Subways: Are They Possible?

[livincinco]

To be fair - LA must build for an earthquake zone and simply put projects are more expensive there due to the cost of living/wages etc being higher than in Houston.

 

Why would it cost $40 billion to build 10 or 5 miles of subway here, when it costs that much to build 28 miles in LA?

 

 

And yes, to a point money spent on large public projects should always be scrutinized extra... though building something that large will always be expensive.  And as a citizen of this area (Metro service area) I would be fine to pay extra money to access that system, and also happy to pay extra money to build a better transit system in Houston.  If that means higher taxes for a while, or more fees when purchasing certain things or renting cars or going to a game - then so be it.  I mean we added ridiculous fees to everything to build a useless stadium for an even more inept team owned by a billionaire, yet we can't build a transit system for our burgening city and metro area of 6.3 million?  Seems odd.

 

We may not need 100 miles of heavy rail now, but when out population tops 8 million we will!  Will we have it?  Nope.  We will follow LA's example and be so mired in traffic that we will have no choice but to spend $40 billion when it may have cost only $20 billion.

 

 

Actually LA's per mile cost is considerably lower than New York's.  Just to clarify, I'm all in favor of spending $20 billion on transit in Houston, it would be well spent money for the future.  The way that money should be spent is a different question.  I don't agree with spending billions to build a single subway line (University Line) in an area that doesn't even have the density to justify it.

 

[arche_757]

Well, there are some townhomes replacing older apartments here and there.  Indeed there are negative drawbacks to gentrification - certainly - but my point was that townhomes do add some density.  Are they ideal?  Not really, though we should start to see more midrise buildings geared towards ownership if the number of people (and cost of living) inside the Loop continues to increase.

 

I don't agree either about spending $20 billion on a single line, unless that line stretches in a loop around the city (some how)... in other words it would have to be a more than "run of the mill" line.  While density isn't in place yet, I feel that some on here are underestimating ridership in Houston.  Look at the Red Line south..  Numbers there are great for the size of the line, and it does connect two major work hubs, but the majority of those riders ride to some transit center I'll wager.  I think a subway/above ground line running down Westheimer (for example) from Downtown (some way) would work and would draw large amounts of riders.

 

Everything in NYC is adjusted for the costs of doing business there.  LA for all its glitz and glam is still pricey but not quite NY prices.  So that makes sense, but it would still cost more (even if the cost of living was the same) to build in LA than in Houston due to earthquakes.

[livincinco]

That's really the question about subways though isn't it? If we could get $20 billion in capital transit spend, I'd much rather have 200-300 miles of quality BRT than 20-30 miles of subway.

[mfastx]

That's really the question about subways though isn't it? If we could get $20 billion in capital transit spend, I'd much rather have 200-300 miles of quality BRT than 20-30 miles of subway.

 

$20 billion would get you a lot more than 20-30 miles of subway.  In Houston, it only makes sense to subway in certain high density areas.  A heavy rail system would be above ground in a lot of areas, bringing the cost down.  

 

$20 billion of spending on heavy rail would get a lot more ridership than the same amount on BRT.  

[IronTiger]

I'm sure that while submerged (or even partially submerged) University Line would be quite expensive, it wouldn't be $20 billion. And my comment about townhomes and density is that while they do bring up density, they're cheap and installed on areas that really don't support them (streets, neighborhoods). And most of them are quite ugly (neighborhoods deserve better).

The reason I think "subway should interface with light rail" is because I am of the opinion that transfers should be minimized, which is why mass transit isn't favored in cities if you can afford a car.

For automobiles, it's a simple transfer:

1) Leave home

2) Get in car parked nearby (you may not even have to go outside)

3) Drive

4) Arrive at destination

5) Walk some (maybe)

For mass transit, it's less so:

1) Leave home

2) Walk to bus stop

3) Wait

4) Ride

5) Arrive at destination

6) Walk some more

When you throw in more types, it's even more complicated.

tl;dr, if you want mass transit that's not bus, keep it all one grade. I don't know Austin's numbers for their rail system, but they ride on the same line the heavy rail does (saving costs, I imagine) and can go both in-city AND to suburbia (in theory, at least)

[livincinco]

$20 billion would get you a lot more than 20-30 miles of subway. In Houston, it only makes sense to subway in certain high density areas. A heavy rail system would be above ground in a lot of areas, bringing the cost down.

$20 billion of spending on heavy rail would get a lot more ridership than the same amount on BRT.

We're just going to have to respectfully disagree on that. I think a $700 million - $1 billion per mile cost is pretty much in line with the very limited amount of subway construction going on in the US. I also think that you're overestimating the amount of demand on the discussed University corridor. Transit ridership tends to coorelate very heavily to the density of the area near to the stations and the area along the proposed University line really isn't that dense.

[livincinco]

There seems to be a lot of discussion about the LA costs of $1 billion/mile. Keep in mind that is a pre-construction estimate,very few government infrastructure projects of this magnitude come in on budget. Expect actuals to run higher.

[Slick Vik]

We're just going to have to respectfully disagree on that. I think a $700 million - $1 billion per mile cost is pretty much in line with the very limited amount of subway construction going on in the US. I also think that you're overestimating the amount of demand on the discussed University corridor. Transit ridership tends to coorelate very heavily to the density of the area near to the stations and the area along the proposed University line really isn't that dense.

JamesL disproved this to you a long time ago. You need a bus to run every two minutes right now to satisfy demand on the university corridor.

$20 billion would get you a lot more than 20-30 miles of subway. In Houston, it only makes sense to subway in certain high density areas. A heavy rail system would be above ground in a lot of areas, bringing the cost down.

$20 billion of spending on heavy rail would get a lot more ridership than the same amount on BRT.

It's all about where the heavy rail is placed.

[IronTiger]

JamesL disproved this to you a long time ago. You need a bus to run every two minutes right now to satisfy demand on the university corridor.

That's not "disproved", that's an estimation. Estimations don't "disprove" anything.

[livincinco]

JamesL disproved this to you a long time ago. You need a bus to run every two minutes right now to satisfy demand on the university corridor.

 

The highest recorded throughput volume of an active brt system is 37,700 passengers per hour per direction.  The projected ridership of the University Line in 2030 is 49,000 average weekday boardings.

 

http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/20th_SAG_HR.pdf (pg.16)

 

 

 

[IronTiger]

Estimations are less a proven statistic with number grinding (though numbers work is part of it), it's also like a card game. You want to go high to get more federal funding (or a fast track to federal numbers), but you don't want to bullshit too much or you won't get it (100,000 weekday boardings on a Houston-Galveston line is absurd, for instance if you were to argue for that)

[samagon]

I thought we were supposed to double?  Besides, think back... 1960 to today (roughly) that's 50 years.  Imagine the changes in this country since that time.  Peak Oil/Energy will happen eventually... perhaps the "peak" won't be when we reach the end of our supply, but rather when events external or internal cause prices to skyrocket and force the hand of many metro's to adopt better transit planning.  Maybe I'm being too far thinking?

 

Not to get into another tangential discussion, but that's what Peak Oil is, it's not when we run out, it's when the production peaks. In the 80s in the USA it was different cause there were other sources of oil, so it was pumped till dry for cheap. When the world production hits peak, if demand doesn't slow down, that will be really bad (assuming alternatives aren't available). It's also different because unlike the 80s, the price will go up, and as that price goes up it makes economical sense to go after harder to reach deposits.

 

So all this fracking that's happening in the US right now, they're going after stuff they knew was there, it just wasn't economically feasible (and the technology didn't exist either, but if it had made economic sense to go after it then, they would have developed the technology then) to go after it at the time.

 

Anyway, it's not when we'll run out, but when the cheap to get stuff that is still being produced runs out, the price will keep going higher. Eventually, the cost of the product will be too high for people to sustain and they will move to other energy sources. demand will slow down, production will slow down, but since the price to produce will still be high, the price won't go down. How this impacts Houston overall (from an economy that, so far as I know, is still nearly 40% O&G related) is gloomy, I think, much less whether we have a subway built by that time.

[livincinco]

Not to get into another tangential discussion, but that's what Peak Oil is, it's not when we run out, it's when the production peaks. In the 80s in the USA it was different cause there were other sources of oil, so it was pumped till dry for cheap. When the world production hits peak, if demand doesn't slow down, that will be really bad (assuming alternatives aren't available). It's also different because unlike the 80s, the price will go up, and as that price goes up it makes economical sense to go after harder to reach deposits.

 

So all this fracking that's happening in the US right now, they're going after stuff they knew was there, it just wasn't economically feasible (and the technology didn't exist either, but if it had made economic sense to go after it then, they would have developed the technology then) to go after it at the time.

 

Anyway, it's not when we'll run out, but when the cheap to get stuff that is still being produced runs out, the price will keep going higher. Eventually, the cost of the product will be too high for people to sustain and they will move to other energy sources. demand will slow down, production will slow down, but since the price to produce will still be high, the price won't go down. How this impacts Houston overall (from an economy that, so far as I know, is still nearly 40% O&G related) is gloomy, I think, much less whether we have a subway built by that time.

 

It's a really interesting question and one that would make for a fun discussion.  Fully agree that prices will likely continue to increase over time (it's currently comparable to historical price peaks when adjusted for inflation), however given current known supplies, a gradual rise seems more likely than spikes.

 

I agree that continued increases will make other energy sources more attractive as prices continue to rise.  (Shell predicts that the last gasoline fueled cars will be produced in about 2070). 

 

The key for Houston though is that the petroleum companies are the best positioned to take advantage of the rise of alternate fuels.  Whether they are able to do so is a completely different question.

 

 

MODS - can I suggest that we pull this to a different thread?

 

[arche_757]

^Agreed.  And Agreed...

 

My point wasn't that Peak Oil is when we run out - I think a large number of people think of it in that manner.  My point was we will reach a level eventually (maybe far from now, I'm not an expert so I can't tell you) where the costs are too high for the consumer.  American's can't really pay $6 a litter per fill-up right now.  We drive more then Europeans and our transit system is antiquated.  Peak Oil is going to come differently for us than it will for Germans or Japanese or Indonesians.  Places like Houston ...or, well, anywhere that's NOT the old Northeastern cities the "Megalopolis" as its called will suffer if prices get astronomically high and stay that way.

 

Oddly enough I think it would be a boon to small town Americana.  We would go back to having the need to have access to everything possible in towns that are more than "X" number of miles away from bigger cities.  Odd how things are cyclical.  But this is moving well away from the discussion at hand.

[arche_757]

For automobiles, it's a simple transfer:

1) Leave home

2) Get in car parked nearby (you may not even have to go outside)

3) Drive

4) Arrive at destination

5) Walk some (maybe)

For mass transit, it's less so:

1) Leave home

2) Walk to bus stop

3) Wait

4) Ride

5) Arrive at destination

6) Walk some more

 

I agree that using transit is something of a hassle, but it also allows you to text/facebook/read a book/work etc. without fear of running your vehicle into something.

 

I've not commuted for work, but when in DC and Germany for leisure and vacation I found great enjoyment out of reading while on the train(s).  Certainly not hard to do.  At best in a car you can audiobook, but that's not really like reading.

 

When I worked Downtown I had the option of walking 4 blocks to work from the Red Line, or walking 5 blocks from the Parking Garage.  Guess which one I preferred?  I preferred the light rail.  But driving does offer flexibility for those who need it.

 

I've no doubt that some of the lines will beat and some come under the projected ridership (Red Line met the ridership numbers of some much more distant numbers in the first year).

 

Again - I think some here in the city are discounting just how quickly Houstonians would use a system put in place.  That said we still need commuter lines to the suburban cores at some point - sooner than later.

[totheskies]

Valid points are being made on all sides here.  Houston is growing, changing in certain areas rapidly.  But at the same time, we are a very infant city when it comes to rail and alternative transportation options.  It's not the right time for subway in Houston because there is no political climate to support it.  Hell we can't even build the 1 at-grade line that is already planned. 

 

I think we'll eventually get there, but it's going to take a learning curve.  People cursed the Main Street line and said it was useless too before it was built.  But now, most Houstonians, even if they don't necessarily use it, wouldn't take it away.  The North Line extension will give us our first opportunity for a true multi-modal transit center (especially if things like Commuter rail and HSR are incorporated), and it's also the first taste of having light rail interact with more "traditional" Houston neighborhoods.  So far, the ridership has beaten initial expectations significantly. 

 

Subway may not be a battle for this decade or the next, but if we can get some starter lines in place to show that rail has value, it could be something feasible down the line. 

[totheskies]

We're just going to have to respectfully disagree on that. I think a $700 million - $1 billion per mile cost is pretty much in line with the very limited amount of subway construction going on in the US. I also think that you're overestimating the amount of demand on the discussed University corridor. Transit ridership tends to coorelate very heavily to the density of the area near to the stations and the area along the proposed University line really isn't that dense.

 

Define "isn't that dense"??  Hillcroft Transit Center is in the single densest part of Houston (which I've mentioned before).  

 

UH-- 40,000 students plus 6,000 faculty and staff= 46,000 persons traveling to and from main campus

 

TSU-- 10,000 students plus 2,500 faculty and staff= 12,500 persons traveling to and from main campus

 

That's a 58,500 member daytime population... more than half the working population of the Texas Medical Center. 

 

You should come and spend some time at UH and just watch the number of cabs that people bring to school.  There are a lot more people in this city without regular car usage than people realize. 

[IronTiger]

I agree that using transit is something of a hassle, but it also allows you to text/facebook/read a book/work etc. without fear of running your vehicle into something.

I've not commuted for work, but when in DC and Germany for leisure and vacation I found great enjoyment out of reading while on the train(s). Certainly not hard to do. At best in a car you can audiobook, but that's not really like reading.

When I worked Downtown I had the option of walking 4 blocks to work from the Red Line, or walking 5 blocks from the Parking Garage. Guess which one I preferred? I preferred the light rail. But driving does offer flexibility for those who need it.

I've no doubt that some of the lines will beat and some come under the projected ridership (Red Line met the ridership numbers of some much more distant numbers in the first year).

Again - I think some here in the city are discounting just how quickly Houstonians would use a system put in place. That said we still need commuter lines to the suburban cores at some point - sooner than later.

Two different things here:

1) The bus example was to show mostly that mass transit is not a preferable alternative if you already own a car (and can afford it). This is partly because there are some people who not only like the idea of mass transit but are anti-automobile but I believe (hope?) these are part of a slim minority.

2) Transfers are bad and should be avoided. There are some who say "But that's not how the EAST COAST does it, we need to be just like them!" but I disagree. Since places like Houston and Dallas are substantially newer than New York. In the year 1900, New York had 3 million people. Houston had 45,000 people. We have the opportunity to do things differently, and that means creating a transit system that doesn't involve very many transfers.

[IronTiger]

Define "isn't that dense"?? Hillcroft Transit Center is in the single densest part of Houston (which I've mentioned before).

UH-- 40,000 students plus 6,000 faculty and staff= 46,000 persons traveling to and from main campus

TSU-- 10,000 students plus 2,500 faculty and staff= 12,500 persons traveling to and from main campus

That's a 58,500 member daytime population... more than half the working population of the Texas Medical Center.

You should come and spend some time at UH and just watch the number of cabs that people bring to school. There are a lot more people in this city without regular car usage than people realize.

Texas A&M has over 50,000 people enrolled in it. There's a daily traffic jam, apartment complexes, and several bus lines, but it doesn't justify a light rail, and the surrounding area isn't all that dense.

[citykid09]

I wonder do the people at METRO read this? Or do any important poeple in the city reads this (Mayor, city council, etc). If not can we some how direct their attention to this thread so that they can see that the poeple of the Houston area are talking about subways in Houston?

[arche_757]

Two different things here:

1) The bus example was to show mostly that mass transit is not a preferable alternative if you already own a car (and can afford it). This is partly because there are some people who not only like the idea of mass transit but are anti-automobile but I believe (hope?) these are part of a slim minority.

2) Transfers are bad and should be avoided. There are some who say "But that's not how the EAST COAST does it, we need to be just like them!" but I disagree. Since places like Houston and Dallas are substantially newer than New York. In the year 1900, New York had 3 million people. Houston had 45,000 people. We have the opportunity to do things differently, and that means creating a transit system that doesn't involve very many transfers.

 

I suppose I just skipped right over the "bus" part!  So ...erm.... moving on?  Sorry

 

Indeed transfers are bad and if possible should be limited to two - at most.  Anything more and its a time waster.

 

And Texas A&M while larger than UH - is not in Houston.  UH students would use a rail line in the same way Med School students use the Red Line.  While I was a student IF I had a chance to take Light Rail versus the task of finding a parking spot on campus (and paying $105 a year to park - back then) I would.  I would have just gotten the cheap lots and opted to ride the train most days.  I know many students who lived in an area where they could either park n' ride or simply walk to a station would do the same.

 

[IronTiger]

And Texas A&M while larger than UH - is not in Houston. UH students would use a rail line in the same way Med School students use the Red Line. While I was a student IF I had a chance to take Light Rail versus the task of finding a parking spot on campus (and paying $105 a year to park - back then) I would. I would have just gotten the cheap lots and opted to ride the train most days. I know many students who lived in an area where they could either park n' ride or simply walk to a station would do the same.

It is indeed not the best example, because the students to non-students ratios are totally different. Still, that doesn't change the fact that there are many who commute from farther distances (far beyond the light rail's terminus) and the few that live on campus (there are scads of decent apartments and rental homes within walking distance of TAMU, but UH and TSU are in a sketchy neighborhood where that is not the case--thus strengthening the case for light rail in Houston though)

[livincinco]

Define "isn't that dense"?? Hillcroft Transit Center is in the single densest part of Houston (which I've mentioned before).

UH-- 40,000 students plus 6,000 faculty and staff= 46,000 persons traveling to and from main campus

TSU-- 10,000 students plus 2,500 faculty and staff= 12,500 persons traveling to and from main campus

That's a 58,500 member daytime population... more than half the working population of the Texas Medical Center.

You should come and spend some time at UH and just watch the number of cabs that people bring to school. There are a lot more people in this city without regular car usage than people realize.

There is a very high coorelation between transit usage and density. If density is below 10,000/sq mile usage is very low. Usage starts to increase above that point, but doesn't really take off until density gets to 25,000/sq mile. I'm not arguing that there are some pockets of moderate density in there, but large parts of the proposed line are well below those density levels.

[arche_757]

There is a very high coorelation between transit usage and density. If density is below 10,000/sq mile usage is very low. Usage starts to increase above that point, but doesn't really take off until density gets to 25,000/sq mile. I'm not arguing that there are some pockets of moderate density in there, but large parts of the proposed line are well below those density levels.

 

It's a sort of catch 22 isn't it?  Without enough density it is hard to have high transit ridership.  However, without transit that density will never really come about.

 

That's the problem.  I wonder what the population density is along the Red Line?  It isn't the 10,000 sq mi (or 25,000) where it succeeds is that it connects major hubs that have that density (if only during the work day).  Similar to if you connected UH/TSU to Uptown (and the intersecting points).

 

And I think your comment is more to the point on Subways - less Light Rail?  Yes?  I think it has been established that it would be doubtful Houston would ever have a true subway like the Tube or NYC's Manhattan based trains, more than likely we may see a subway line through/under something like Greenway Plaza or maybe under the 1 mile or so around Uptown the remaining track would be above ground.

[IronTiger]

Light rail doesn't "create" density (nor do highways "create" sprawl). If the demand is there, density will happen. After all, downtown started to sprout skyscrapers long before the light rail came down Main.

[arche_757]

Houston had 70+ miles of trolley lines pre-1910 (or thereabouts) - so they actually existed pre-Skyscraper.

 

Light Rail or Rapid Transit doesn't create anything... it does allow for different development ideas than when it does not exist.

Highways don't create sprawl but the certainly make it possible.  Don't kid yourself about that!

[IronTiger]

Houston had 70+ miles of trolley lines pre-1910 (or thereabouts) - so they actually existed pre-Skyscraper.

Light Rail or Rapid Transit doesn't create anything... it does allow for different development ideas than when it does not exist.

Highways don't create sprawl but the certainly make it possible. Don't kid yourself about that!

The trolley lines certainly didn't add density (and were very unreliable). Sprawl tends to occur naturally in ALL cities whether they have highways or not.

[arche_757]

How many cities DON'T have highways (interstate/multi-lane divided freeways/etc)?  Name me 1.

 

And I mean larger cities - 50,000+ in population and large regional hubs of commerce.  Nationally.

 

And those trolley lines were unreliable nationally.  What is your argument?  I think we see eye-to-eye on the subway issue, I don't understand what you're trying to argue about?

[IronTiger]

How many cities DON'T have highways (interstate/multi-lane divided freeways/etc)? Name me 1.

And I mean larger cities - 50,000+ in population and large regional hubs of commerce. Nationally.

And those trolley lines were unreliable nationally. What is your argument? I think we see eye-to-eye on the subway issue, I don't understand what you're trying to argue about?

Well, Vancouver doesn't have any freeways in the center city itself, but it does have it in the outer areas, and it does sprawl outward. If a city is successful and people want to move/work there, it will have sprawl. Period.

There are some people who have this fantasy delusion that if there were no freeways, there would be no sprawl, and everyone would live comfortable and happy in the inner city with high density towers.

It was this that I had a problem with:

It's a sort of catch 22 isn't it? Without enough density it is hard to have high transit ridership. However, without transit that density will never really come about.

I think the better question is "what is the highest density achieved for a city without a rail-based mass transit system"?

[Slick Vik]

The trolley lines certainly didn't add density (and were very unreliable). Sprawl tends to occur naturally in ALL cities whether they have highways or not.

Unreliable on what basis? From what I've read they tended to be on time and ran frequently.