Subways: Are They Possible?

[livincinco]

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. 

 

Since you keep going back to New York, let's look at the history.  The first subway in New York started operation in 1904.  It was privately built, not publicly funded and the density on the Lower East Side was 250,000/sq mile at the time with areas that had far greater density than that. 

 

So to summarize, New York allowed a privately owned and operated transportation system that would be operated at a profit and was built with the cutting edge technology of the time.  Houston would publicly finance a system that will utilize old technology and will need to be heavily subsidized for decades until population gets large enough to support it.

 

I am 100% in favor of implementing New York's solution.

[citykid09]

Since you keep going back to New York, let's look at the history.  The first subway in New York started operation in 1904.  It was privately built, not publicly funded and the density on the Lower East Side was 250,000/sq mile at the time with areas that had far greater density than that. 

 

So to summarize, New York allowed a privately owned and operated transportation system that would be operated at a profit and was built with the cutting edge technology of the time.  Houston would publicly finance a system that will utilize old technology and will need to be heavily subsidized for decades until population gets large enough to support it.

 

I am 100% in favor of implementing New York's solution.

 

You are saying that the rail technology that BART uses is old technology but to me it is far more advanced than light rial. Light rail to me is nothing more than a glorified street car and any self respecting world class city would look at it as nothing more than that. If a world class city has light rail, its in addition to their heavy rail systems, its not their be all and end all.

[Houston19514]

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. 

 

I suspect that there would be a lot of taxpayer support for a "much nicer, faster, and more heavily utilized [mass transit] system" for the Houston metro region that only cost "slightly more" than a billion dollars.  The problem is, building such a system for such a price.  What sort of system would even come close to meeting those criteria?

[samagon]

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.

 

This is not exactly a glowing endorsement for cars, a technology that has been in wide use for less than a century.

 

But then, ships have been around for as long as history is a tale to tell. Walking has been around probably longer.

 

Communications technology though, that's a different story, phones have been around for about a century, and the technology backbone for that communication method, while still going over copper wires, has changed numerous times, going from ladies connecting your call, to clicks and whirs, to tones, and now the tech is pretty well dying with different communications protocols carrying voice. When I was a kid my parents had a rotary phone, then they got a touch tone, then we had a cordless, then I got a cell phone, today I have a smart phone, tomorrow that technology will have passed on and I'll be using some new fangled thingy that I'll have to learn to use. Maybe when I'm 70 I'll be too scared of the new technology to adopt it, don't know, I certainly won't recognize it as a phone. Anyway, technology from a communications standpoint, yes, it changes, it evolves, we move on.

 

transportation though, that's a different beast. The technology that underpins the method of transit will and does change, but we will always recognize the method of transit for what it is, we'll call things that float in the water ships, we'll call things with pedals and 2 wheels bikes, we'll call things with 4 wheels and a seat a car, we'll call things that ride along a fixed guideway and carry multiple passengers a train. They won't go or change, they're here. When someone invents a new method of transit.

 

What methods of transit have died? stagecoaches? horseback riding? replaced by the car and the bus? 

 

I'd make a bet that I won't be able to collect, but maybe we can draw something up for our childrens children to win/lose (you'll need to provide me with a wife so I can make babies and they can collect, or pay up). I'll bet you $10 that rail, or something resembling rail will be an effective means of transportation in 200 years.

[mfastx]

Since you keep going back to New York, let's look at the history.  The first subway in New York started operation in 1904.  It was privately built, not publicly funded and the density on the Lower East Side was 250,000/sq mile at the time with areas that had far greater density than that. 

 

So to summarize, New York allowed a privately owned and operated transportation system that would be operated at a profit and was built with the cutting edge technology of the time.  Houston would publicly finance a system that will utilize old technology and will need to be heavily subsidized for decades until population gets large enough to support it.

 

I am 100% in favor of implementing New York's solution.

 

You're twisting the argument.  I merely mentioned New York as an example of rail technology being around for over a century already.  How it is financed and the density of the area it's built in has no effect on the lifespan of the technology.  

 

A similar comparison to Houston would be Washington DC's network, which has been around for over 50 years now.  DC's system is wildly successful, yet it was publicly financed and the density is nowhere near New York's. 

 

I suspect that there would be a lot of taxpayer support for a "much nicer, faster, and more heavily utilized [mass transit] system" for the Houston metro region that only cost "slightly more" than a billion dollars.  The problem is, building such a system for such a price.  What sort of system would even come close to meeting those criteria?

 

Obviously a rail system being built as opposed to the HOV system back in the 80s would have costed a few billion dollars more, the fact that we only netted about 30,000 boardings/day with a system that cost that much and was financed by METRO is pretty sad, considering that METRO spent a fraction of that on light rail and got more riders that way.  It's all politics though. 

 

EDIT: to clarify, when I said "slightly more" I was referring to the cost of subsidizing a less efficient, less utilized bus system as opposed to spending lots of capital costs but making those costs up long term in lower operating costs. 

[livincinco]

You are saying that the rail technology that BART uses is old technology but to me it is far more advanced than light rial. Light rail to me is nothing more than a glorified street car and any self respecting world class city would look at it as nothing more than that. If a world class city has light rail, its in addition to their heavy rail systems, its not their be all and end all.

 

I agree with you on that.  I'm not a fan of light rail because I personally feel that it doesn't have significant advantages over BRT while costing considerably more per mile. 

 

Just to clarify, I think that grade separated heavy rail brings a lot of value in a very dense city with a centralized job base, but that's not what Houston is.  It's a multi-nucleated region with a large number of job centers and most transit experts will agree that a traditional "hub and spoke" system doesn't work well in that environment.  Transit in that environment is much more effective with a "spiderweb" pattern that requires a lot of service routes.  Houston needs a transit method that covers hundreds of miles.

[IronTiger]

Speculation on transit numbers that could've been is pretty fun to play around with, but it doesn't mean anything in the long run. If I said "we'd have seen less traffic on I-45 if TX-35 and/or TX-125 went through", that may or may not be true. I certainly wouldn't hold a grudge against those that fought against it.

[Houston19514]

I agree with you on that.  I'm not a fan of light rail because I personally feel that it doesn't have significant advantages over BRT while costing considerably more per mile. 

 

Just to clarify, I think that grade separated heavy rail brings a lot of value in a very dense city with a centralized job base, but that's not what Houston is.  It's a multi-nucleated region with a large number of job centers and most transit experts will agree that a traditional "hub and spoke" system doesn't work well in that environment.  Transit in that environment is much more effective with a "spiderweb" pattern that requires a lot of service routes.  Houston needs a transit method that covers hundreds of miles.

 

I believe that once ridership achieves a certain level, the operational costs for light rail are quite a lot lower than for BRT.

[Houston19514]

In connection with the recent discussion of how many people work inside the loop, the city's planning and development department says "Loop 610 accounts for 15% of Houston’s land area and 21% of the population but more than 35% of its jobs."  (And I don't think they are including Uptown, which of course is technically outside the loop.")

[mfastx]

I agree with you on that.  I'm not a fan of light rail because I personally feel that it doesn't have significant advantages over BRT while costing considerably more per mile. 

 

Just to clarify, I think that grade separated heavy rail brings a lot of value in a very dense city with a centralized job base, but that's not what Houston is.  It's a multi-nucleated region with a large number of job centers and most transit experts will agree that a traditional "hub and spoke" system doesn't work well in that environment.  Transit in that environment is much more effective with a "spiderweb" pattern that requires a lot of service routes.  Houston needs a transit method that covers hundreds of miles.

 

Well, we do have a hub and spoke highway system which works quite well.  This is my last comment on this because it's obvious I'm not changing anyone's mind, but a heavy rail system similar to the one outlined in the 1983 proposal combined with an improved bus network would do wonders for the region.  

[livincinco]

I believe that once ridership achieves a certain level, the operational costs for light rail are quite a lot lower than for BRT.

 

Only if you don't consider the ongoing finance charges that are related to the much higher upfront construction costs.

 

Well, we do have a hub and spoke highway system which works quite well.  This is my last comment on this because it's obvious I'm not changing anyone's mind, but a heavy rail system similar to the one outlined in the 1983 proposal combined with an improved bus network would do wonders for the region.  

 

Actually our highway system looks exactly like a spiderweb.  It's hub and spoke only if you don't consider the ring roads.  Take out the Loop, the Beltway, and the various arterial roads and it's a hub and spoke.

[Slick Vik]

I think I've posted studies numerous times but the only time BRT is cheaper is when there are no tunnels or bridges involved. Also right of way is the biggest cost of both.

[livincinco]

I think I've posted studies numerous times but the only time BRT is cheaper is when there are no tunnels or bridges involved. Also right of way is the biggest cost of both.

 

Quoting DCStreetsblog does not count as a study.

 

[Slick Vik]

Quoting DCStreetsblog does not count as a study.

It wasn't dcstreetsblog. Good try.

[IronTiger]

It wasn't dcstreetsblog. Good try.

Your "studies" consist of various pro-transit links and observations on usually one system with highways and transit systems. I'm sure you've been to college, so you should know that real studies use control variables (a helpful link in case you've forgotten) and more than one comparison (as in, you can't look at one thing and make a conclusion).

[citykid09]

I agree with you on that.  I'm not a fan of light rail because I personally feel that it doesn't have significant advantages over BRT while costing considerably more per mile. 

 

Just to clarify, I think that grade separated heavy rail brings a lot of value in a very dense city with a centralized job base, but that's not what Houston is.  It's a multi-nucleated region with a large number of job centers and most transit experts will agree that a traditional "hub and spoke" system doesn't work well in that environment.  Transit in that environment is much more effective with a "spiderweb" pattern that requires a lot of service routes.  Houston needs a transit method that covers hundreds of miles.

 

I think a "hub and spoke" heavy rail system would work for Houston. Businesses that locate in areas such as Westchase, the Energy Corridor and Greenway Plaza were obviously never looking for a an urban walkable environment to do business. You can see it in the way the building in these areas are designed. They are surrounded by acres of grass and or parking lots. Although these centers are far from the core of the city, they developers missed a great opportunity to create a true secondary business districts with street grids transit parks etc. Now many of these areas are saying that they want to become more livable and walkable to appeal to the younger generation, but its sort of too late. unless you add density, transit and housing to these areas they will never appeal to the younger generation.

 

With all of that said, I believe a "hub and spoke" system would work in Houston. Build a inner city heavy rail connecting uptown and downtown and all the areas in between. I guaranty that mostly all major companies will want to be near the rail line. People will want to live within walking distance of the rail line etc.

 

All of those business located outside of the inner city heavy rail such as the Westchase district and the Energy Corridor would not be able to compete with the convince of what the inner city has to offer so they would probably try to come up with some cheap alternative such as a BRT.

 

So in conclusion, build a heavy rail transit system in Houston which will cut down on sprawl and at the same time create a place for culture in the city. I love Houston to death but the way that its developed make it a very boring city. Yes Houston maybe the most diverse city in the country, but the only places you ever get to really see that diversity is in a grocery store or at a mall which all have to be driven to. Yeah there have been a lot of changes to the style of development in the city and there are a lot of nice new developments drive around to those developments and you can tell that there is no master plan so the city. The only development in Houston that sees my point (but has not been built) is regent square. Its the only huge mixed use development that actually wants to build on the street and not surrounded by a parking lot. I'm talking to you BLVD Place and River Oaks District. Okay, enough venting.