Subways: Are They Possible?

[mfastx]

I would much prefer a BART type system (heavy rail) than the commuter rail.  It's faster, easier to use, carries more people, and more efficient. 

 

 

This was the best rail proposition we've had to date IMO.  Lines going out west and northwest, where the people are.  An easy transfer to Uptown.  Hobby airport to downtown.  I would also have extended the original line to Bush Airport as well.  This system, connected with the feeder bus lines, would net us 500,000 riders a day, easy.  Probably more. 

[livincinco]

With that point, I agree completely, and I've never said that we shouldn't have a studies before expanding transit options. But again, why would you have reason to believe that the inner loop employment numbers are underestimated?

Take the high end estimate of 35% given. Downtown is 7% of area jobs at 150k. TMC is the #2 job center with approx. 100k jobs. If you do the math, that means that it's suggested that there are 400k jobs outside of Downtown and TMC inside the Loop outside of those two areas. That seems questionable to me especially since the #3 and 4 job centers in the city are located outside the loop.

Second reason is that people generally tend to underestimate the number of jobs in low rise suburban development. For example, think about the Beltway north of I10 to I45. No large scale development, but consistent low rise office/light industrial development on both sides of the road for about 25 miles. The overwhelming majority of the land in the metro is outside the loop, so the majority of low density development is going to exist out there as well.

Last reason is that generally people tend to think "office" and forget about industrial when thinking about these kind of numbers. Not sure how many people know this, but the #3 job center in Houston isn't Greenway or Uptown or Westchase. It's the Port of Houston. Way more jobs there than in a lot of the office buildings that people get excited about and a lot of light industrial/manufacturing in the Pasadena/Baytown areas.

[livincinco]

I would much prefer a BART type system (heavy rail) than the commuter rail. It's faster, easier to use, carries more people, and more efficient.

rail.jpg

This was the best rail proposition we've had to date IMO. Lines going out west and northwest, where the people are. An easy transfer to Uptown. Hobby airport to downtown. I would also have extended the original line to Bush Airport as well. This system, connected with the feeder bus lines, would net us 500,000 riders a day, easy. Probably more.

I think you're being overly optimistic. BART is an established, more than 100 mile system, that feeds through an area that has all kinds of geographical constraints on transit, and it draws approx. 400k unlinked passenger trips/day. MARTA draws about 220k/day.

That's still a different metric than riders. Transit numbers are reported in unlinked passenger trips, not riders/day and they are very different metrics. There's a small possibility that your suggested network would generate 500,000 unlinked passenger trips, but it's virtually impossible that it would generate 500,000 riders/day.

I don't think that most people are going to argue that the vast majority of riders are commuters so you have a minimum of two unlinked passenger trips per day for each rider, plus however many transfers they make. That means that you're proposing this system would have more than a million daily unlinked passenger trips and the only system in the country that gets that kind of ridership is New York City.

[HoustonIsHome]

It aint gonna work Tina!

Too many negatives to overcome here.

As per our physical development

As per our density

As per our massive highway system

As per our ease of getting around by car

As per our abundance of cheap parking

As per the cost of building a system and our reluctance to funding such expense.

Our jobs are spread across the metro. Its not like everyone is heading to one 40 sq mile area like SF. The jobs are spread over a 3000sq mile area. Its never going to be too difficult to drive or park. its always going to be be easier to drive than to depend on a show train.

[Naviguessor]

Always? Add a few million more people to the mix, and I think that that Will change.

Yes, it would be next to impossible to build a rail system that serves all people and that connects all suburbs with all business centers. But, if you did build a couple lines through heavily populated corridors that each hit a couple of large commercial/ business centers then people could choose to locate/live where it makes sense for them, and future development would concentrate naturally at/near transit nodes.

[mfastx]

I think you're being overly optimistic. BART is an established, more than 100 mile system, that feeds through an area that has all kinds of geographical constraints on transit, and it draws approx. 400k unlinked passenger trips/day. MARTA draws about 220k/day.

That's still a different metric than riders. Transit numbers are reported in unlinked passenger trips, not riders/day and they are very different metrics. There's a small possibility that your suggested network would generate 500,000 unlinked passenger trips, but it's virtually impossible that it would generate 500,000 riders/day.

I don't think that most people are going to argue that the vast majority of riders are commuters so you have a minimum of two unlinked passenger trips per day for each rider, plus however many transfers they make. That means that you're proposing this system would have more than a million daily unlinked passenger trips and the only system in the country that gets that kind of ridership is New York City.

 

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to unlinked passenger trips.  That system would be a huge improvement over our current one.  Alan Kiepper was ahead of his time, Houston wasn't ready in the 80s, too bad the political climate today makes it impossible to build as good a transit system as this. 

[totheskies]

Take the high end estimate of 35% given. Downtown is 7% of area jobs at 150k. TMC is the #2 job center with approx. 100k jobs. If you do the math, that means that it's suggested that there are 400k jobs outside of Downtown and TMC inside the Loop outside of those two areas. That seems questionable to me especially since the #3 and 4 job centers in the city are located outside the loop.

Second reason is that people generally tend to underestimate the number of jobs in low rise suburban development. For example, think about the Beltway north of I10 to I45. No large scale development, but consistent low rise office/light industrial development on both sides of the road for about 25 miles. The overwhelming majority of the land in the metro is outside the loop, so the majority of low density development is going to exist out there as well.

Last reason is that generally people tend to think "office" and forget about industrial when thinking about these kind of numbers. Not sure how many people know this, but the #3 job center in Houston isn't Greenway or Uptown or Westchase. It's the Port of Houston. Way more jobs there than in a lot of the office buildings that people get excited about and a lot of light industrial/manufacturing in the Pasadena/Baytown areas.

 

So are saying that the inner loop consists only of Downtown, the TMC, Greenway Plaza, a sliver of the Galleria and then arid tundra in between?  The inner loop consists of miles and miles of suburban low-rise development (just like the outer loop), as well as more traditional and non-traditional mixed use, and a larger share of mid-rise, high-rise employment.   

 

By "Port of Houston", do you mean the Houston Ship Channel?  Because if you're referring to jobs located in the city of Houston proper, then many of those Port jobs would be located inside the loop.  The Houston Ship Channel OTOH is a network of ports and associated industries, so many of those jobs are not located in Houston proper, but in Galena Park, Jacinto City, La Porte, etc.  The largest rail hub in the Houston Ship Channel system is the one located inside the loop, as are the inner-most turning basins.  But I get your point, and agree that most of the Houston Ship Channel jobs are located outside the loop. 

 

People are making trips to the inner loop for specific purposes, even if they don't work or live there.  If you're going to the Astros game, the opera, the museum same-day passport, city council meeting or any number of business tasks, you basically have only a few venues to travel to for those events. 

 

 

 

 

[HoustonIsHome]

Always? Add a few million more people to the mix, and I think that that Will change.

Yes always. You know as well as I do that the bulk of these people end up between the beltway and grand parkway. GP is what 30 or 35 miles away from downtown. That means where people are settling in is about 3500 sq miles in area. Throw in your few million people in the mix. In fact lets be generous and make it 4 million people. The density only increases by 1100 people per sq mile. Not very impressive considering it is uniform density and not dense pockets surrounded by forests. With 4 million extra people the urban area will still be half as dense as LA and almost 6 times less dense than London.

Lets face it, Grand parkway is clearing the way to expand our urban foot print deeper into the prairie on virgin land. The millions who come her are just being spread over a larger and larger are. The job centers are no longer downtown or uptown. Its being spread so far apart. HOUSTON will look less in need fir rail in 30 years than it did 30 years ago when the area where the beltway is was far out. In 30 years we will be talking about the loop connecting Galveston, Baycity, Wharton, Brenham, College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, Beaumont and Port Arther.

[Slick Vik]

Agreed but more people will increase the traffic. Also the traffic is coming into town every weekday morning, not going out.

[Tower26]

It will be more like L.A. or El Paso sprawling in all directions . There would be a huge increase in retail resulting in more retail jobs which would bring more warehouse distribution to the city especially the port . BNSF and UP would have to greatly expand their intermodal terminals as well as trucking because of the demand of retail and distribution would double . You would possibly find warehouses all on the outskirts possibly near along Grand Parkway including more malls , shopping center outlets or huge grocery stores depending on the growth .

[IronTiger]

I would much prefer a BART type system (heavy rail) than the commuter rail. It's faster, easier to use, carries more people, and more efficient.

This was the best rail proposition we've had to date IMO. Lines going out west and northwest, where the people are. An easy transfer to Uptown. Hobby airport to downtown. I would also have extended the original line to Bush Airport as well. This system, connected with the feeder bus lines, would net us 500,000 riders a day, easy. Probably more.

While 500k riders a day does seem awfully optimistic, I have a feeling that they'll still be people who demand some sort of light rail to "get around the city" or somesuch and blame local politicians for it not happening.

[mfastx]

While 500k riders a day does seem awfully optimistic, I have a feeling that they'll still be people who demand some sort of light rail to "get around the city" or somesuch and blame local politicians for it not happening.

 

That 500,000 boardings estimate of mine comes from a combination of bus and rail riders.  Considering that Atlanta gets over 400,000 boardings a day, I think 500,000 is a reasonable number for the proposed system in question.  A very conservative estimate. 

[Slick Vik]

While 500k riders a day does seem awfully optimistic, I have a feeling that they'll still be people who demand some sort of light rail to "get around the city" or somesuch and blame local politicians for it not happening.

Who else would you blame?

[IronTiger]

Who else would you blame?

Um...Public resistance, lack of funds, lack of space, unfeasible studies...the list goes on and on.

[livincinco]

That 500,000 boardings estimate of mine comes from a combination of bus and rail riders. Considering that Atlanta gets over 400,000 boardings a day, I think 500,000 is a reasonable number for the proposed system in question. A very conservative estimate.

If you're talking about combined ridership than I would say that if you can't get to those numbers, the system shouldn't even be considered. METRO gets 275k daily boardings already, so you're talking about adding approx 225k trips by building an extensive, multi billion dollar rail network. That would be more or less equivalent to MARTAs rail ridership numbers.

You may think that's conservative, but I think that's closer to optimistic. Houston does have more people than Atlanta, but it also has a far more developed highway system that allows greater existing mobility. I'd also argue that Houston is more dispersed than Atlanta is.

[livincinco]

So are saying that the inner loop consists only of Downtown, the TMC, Greenway Plaza, a sliver of the Galleria and then arid tundra in between? The inner loop consists of miles and miles of suburban low-rise development (just like the outer loop), as well as more traditional and non-traditional mixed use, and a larger share of mid-rise, high-rise employment.

By "Port of Houston", do you mean the Houston Ship Channel? Because if you're referring to jobs located in the city of Houston proper, then many of those Port jobs would be located inside the loop. The Houston Ship Channel OTOH is a network of ports and associated industries, so many of those jobs are not located in Houston proper, but in Galena Park, Jacinto City, La Porte, etc. The largest rail hub in the Houston Ship Channel system is the one located inside the loop, as are the inner-most turning basins. But I get your point, and agree that most of the Houston Ship Channel jobs are located outside the loop.

People are making trips to the inner loop for specific purposes, even if they don't work or live there. If you're going to the Astros game, the opera, the museum same-day passport, city council meeting or any number of business tasks, you basically have only a few venues to travel to for those events.

I'm not saying that there are miles of arid tundra in between, I'm saying that there probably aren't 400k additional jobs in the areas you reference. That number seems high. I agree that there is low rise development inside the loop as well as outside. However, there's only 94 sq miles of land inside the loop, 600 sq miles inside the city, and over 10,000 sq miles in the full metro. That kind of development inside the loop is a small percentage of the total development of that kind in the area.

My point is that the 25% is probably more accurate than the 35% number and I'm not seeing any reason to think that number will change in the foreseeable future.

[HoustonIsHome]

I'd also argue that Houston is more dispersed than Atlanta is.

Atlanta is more dispersed. We are more dense overall. Their urban area is much bigger (spread) than ours. But they have more pockets of density surrounded by nature, while we have uniform density.

Atl urban area is 2645 sq mile

Houston urban area is 1660 sq miles

Atl urban density is only 659 ppsm

Houstons is 1150 ppsm

For reference Philadelphia urban density is 1060ppsm, Boston is 861ppsm.

So Houston's spread is not the problem. It is how it spread. ALTHOUGH our urban density is higher than these three cities, it doesn't feel as dense because we do not build dense pockets we pave over every thing.

Roads like 1960 are sad cases because what started as a farm to market road where there was just about nothing from the farm (Addicks) to the Market (Humble) is now constant development between both.

Even DFW has drops in density. We don't.

[Slick Vik]

Um...Public resistance, lack of funds, lack of space, unfeasible studies...the list goes on and on.

Public resistance? The public voted in 2003.

Lack of funds? Yes now there are but only because culberson stalled the project so long.

Lack of space? Bogus.

Unfeasible studies? These engineers that do them have exponentially more knowledge on the subject than you

[IronTiger]

Public resistance? The public voted in 2003.

Lack of funds? Yes now there are but only because culberson stalled the project so long.

Lack of space? Bogus.

Unfeasible studies? These engineers that do them have exponentially more knowledge on the subject than you

First off, I was exploring a hypothetical situation where MARTA-type subways were in place and there'd still be complaints. It's been discussed thoroughly that Culberson isn't the only obstacle in the light rail future (METRO's incompetence, which you ignore because that's an inconvenient fact), and it's also laughable that you take the high ground with engineers who have more knowledge on the subject, because while that is true, you also have these theories like how the Pierce Elevated isn't needed or some other wacky scenario that run contrary to the very thing you claim to support.

[mfastx]

If you're talking about combined ridership than I would say that if you can't get to those numbers, the system shouldn't even be considered. METRO gets 275k daily boardings already, so you're talking about adding approx 225k trips by building an extensive, multi billion dollar rail network. That would be more or less equivalent to MARTAs rail ridership numbers.

You may think that's conservative, but I think that's closer to optimistic. Houston does have more people than Atlanta, but it also has a far more developed highway system that allows greater existing mobility. I'd also argue that Houston is more dispersed than Atlanta is.

 

I don't think that initial capital investment is about immediate ridership gain, but rather it's more about a very long term solution to public transportation problems.  A system like that would be around for centuries.  You must also consider the fact that it's cheaper to transport people by rail than it is by bus.  

[IronTiger]

Playing around with the distances of MARTA, their Red Line goes about the same distance from what would be the southern termius of Houston's Red Line, while the east-west distance barely goes the diameter of Beltway 8. Discounting the density issue (their east side is a lot less dense, enough that MARTA can travel on surface), it is also hardly a regional solution for the greater area.

[Slick Vik]

First off, I was exploring a hypothetical situation where MARTA-type subways were in place and there'd still be complaints. It's been discussed thoroughly that Culberson isn't the only obstacle in the light rail future (METRO's incompetence, which you ignore because that's an inconvenient fact), and it's also laughable that you take the high ground with engineers who have more knowledge on the subject, because while that is true, you also have these theories like how the Pierce Elevated isn't needed or some other wacky scenario that run contrary to the very thing you claim to support.

Metro had many issues I acknowledge that but culberson single handedly has been the biggest obstacle.

There is a difference between traffic engineers that are obsessed with highways than consultants that are hired for rail studies.

[IronTiger]

Metro had many issues I acknowledge that but culberson single handedly has been the biggest obstacle.

There is a difference between traffic engineers that are obsessed with highways than consultants that are hired for rail studies.

Your freeway/light rail good/evil comparison really is laughable and again, has been discussed many times. To you (and others), light rails and freeways can be categorized as such.

                                        Development associated with them                    NIMBYs to them

Freeways                        Corrupt politicians in cahoots with developers        True American heroes

 

Light rail                          Squeaky clean                                                      Racist cads

 

 

[livincinco]

Your freeway/light rail good/evil comparison really is laughable and again, has been discussed many times. To you (and others), light rails and freeways can be categorized as such.

                                        Development associated with them                    NIMBYs to them

Freeways                        Corrupt politicians in cahoots with developers        True American heroes

 

Light rail                          Squeaky clean                                                      Racist cads

 

The funniest thing about that is that Patrick Cannon, the now-ex mayor of Charlotte, resigned earlier this year after taking bribes from developers who are building transit oriented development.  He told undercover FBI investigators that he would get new rail approved in Charlotte in exchange for cash.

 

So much for squeaky clean.

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/03/26/4797191/case-against-patrick-cannon-touches.html#.U12lfVdN8XE

 

[livincinco]

I don't think that initial capital investment is about immediate ridership gain, but rather it's more about a very long term solution to public transportation problems.  A system like that would be around for centuries.  You must also consider the fact that it's cheaper to transport people by rail than it is by bus.  

 

Saying that the system will be around for centuries is awfully speculative.  The first prototype steam engine (which failed miserably) was invented almost exactly 200 years ago and there's no reason to believe that anything resembling today's rail will be an effective mode of transportation in 2200.  I would expect that most of today's technology will be no more relevant than the technology of 200 years ago is today, especially since every indication is that the pace of change is accelerating, not slowing down.

 

I've already gone into how operating costs for rail are lower only if you don't consider the interest costs that were incurred as part of the original construction so I don't think that it's necessary to rehash that.

[IronTiger]

Saying that the system will be around for centuries is awfully speculative.  The first prototype steam engine (which failed miserably) was invented almost exactly 200 years ago and there's no reason to believe that anything resembling today's rail will be an effective mode of transportation in 2200.  I would expect that most of today's technology will be no more relevant than the technology of 200 years ago is today, especially since every indication is that the pace of change is accelerating, not slowing down.

One only needs to find the myriad of abandoned rails across the country for this.

[citykid09]

I would much prefer a BART type system (heavy rail) than the commuter rail.  It's faster, easier to use, carries more people, and more efficient. 

 

rail.jpg

 

This was the best rail proposition we've had to date IMO.  Lines going out west and northwest, where the people are.  An easy transfer to Uptown.  Hobby airport to downtown.  I would also have extended the original line to Bush Airport as well.  This system, connected with the feeder bus lines, would net us 500,000 riders a day, easy.  Probably more. 

 

Its cool to see that Houston DID have plans for a world class tranit system in the past, but angers me that those plans never happened. I wish they could have built the first line and then went on to vote for the next lines. By that time the people would have realised how great it was and voted yes on the next lines.

[Slick Vik]

Steam locomotives failed miserably? Lol

There is a lot of abandoned everything that's not an argument

[IronTiger]

Steam locomotives failed miserably? Lol

There is a lot of abandoned everything that's not an argument

 

No one said steam locomotives failed miserably, it's that a true subway system would probably not be around for centuries, at least without major modifications.

Furthermore, although abandoned freight lines isn't the strongest argument, the fact that you have repeatedly argued in favor of freeway removal (a far less common occurrence) "derails" your second point.

[mfastx]

Saying that the system will be around for centuries is awfully speculative.  The first prototype steam engine (which failed miserably) was invented almost exactly 200 years ago and there's no reason to believe that anything resembling today's rail will be an effective mode of transportation in 2200.  I would expect that most of today's technology will be no more relevant than the technology of 200 years ago is today, especially since every indication is that the pace of change is accelerating, not slowing down.

 

I've already gone into how operating costs for rail are lower only if you don't consider the interest costs that were incurred as part of the original construction so I don't think that it's necessary to rehash that.

 

The subways of New York have already been around for over a century.  Sure they'll need to be updated every 50 or so years, but rail has been and will continue to be the most efficient way to transport people for the foreseeable future.  

 

You get what you pay for.  Houston elected to go with the "cheap" rubber tired route, spending over a billion on an HOV network rather than rail.  As a result our transit ridership is embarrassing.  

 

As a taxpayer, I'd be more than willing to spend slightly more over the long term on a much nicer, faster, and more heavily utilized system.  The 1983 proposal would blow what we currently have out of the water in terms of ridership, and I still don't see how anyone can argue against that.