Congestion Pricing Yielding Results On Katy Freeway

[Slick Vik]

I'm in favor of congestion pricing, I just expect that it's going to continue to drive business development to the periphery in exactly the way that business development is occurring right now. Look at the current office developments that are under construction. There's nothing under construction downtown and a huge amount of construction that is occurring out in the periphery. That by no means is meant to infer that downtown is suffering. There's clearly a number of projects on the board for downtown and Hines just announced that they are moving forward with theirs. I hope that most of them move forward, just recognize that downtown is decreasing as a percentage of the overall office market. In my opinion, congestion pricing will just accelerate that trend.

That may be well and true but that will just put more people on the roads so a system that gives people mobility is very important going forward.

[livincinco]

That may be well and true but that will just put more people on the roads so a system that gives people mobility is very important going forward.

 

Actually, you're using the wrong term.  Mobility is exactly what you don't want because mobility is defined as follows:

 

A mobility perspective defines transportation problems in terms of constraints on physical movement, and so favors solutions that increase motor vehicle system capacity and speed, including road and parking facility improvements, transit and ridesharing improvements, high-speed train, aviation and intermodal connections. It gives little consideration to walking and cycling except where they provide access to motorized modes, since they represent a small portion of person-miles. From this perspective, the best way to benefit non-drivers is to improve motorized transport, including automobile, transit and taxi modes, with more modest consideration of walking and cycling.

 

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm55.htm#_Toc218835143 (Victoria Transport Policy Institute)

 

What you want is mode shift which is defined as "the number or portion of automobile trips shifted to other modes".

[Slick Vik]

Actually, you're using the wrong term. Mobility is exactly what you don't want because mobility is defined as follows:

A mobility perspective defines transportation problems in terms of constraints on physical movement, and so favors solutions that increase motor vehicle system capacity and speed, including road and parking facility improvements, transit and ridesharing improvements, high-speed train, aviation and intermodal connections. It gives little consideration to walking and cycling except where they provide access to motorized modes, since they represent a small portion of person-miles. From this perspective, the best way to benefit non-drivers is to improve motorized transport, including automobile, transit and taxi modes, with more modest consideration of walking and cycling.

http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm55.htm#_Toc218835143 (Victoria Transport Policy Institute)

What you want is mode shift which is defined as "the number or portion of automobile trips shifted to other modes".

Still waiting on transit improvements.

[Ross]

Still waiting on transit improvements.

 

You mean the $300 billion in rail you think the Houston area needs to meet your definition of mobility? Never going to happen.

[Slick Vik]

You mean the $300 billion in rail you think the Houston area needs to meet your definition of mobility? Never going to happen.

That's an exaggeration. The California high speed rail costs $68 billion.

[Houston19514]

That's an exaggeration. The California high speed rail costs $68 billion.

 

LOL

[IronTiger]

$68 billion is the estimated cost, which was down from $100 billion just a few years ago. Cost overruns are a definite. A cautionary tale in terms of giant transit projects...

 

The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998^%5B5%5D at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006).^%5B6%5D However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%)^%5B6%5D as of 2006.^%5B7%5D The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038.^%5B8%5D As a result of the deaths, leaks, and other design flaws, the consortium that oversaw the project agreed to pay $407 million in restitution, and several smaller companies agreed to pay a combined sum of approximately $51 million.^%5B9%5D

[Houston19514]

$68 billion is the estimated cost, which was down from $100 billion just a few years ago. Cost overruns are a definite. A cautionary tale in terms of giant transit projects...

 

 

It's more accurate that it is estimated at $68 billion, up from $35.8 billion (and that actually understates the increase in the estimated price.  The estimate had actually gone from $35.8 billion up to $70 billion for the full build option (all in 2013 dollars, $98.5 Billion in YOE (Year of Expenditure) dollars)).  Then they came up with the "blended system" plan and brought the estimated cost back down to the current $68.4 Billion (YOE dollars).  The only reason the estimated cost is "down" is because they took stuff out of the plan.

 

And as you say, it still just an estimated cost.

[august948]

That's an exaggeration. The California high speed rail costs $68 billion.

 

Isn't that a bit apples-and-oranges?  The California system is designed to connect LA and SF, not to provide mobility within LA or SF.

[IronTiger]

Since Slick at least claims to look out for the lower class--never mind demanding congestion pricing to force lower income people onto public transit...wouldn't he agree that while trains only give access to a select number of residents, the road/highway network can serve everyone?

[Slick Vik]

Since Slick at least claims to look out for the lower class--never mind demanding congestion pricing to force lower income people onto public transit...wouldn't he agree that while trains only give access to a select number of residents, the road/highway network can serve everyone?

Everyone can't afford cars.

[august948]

Everyone can't afford cars.

 

And thus we have a bus system.  Problem solved.

 

[IronTiger]

And thus we have a bus system. Problem solved.

Which also uses the road system!

[Slick Vik]

And thus we have a bus system.  Problem solved.

 

 

Except that the bus system is atrocious.

Which also uses the road system!

 

Precisely the problem. Buses are subject to the same traffic as cars.

[IronTiger]

Then the bus system needs to be fixed. If METRO can't even have a good bus system, then how do you expect them to make a good light rail system. For buses, there's HOV lanes.

[august948]

Except that the bus system is atrocious.

 

Precisely the problem. Buses are subject to the same traffic as cars.

 

Atrocious?  No.  Room for improvement?  Yes.

 

Buses are also subject to the same flexibility.  Need a new route?  Gather up buses and drivers and send them down the road.  Need a new rail line?  Spend millions, if not billions, and wait years.

[Slick Vik]

Then the bus system needs to be fixed. If METRO can't even have a good bus system, then how do you expect them to make a good light rail system. For buses, there's HOV lanes.

 

Fixing the bus system doesn't solve the long term problem. It's just the part of a bigger solution but without rail as the heart having just a bus system is like resegregating to solve racial problems. Looking backwards to go forwards.

[Slick Vik]

Atrocious?  No.  Room for improvement?  Yes.

 

Buses are also subject to the same flexibility.  Need a new route?  Gather up buses and drivers and send them down the road.  Need a new rail line?  Spend millions, if not billions, and wait years.

 

Once a rail is built it provides stability. People know it's there and that encourages development around it.

 

And yes, our bus system is atrocious. It's easy for someone like you that lives in westchase, or livincinco of cinco ranch, or irontiger of college station (!) to encourage people to ride the buses when you don't even ride them yourselves, but why don't you come into town and talk to people that rely on it. It sucks, it's horrific. And even with improvement it can only get so much better, but it still wouldn't be good enough.

[LTAWACS]

I haven't ridden METRO in what... 24 years?

[LTAWACS]

'cept fur thu rodeo shuttle.

[IronTiger]

Fixing the bus system doesn't solve the long term problem. It's just the part of a bigger solution but without rail as the heart having just a bus system is like resegregating to solve racial problems. Looking backwards to go forwards.

Where did this "rail is the heart of transit" come from?

 

Once a rail is built it provides stability. People know it's there and that encourages development around it.

Well, considering that the inner loop where the light rails are being built are already pretty dense (unless you really, really love townhomes), and if you dream of extending rail into the suburbs, then you're saying that you endorse sprawl, which is what your entire argument was fighting against.

 

And yes, our bus system is atrocious. It's easy for someone like you that lives in westchase, or livincinco of cinco ranch, or irontiger of college station (!) to encourage people to ride the buses when you don't even ride them yourselves, but why don't you come into town and talk to people that rely on it.

Yeah, just because I'm a member of HAIF automatically makes me a daily Houston commuter. Doesn't quite work that way, amigo. These days I consider myself lucky if I can get to Houston twice a year...

 

It sucks, it's horrific. And even with improvement it can only get so much better, but it still wouldn't be good enough.

Also another quote for my collection of "undermines arguments". Even in the biggest cities, rail doesn't go everywhere. In fact, even if the rails were built out according to the 2003 referendum which you fervently cite (which I would love to see, by the way, just out of interest, so link it if you have it), there would still be people in the inner loop who still won't be able to use the rail.

[august948]

'cept fur thu rodeo shuttle.

 

And that's a great example of how busses can be used in a flexible manner whereas rail cannot.

 

[august948]

Once a rail is built it provides stability. People know it's there and that encourages development around it.

 

 

Same applies to freeways, but in spades.  Frankly, the only place it even makes remote sense to put commuter rail is along the freeways as the development and employment has already occured there.  But then, if it's on the freeway, you could just run P&R buses down HOV lanes for much less hassle and cost and much greater flexibility.

 

[Slick Vik]

Where did this "rail is the heart of transit" come from?

 

Well, considering that the inner loop where the light rails are being built are already pretty dense (unless you really, really love townhomes), and if you dream of extending rail into the suburbs, then you're saying that you endorse sprawl, which is what your entire argument was fighting against.

 

Yeah, just because I'm a member of HAIF automatically makes me a daily Houston commuter. Doesn't quite work that way, amigo. These days I consider myself lucky if I can get to Houston twice a year...

 

Also another quote for my collection of "undermines arguments". Even in the biggest cities, rail doesn't go everywhere. In fact, even if the rails were built out according to the 2003 referendum which you fervently cite (which I would love to see, by the way, just out of interest, so link it if you have it), there would still be people in the inner loop who still won't be able to use the rail.

 

1. I don't know, I just said it.

 

2. The sprawl is already there, unfortunately. However, those people are not going to support a system for only the inner city, so the most fair solution would be to build light rail in the inner city first, and have commuter rail branch off that. That way it will be easy to get in the city, and then move in and around the city once you arrive.

 

3. Rail doesn't go everywhere, but it goes to a lot of places. And to the places it doesn't go, buses (sometimes bus rapid transit) branch out from rail stations. That is the ideal system.

[Slick Vik]

Same applies to freeways, but in spades.  Frankly, the only place it even makes remote sense to put commuter rail is along the freeways as the development and employment has already occured there.  But then, if it's on the freeway, you could just run P&R buses down HOV lanes for much less hassle and cost and much greater flexibility.

 

 

Trains can carry more people than buses, accelerate and decelerate faster than buses, run more frequently than buses, and load and unload people faster than buses. Also a more comfortable ride, and less tendency to break down. And I agree it would be nice to eliminate HOV lanes and just put commuter rails instead.

[nativehoustonion]

Great idea! I heard Mr. Garcia from METRO my run for mayor after the next term.  Maybe he can make something happen.

[august948]

1. I don't know, I just said it.

 

2. The sprawl is already there, unfortunately. However, those people are not going to support a system for only the inner city, so the most fair solution would be to build light rail in the inner city first, and have commuter rail branch off that. That way it will be easy to get in the city, and then move in and around the city once you arrive.

 

3. Rail doesn't go everywhere, but it goes to a lot of places. And to the places it doesn't go, buses (sometimes bus rapid transit) branch out from rail stations. That is the ideal system.

 

1.  hmmm...I'll leave this one alone.

 

2.  There's a presumption here that the city is only it's inner core.  There is no rail system that will realistically be built that would allow even basic mobility within the city that the other 93% live in.

 

3.  The ideal system would provide mobility for the entire city.  As it is, the highways do that now.  To add mass transit to the entire city you would need to connect the distributed cores together in a more efficient manner (for the commuters, not for METRO).  Thus you need P&R from The Woodlands to the Energy Corridor or from Katy to Sugar Land.  Laying that much rail crisscrossing the area would be prohibitive while adding P&R would be simple.

[IronTiger]

Trains can carry more people than buses, accelerate and decelerate faster than buses, run more frequently than buses, and load and unload people faster than buses. Also a more comfortable ride, and less tendency to break down. And I agree it would be nice to eliminate HOV lanes and just put commuter rails instead.

Frequency doesn't depend on inherent buses vs. trains. In fact most of the other problems can be fixed by having better bus maintenance (thus the "break down" part--though I'd be interested in hearing what the statistics are in breakdowns proportionately). The "comfortable ride" comes from the fact that most of the roads that buses travel on are poorly maintained, and most haven't gotten a repaving since the 1980s (Kirby was one such example, since fixed). Replacing the HOV lanes with rail is several layers of stupid partially since you would only be able to have one fixed point instead of several transit centers along the way, and would discourage carpooling and using buses, which is what the HOV lanes encouraged. Then while a constant stream of buses can come and pick up as necessary, the limited ROW of a train would mean that it would have to make its full journey, then return back empty on each trip. etc. etc.

[august948]

And I agree it would be nice to eliminate HOV lanes and just put commuter rails instead.

 

And you also missed the point that HOV & P&R is cheaper, more flexible and more efficient than rail.

 

[mfastx]

And you also missed the point that HOV & P&R is cheaper, more flexible and more efficient than rail.

 

 

It isn't that much cheaper actually.  Flexibility is a moot point, HOV lanes are as fixed as rail lines.  And in most cases, rail carries riders more efficiently than bus. 

 

That being said, we've spent so much on the HOV system that tearing it down would be disingenuous.  I'd rather spend money on a few key rail lines to connect employment centers, so that commuters can get from their P&R stop to their final destination more quickly.