Slick Vik Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 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. The HOV lanes already have the right of way to lay rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 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. Rail on freeways can have stops along the way. Chicago comes to mind, and BART in the Bay Area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 The HOV lanes already have the right of way to lay rail. Perhaps, but rail isn't needed or efficient in the place of a HOV lane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Rail on freeways can have stops along the way. Chicago comes to mind, and BART in the Bay Area. But the trains on them can't move off the tracks. 19th century technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 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. The point there is that the vehicle that uses the pathway, in this case a bus in a HOV lane, can move off the guideway in flexible manner to connect any number of points. A train can only travel along it's pathway. Even a couple of blocks deviation is impossible without a large capital outlay and years of construction. A bus, on the other hand can travel on and off the guideway as needed providing superior point-to-point service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 The point there is that the vehicle that uses the pathway, in this case a bus in a HOV lane, can move off the guideway in flexible manner to connect any number of points. A train can only travel along it's pathway. Even a couple of blocks deviation is impossible without a large capital outlay and years of construction. A bus, on the other hand can travel on and off the guideway as needed providing superior point-to-point service. Buses can feed into rail stations. Not a difficult concept.Perhaps, but rail isn't needed or efficient in the place of a HOV lane. It is needed, and more efficient than an HOV lane.But the trains on them can't move off the tracks. 19th century technology. Do you cook on a stove? Why? That's ancient technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Buses can feed into rail stations. Not a difficult concept.That's the plan with the rail leading to the Northwest Transit Center (eventually). And the buses use HOV lanes, which you're fighting against. It is needed, and more efficient than an HOV lane.Where did this "more efficient" come from? One bridge in Australia at a few hours according to a pro-mass transit propaganda website? I'll humor you and agree that it's entirely true (despite the fact that it wasn't cited), but it's a horrendous overgeneralization. More likely, you're pulling stuff out of your rear. Do you cook on a stove? Why? That's ancient technology.I think that was intended at more of a jab on why you believe trains are the wave of the future, but you missed the point. What's funny is, most of us agree with the current light rail plans in Houston to some extent, but you extend to fanatical must-pour-billions-into-rail beliefs, and the articles/forum threads you copy and paste are of others who have similar beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 The point there is that the vehicle that uses the pathway, in this case a bus in a HOV lane, can move off the guideway in flexible manner to connect any number of points. A train can only travel along it's pathway. Even a couple of blocks deviation is impossible without a large capital outlay and years of construction. A bus, on the other hand can travel on and off the guideway as needed providing superior point-to-point service. Which is why rail lines are usually built in core areas of the city where it will not be necessary to move the line at all. This permanence can actually be a positive in some instances as developers know that an area served by a rail line will continue to be served by that line in the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Which is why rail lines are usually built in core areas of the city where it will not be necessary to move the line at all. This permanence can actually be a positive in some instances as developers know that an area served by a rail line will continue to be served by that line in the foreseeable future. I think that it's still an open question though how much of that kind of development is actually truly driven by rail. There's no question that there is some impact, but it's generally accompanied by government subsidies so it's difficult to differentiate. There was a study completed recently that I posted on another thread that found the highest degree of coorelation to the amount of government subsidy regardless of whether BRT or LRT was established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 I think that it's still an open question though how much of that kind of development is actually truly driven by rail. There's no question that there is some impact, but it's generally accompanied by government subsidies so it's difficult to differentiate. There was a study completed recently that I posted on another thread that found the highest degree of coorelation to the amount of government subsidy regardless of whether BRT or LRT was established.It's not hard. Rail: developmentNo rail: no development Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 It's not hard. Rail: developmentNo rail: no development The fact that you "simplified" an argument into something so flaringly wrong is amusing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 It's not hard.Rail: developmentNo rail: no development Wow, I didn't realize that all of that development that's happening around the city was just a figment of my imagination! Energy Corridor - illusionExxon campus - mirageUptown - hallucinationI'd continue on, but I'm too lazy to look up synonyms! Foolishly, I didn't realize that the only place that has any development in this city are the corridors immediately surrounding light rail! I am willing to devote some time though to looking up synonyms for myopic troll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 It's not hard.Rail: developmentNo rail: no development ROFL That's one of your best lines yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Wow, I didn't realize that all of that development that's happening around the city was just a figment of my imagination! Energy Corridor - illusionExxon campus - mirageUptown - hallucinationI'd continue on, but I'm too lazy to look up synonyms! Foolishly, I didn't realize that the only place that has any development in this city are the corridors immediately surrounding light rail! I am willing to devote some time though to looking up synonyms for myopic troll... That's not what you said. You said rail brings no development, it's just due to government subsidies. Well would those subsidies come without the rail being there? I'm not talking about other parts of town. Relax on the insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativehoustonion Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Yes please they are not part of METRO. If they want to pay the 1 cent tax then a lot more things will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 That's not what you said. You said rail brings no development, it's just due to government subsidies. Well would those subsidies come without the rail being there? I'm not talking about other parts of town. Relax on the insults. I think that it's still an open question though how much of that kind of development is actually truly driven by rail. There's no question that there is some impact, but it's generally accompanied by government subsidies so it's difficult to differentiate. There was a study completed recently that I posted on another thread that found the highest degree of coorelation to the amount of government subsidy regardless of whether BRT or LRT was established. Begone troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Begone troll.Stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Stay on topic. As long as you continue to misrepresent my statements and twist my words, then you are a troll. Read the above comments - you claimed that I said something that is exactly and specifically opposite of what I said. I pointed that out. This is not the first time that this has occurred. A reasonable person admits to a mistake. A troll denies and continues to misrepresent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 As long as you continue to misrepresent my statements and twist my words, then you are a troll. Read the above comments - you claimed that I said something that is exactly and specifically opposite of what I said. I pointed that out. This is not the first time that this has occurred. A reasonable person admits to a mistake. A troll denies and continues to misrepresent. This is not on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Just own up and admit that you took his quote out of context. Trying to deny it just makes you look like a bigger loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Just own up and admit that you took his quote out of context. Trying to deny it just makes you look like a bigger loser. Please stop insulting and stay on topic. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I think we've reached the end of this discussion.Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.