatar is OK to drink too.

 

Qatar may be building rail, but it is intended to serve the portion of the population there that can't afford to buy a car. Doha has very little of what we would consider freeways, although that's changing daily. Ultimately, Doha will still be more of a car city, just like Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

 

[august948]

Luddite is you. Countries all around the world are investing in rail. Indonesia, China, Laos, Singapore, Qatar, India, Turkey, the list goes on and on and on. You are just stuck in the bubble of west houston.

 

I think the proper usage would be "you are a luddite".

 

See my comment above on government entities fighting the last war instead of looking to the future.  I don't think i would be looking at third world countries to provide examples of technological leadership.  The examples there are more akin to what happened in 19th century Europe as the Industrial Age kicked in.

 

[Slick Vik]

I think the proper usage would be "you are a luddite".

See my comment above on government entities fighting the last war instead of looking to the future. I don't think i would be looking at third world countries to provide examples of technological leadership. The examples there are more akin to what happened in 19th century Europe as the Industrial Age kicked in.

Amtrak had its highest ridership year ever. This is a trend that isn't going away.

[Slick Vik]

I don't think people truly appreciate how much self-driving vehicles will change things 10 and 20 years from now. Not only will the capacity of the freeways vastly increase (automatic vehicles can travel much closer together and at higher speeds), but imagine this: waves of automated small shuttle buses and taxis wandering the city all the time. You tell your smartphone where you want to go, and the network automatically sends the right shuttle your way to pick you up and take you nearly directly to your destination, with the potential for a few stops along the way to disembark other passengers. Now imagine the capacity of the freeways if they not only have more vehicles much closer together at higher speeds, but they're also carrying multiple passengers each. And congestion price them to keep them free-flowing. Rail can't compete with that, either on a travel time or overall cost basis.

That's 21st century transportation technology...

People thought that the jetsons would be real life too. Still waiting

[Slick Vik]

Do you have actual evidence of that or are you going to use just numbers that your view supports / good old B.S.? I think we've done this with the Roman highway analogy already.

 

Comparing Houston to Indonesia, Qatar, and India is laughable. If we're going to play that game, then I'm going to say that you can at least drink Houston tap water without getting sick.

 

 

Fact: A two-track railway costs around one-third as much as a six-lane freeway, but can carry more than three times as many passengers. Public transport is one of the most cost-effective ways yet known to move the large numbers of people wanting to travel in an urban area.

 

In reality, the capital cost of freeways is vastly greater than that of the rail infrastructure required to move the same number of people. A case in point is Eastlink, which cost $2.5 billion for some 45km of road, or a massive $55 million per kilometre. More mundane freeway projects have costs in the vicinity of $30-40 million per kilometre for a six-lane road.

 

But how does the capacity of a freeway and a railway compare? The carrying capacity of a freeway lane is roughly 1800 vehicles per hour, or 2000 people per hour given average vehicle occupancy of 1.11 passengers. A typical six-lane freeway therefore carries up to 12,000 people per hour in both directions. (Another page explains why car pooling can't be relied on to boost this figure by much.)

 

A double-track suburban railway, meanwhile, can easily support one train movement every three minutes in each direction without straining its capacity. A six-car train can carry around 1000 passengers before reaching crush conditions. Thus the rail line can carry at least 40,000 people per hour in both directions, and perhaps more depending on the signalling system and vehicle design. (A similar calculation can be made for freight capacity, with much the same result.)

 

As a living example of this basic observation it is worth considering the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which carries both road and rail traffic. In the morning peak, according to NSW Transport figures, 22,600 people are carried in two hours on the single rail line in the peak direction. A similar number of people are carried in buses on the adjacent bus lane, albeit more slowly. Then there are five lanes for peak-direction car traffic, which between them carry just 15,400 cars between 7am and 9am (or about 17,000 people at average occupancies). In other words, cars carry around 27% of the peak hour passenger load on the bridge but take up 70% of the space.

 

What all this shows is that roadways for private cars are one of the most inefficient forms of transport infrastructure, particularly when compared with railways and tramways. One more example, this one from overseas, was pointed out in a 2009 op-ed piece in the New York Times. In 1907, writer Robert Sullivan reminds us, the Brooklyn Bridge in New York carried 426,000 people per day - most on trains, on horse-drawn trolleys or on foot. After World War II, the train and tram tracks were removed in order to make more room for cars (just as the Sydney Harbour Bridge's two tram tracks were removed around the same time). As a result, by 1989 there were 178,000 people crossing per day - and nearly all of them complained about the traffic congestion.

 

We conclude that by comparison with a six-lane freeway, a two-track railway costs around one-third as much but has more than three times the carrying capacity. Of course, the railway also takes up far less space (typically requiring only a 10-metre reservation compared with 50 metres for the freeway), inflicts far less noise on nearby residents, and generates virtually no pollution. (Even the greenhouse emissions can be minimised by buying the electricity from renewable sources.)

 

 

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/capcost.shtml

 

[august948]

Amtrak had its highest ridership year ever. This is a trend that isn't going away.

 

Hahaha...now that is really funny.  Clearly you're not familiar with the history of rail service in this country.  Amtrak was formed because the private rail companies (UP, New York Central, etc) we're dropping passenger service right and left and the US was almost left with no passenger rail service at all by the end of the 1960's.  It has only survived because of government subsidies.

 

Here's a quick lesson from wikipedia

 

 

 

From the mid-19th century until approximately 1920, nearly all intercity travelers in the United States moved by rail.^[9] The rails and the trains were owned and operated by private, for-profit organizations. Approximately 65,000 railroad passenger cars operated in 1929.^[10]

For a long time after 1920, passenger rail's popularity diminished and there was a series of pullbacks and tentative recoveries. Rail passenger revenues declined dramatically between 1920 and 1934 because of the rise of the automobile.^[9] In the same period, many travelers were lost to interstate bus companies such as Greyhound Lines. However, in the mid-1930s, railroads reignited popular imagination with service improvements and new, diesel-powered streamliners, such as the gleaming silver Pioneer Zephyr and Flying Yankee.^[9] Even with the improvements, on a relative basis, traffic continued to decline, and by 1940 railroads held 67 percent of passenger-miles in the United States.^[9]

World War II broke the malaise. During the war, troop movements and restrictions on automobile fuel generated a sixfold increase in passenger traffic from the low point of the Great Depression.^[9] After the war, railroads rejuvenated overworked and neglected fleets with fast and often luxurious streamliners – epitomized by the Super Chief and California Zephyr – which inspired the last major resurgence in passenger rail travel.

The postwar resurgence was short-lived. In 1946, there remained 45 percent fewer passenger trains than in 1929,^[9] and the decline quickened despite railroad optimism. Passengers disappeared and so did trains. Few trains generated profits; most produced losses. Broad-based passenger rail deficits appeared as early as 1948^[9] and by the mid-1950s railroads claimed aggregate annual losses on passenger services of more than $700 million (almost $5 billion in 2005 dollars using CPI^{[clarification needed]}).^[10][11][12]

By 1965, only 10,000 rail passenger cars were in operation, 85 percent fewer than in 1929.^[10] Passenger service was provided on only 75,000 miles (120,000 km) of track, a stark decline.^[10] The 1960s also saw the end of railway post office revenues, which had helped some of the remaining trains break even.^[13]

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

Passenger rail service is a pale, pale shadow of what it once was.  It's heyday has long passed.

[Slick Vik]

Hahaha...now that is really funny.  Clearly you're not familiar with the history of rail service in this country.  Amtrak was formed because the private rail companies (UP, New York Central, etc) we're dropping passenger service right and left and the US was almost left with no passenger rail service at all by the end of the 1960's.  It has only survived because of government subsidies.

 

Here's a quick lesson from wikipedia

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak

Passenger rail service is a pale, pale shadow of what it once was.  It's heyday has long passed.

 

You know what else relies on government subsidies? Freeways.

[IronTiger]

Fact: A two-track railway costs around one-third as much as a six-lane freeway, but can carry more than three times as many passengers.

 

A two-track railway is pretty useless if there's no trains on it. And frankly, I'm not about to trust some mass transit advocacy website that lacks citations for blanket statements like that. It would be like if I pulled up a page on why global warming is a fraud and it's from a far-right wing website.

 

But hey--I was right!

You know what else relies on government subsidies? Freeways.

 

You were never into debates in high school or college, were you? If we compare mile per mile the maintenance cost of running Amtrak vs. running the national highway system, you'll see that Amtrak doesn't cover every city in the U.S. by a long shot. And before you start quoting Amtrak making revenue, it charges people out the nose and still manages to lose money.

[august948]

You know what else relies on government subsidies? Freeways.

 

And rightly so.

 

[Slick Vik]

A two-track railway is pretty useless if there's no trains on it. And frankly, I'm not about to trust some mass transit advocacy website that lacks citations for blanket statements like that. It would be like if I pulled up a page on why global warming is a fraud and it's from a far-right wing website.

 

But hey--I was right!

 

You were never into debates in high school or college, were you? If we compare mile per mile the maintenance cost of running Amtrak vs. running the national highway system, you'll see that Amtrak doesn't cover every city in the U.S. by a long shot. And before you start quoting Amtrak making revenue, it charges people out the nose and still manages to lose money.

 

1. As a living example of this basic observation it is worth considering the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which carries both road and rail traffic. In the morning peak, according to NSW Transport figures, 22,600 people are carried in two hours on the single rail line in the peak direction. A similar number of people are carried in buses on the adjacent bus lane, albeit more slowly. Then there are five lanes for peak-direction car traffic, which between them carry just 15,400 cars between 7am and 9am (or about 17,000 people at average occupancies). In other words, cars carry around 27% of the peak hour passenger load on the bridge but take up 70% of the space.

 

What all this shows is that roadways for private cars are one of the most inefficient forms of transport infrastructure, particularly when compared with railways and tramways. One more example, this one from overseas, was pointed out in a 2009 op-ed piece in the New York Times. In 1907, writer Robert Sullivan reminds us, the Brooklyn Bridge in New York carried 426,000 people per day - most on trains, on horse-drawn trolleys or on foot. After World War II, the train and tram tracks were removed in order to make more room for cars (just as the Sydney Harbour Bridge's two tram tracks were removed around the same time). As a result, by 1989 there were 178,000 people crossing per day - and nearly all of them complained about the traffic congestion.

 

2. Amtrak's federal grant, constituting just 0.05% of federal spending in 2010, is once again under attack. Its critics perennially point to the railroad's 24¢ per passenger mile (ppm) government subsidy, compare it to the 2¢ ppm direct subsidy for driving, and call Amtrak a waste.

 

Comparing these direct subsidies, though, tells only part of the story. When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak's total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm, but motoring's subsidy rises up to almost 45¢ ppm.

 

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12208/funding-amtrak-is-more-cost-effective-than-subsidizing-roads/

[IronTiger]

As a living example of this basic observation it is worth considering the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which carries both road and rail traffic. In the morning peak, according to NSW Transport figures, 22,600 people are carried in two hours on the single rail line in the peak direction. A similar number of people are carried in buses on the adjacent bus lane, albeit more slowly. Then there are five lanes for peak-direction car traffic, which between them carry just 15,400 cars between 7am and 9am (or about 17,000 people at average occupancies). In other words, cars carry around 27% of the peak hour passenger load on the bridge but take up 70% of the space.

 

What all this shows is that roadways for private cars are one of the most inefficient forms of transport infrastructure, particularly when compared with railways and tramways.

 

So, what you're saying is you can take a thin enough statistic (2 hours in a day on ONE BRIDGE) that you use to validate a claim, then claim all roads are inefficient. That's the thinnest argument for rail I've seen yet.

[Slick Vik]

 

So, what you're saying is you can take a thin enough statistic (2 hours in a day on ONE BRIDGE) that you use to validate a claim, then claim all roads are inefficient. That's the thinnest argument for rail I've seen yet.

 

 

Nice job ignoring the rest of the paragraph.

[IronTiger]

Nice job ignoring the rest of the paragraph

Please don't lecture me on ignoring things. I can pull up several examples just on this thread, but I've wasted enough time trying to argue with you.

[Slick Vik]

Please don't lecture me on ignoring things. I can pull up several examples just on this thread, but I've wasted enough time trying to argue with you.

 

There's no point. If I give you facts or statistics, you toss them to the side.

[august948]

1. As a living example of this basic observation it is worth considering the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which carries both road and rail traffic. In the morning peak, according to NSW Transport figures, 22,600 people are carried in two hours on the single rail line in the peak direction. A similar number of people are carried in buses on the adjacent bus lane, albeit more slowly. Then there are five lanes for peak-direction car traffic, which between them carry just 15,400 cars between 7am and 9am (or about 17,000 people at average occupancies). In other words, cars carry around 27% of the peak hour passenger load on the bridge but take up 70% of the space.

 

What all this shows is that roadways for private cars are one of the most inefficient forms of transport infrastructure, particularly when compared with railways and tramways. One more example, this one from overseas, was pointed out in a 2009 op-ed piece in the New York Times. In 1907, writer Robert Sullivan reminds us, the Brooklyn Bridge in New York carried 426,000 people per day - most on trains, on horse-drawn trolleys or on foot. After World War II, the train and tram tracks were removed in order to make more room for cars (just as the Sydney Harbour Bridge's two tram tracks were removed around the same time). As a result, by 1989 there were 178,000 people crossing per day - and nearly all of them complained about the traffic congestion.

 

2. Amtrak's federal grant, constituting just 0.05% of federal spending in 2010, is once again under attack. Its critics perennially point to the railroad's 24¢ per passenger mile (ppm) government subsidy, compare it to the 2¢ ppm direct subsidy for driving, and call Amtrak a waste.

 

Comparing these direct subsidies, though, tells only part of the story. When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak's total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm, but motoring's subsidy rises up to almost 45¢ ppm.

 

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/12208/funding-amtrak-is-more-cost-effective-than-subsidizing-roads/

 

A train can only be efficient along it's narrow corridor of travel and only to connected destinations.  Outside that it's efficiency drops to zero.  Roads and cars, on the other hand, can and do spread out across the land and connect all destinations, not just a select few.  There's no way that it would ever be even remotely efficient to replace roads and cars with rail as the costs would be astronomical to lay tracks within walking distance of every location in the US.

 

[Slick Vik]

A train can only be efficient along it's narrow corridor of travel and only to connected destinations. Outside that it's efficiency drops to zero. Roads and cars, on the other hand, can and do spread out across the land and connect all destinations, not just a select few. There's no way that it would ever be even remotely efficient to replace roads and cars with rail as the costs would be astronomical to lay tracks within walking distance of every location in the US.

Yes but even attempts to connect dense corridors within cities or from city to city get tea party like responses. I think people should have the option to take excellent pubic transportation or a reasonable road network. Right now there is a slant towards roads. But the mindset is changing with the younger generation which is positive.

Also Singapore is undergoing a project in which any place within it will be 10 minutes from a rail station. It is obviously a small example but it goes to show that if globally rail investments are taking hold and the USA is 100 years behind.

[ToryGattis]

BART serves 400,000 riders daily. 

 

Well, unless the union feels like shutting it down that day...

 

BART Workers Strike, Threatening San Francisco Commute - 5 hours ago

The strike by employees of the Bay Area’s main commuter railroad will force hundreds of thousands of people to scramble to find alternate transportation.  

[Houston19514]

Yes but even attempts to connect dense corridors within cities or from city to city get tea party like responses. I think people should have the option to take excellent pubic transportation or a reasonable road network. Right now there is a slant towards roads. But the mindset is changing with the younger generation which is positive.

Also Singapore is undergoing a project in which any place within it will be 10 minutes from a rail station. It is obviously a small example but it goes to show that if globally rail investments are taking hold and the USA is 100 years behind.

 

As usual, the "facts" you present are not facts at all.  Singapore's actual goal is for 8 in 10 households to be within a 10-minute walk of a rail station by the year 2030.  Ambitious, but quite different from what you represented.

 

Also noteworthy:  Singapore's total population is 5.3 Million, almost 1 Million less than the Houston metro area.  It has all of 1.2 million households.   It is the second most-densely populated sovereign state in the world, with an average density of 7437 people per square mile.  It's relevance for discussing rail in Houston:  pretty close to zero.   ;-)

[livincinco]

From Culturemap:

The relocation business remains very strong as companies transfer employees into Houston from other cities, Bernstein says. The newcomers are buying new construction homes in the suburbs for people who work in the Energy Corridor or The Woodlands. But many newcomers who work downtown are buying homes in the inner city, Bernstein says

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/realestate/10-15-13-houston-home-sales-skyrocket-again-28-straight-months-of-increases-with-no-sign-of-an-end/

Interesting concept that people would buy houses in the areas that they work.