Transit and Pedestrian Access

[JSB]

If not a lot of people want to have pedestrian oriented neighborhoods then not a lot of businesses will move there and not a lot of people will move there. But they do and they move to these neighborhoods along with businesses and they voted to approve a metro rail plan. We have enough demand in Houston for these things to be happening.

As a transit system it is not inherently damaging to business. It attracts people and that attracts business.

How can you draw this conclusion without considering whether the density required to provide for what you're advocating will drive away customers who need to use their cars to patronize that business?

As currently built, the businesses in the densest parts of the city, other than downtown and parts of Midtown, would not be very effective for drawing pedestrians. I'm talking about along Richmond, Westheimer, Montrose, Kirby, Shepherd and Alabama inside the Loop. Although those areas are much denser than the suburbs, they are built with cars in mind. The city blocks are long. The stores are set back from the streets to provide for parking. Even if the city were to engage in a massive building project to install a dense rail network along all those streets, it would still be a tall order to expect most people to walk from store to store and from stop to stop. Compare those areas to where the rail runs most extensively in New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington, London, etc., and it's not even close in density.

So the idea that if we build rail (at a cost of billions of dollars), they will come just doesn't seem valid. Are you expecting that wherever the rail runs, the existing businesses, set back to provide parking, and separated because the space was there, would be torn down, and miles of contiguous storefront, with parking confined to the back (or not at all), would spring up? That sounds like rebuilding those parts of the city from scratch. How in the world is that remotely economical?

[lockmat]

But it sounds like the only way to form pedestrian-oriented communities is to spend billions of dollars on rail. Why can't people form their pedestrian-oriented communities around where they live to walk in, and then get in their cars and drive when necessary? Why is it necessary to spend billions of dollars to provide them with something they could have without that kind of investment?

Spend billions? I'm assuming you're talking about rail.

I don't think you need to build rail to develop a pedestrian oriented place to live. Like Duany says, "invite them to walk." I think the best place to start is to have basic necessity commercial like grocery stores, dry cleaners, etc.

In our day and age, the car will still be a necessity. Just try to eliminate the need as much as possible.

[Double L]

Well I guess we've moved off topic.

To respond to JSB. The best way to handle that is political capital and right now political capital has led us to the city approving a rail system. So we know that the number of Houstonian who wnat this has waranted it's demands as a service to provide. Also, the benefits of rail are much greater than just serving pedestrian oriented neighborhoods because it has a higher capacity than roads and our regionwide transportation system will benefit from an alternative option.

[JSB]

Personally, I would tell them the inconveniences. But people should be able to think for themselves as well.

If they can think for themselves, then why do we need to build a shiny new toy train to convince them of the benefits?

[Double L]

The businesses will follow the people and the people have shown that they want to live in a pedestrian oriented environment and if you throw in a view they will pay $2 million for it.

[west20th]

Otherwise, this is America and you can't tell me what to do with my hard-earned money.

Nice sentiment but........this is America, add up all taxes, and like it or not you are told what to do with about half of your hard earned money. I mean we all get stuck paying for things we don't want.

[JSB]

Spend billions? I'm assuming you're talking about rail.

I don't think you need to build rail to develop a pedestrian oriented place to live. Like Duany says, "invite them to walk." I think the best place to start is to have basic necessity commercial like grocery stores, dry cleaners, etc.

In our day and age, the car will still be a necessity. Just try to eliminate the need as much as possible.

I agree with you here. I've made no argument against building areas where there is high-density housing, shopping, restaurants, etc., and people can walk from place to place. People can do that already, and have done it in some limited places. I'm not convinced that spending billions of dollars on rail to encourage that process is justifiable. If you're talking about building those kinds of communities without a massive public investment, that's fine.

The businesses will follow the people and the people have shown that they want to live in a pedestrian oriented environment and if you throw in a view they will pay $2 million for it.

Then why the need for rail in places not particularly suited to rail?

[Double L]

You just can't throw out rail as a transportation option.

It has a much higher capacity than roads for regionwide transportation and it is the best possible form of transportation for pedestrian oriented neighborhoods.

[JSB]

You just can't throw out rail as a transportation option.

It has a much higher capacity than roads for regionwide transportation and it is the best possible form of transportation for pedestrian oriented neighborhoods.

Isn't walking the best form of transportation for pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods? And can't their feet take them to bus stops as easily as rail stations?

[Double L]

http://www.heritagetrolley.org/articleTennyson.htm

...they walk to the rail.

[JSB]

By the way, and this is off-topic, could someone please tell me how to change my location so that it doesn't alternate among "McKee Street Bridge," "Eleanor Tinsley Park" and "Smith Street?" Or am I locked into whatever location is automatically assigned?

[west20th]

Why wouldn't an extensive bus system, with lots of stops and regular service, not have the same effect as rail if so many people really enjoyed a pedestrian-oriented lifestyle?

That's a good question. There are a lot of people who wouldn't think of getting on a bus but would use rail. Don't really know why that is.

[JSB]

http://www.heritagetrolley.org/articleTennyson.htm

...they walk to the rail.

Why can't they walk to the bus stop? Or to their cars? I don't see why rail is a prerequisite to pedestrian-oriented communities if the demand to live there exists.

[lockmat]

If they can think for themselves, then why do we need to build a shiny new toy train to convince them of the benefits?

We've kind of discussed this a little bit in other threads. BRT is just as effective as LRT, but the point other people keep bringing up is that the rail has a "cool factor." They're not for it, they're just stating the fact. I don't agree with that factor, although I can relate to it.

[west20th]

By the way, and this is off-topic, could someone please tell me how to change my location so that it doesn't alternate among "McKee Street Bridge," "Eleanor Tinsley Park" and "Smith Street?" Or am I locked into whatever location is automatically assigned?

Location is assigned based on number of posts.

[ricco67]

Not providing data to support your argument is tiring. Name one US that is becoming so dense that rail is necessary as it is in NYC? If what you say is true, you should be able to provide a list.

As I have explained in another post, NYC's transit system is rather unique because it was built out to to relatively deserted parts of the NYC area and it later grew up around the stations. A similar thing happened here in Houston, but it occurred with freeways and not rail. Remember, 15 years ago there was almost NOTHING along BW8 Between HWY 290 and I-45.

Which businesses rely completely on foot traffic in our neighborhoods?

While not "completely" reliant on pedestrian traffic, quite a few business in the Montrose and portions of midtown receives quite a bit of their business with people walking by or deliberately walking to that particular store.

If congestion into downtown becomes so bad, then why would businesses move there rather than into the edge cities? I think the trend is that Houston will become more populated more quickly than it becomes more dense. While density in some areas will increase, more and more people will locate in the suburbs. The city is built on a flat coastal plain, which means that building out will virtually always be cheaper than building more densely in the more central areas. People may choose to live closer to where they work, but that won't necessarily be downtown or even near downtown.

I wasn't necessarily talking about downtown (though Louisiana Street sends me into fits during rush hour), I was referring to Richmond Ave. If 59 goes smoothly, Richmond is tolerable, but if something major happens, Richmond, Westpark, AND W. Alabama (inside the loop) can be a nightmare.

[Double L]

Chicago, Boston and Miami are all cities dense enough that they warrant public transportation.

All retail in downtown and the medical center are relying on foot traffic.

[Highway6]

We've kind of discussed this a little bit in other threads. BRT is just as effective as LRT, but the point other people keep bringing up is that the rail has a "cool factor." They're not for it, they're just stating the fact. I don't agree with that factor, although I can relate to it.

I don't think its just a cool factor. Psychologically, rail is easier to use than busses.

Rail is in a permanent location.. bus routes are not. Knowing if you get on a line, that where you are going won't fluctuate, and that you won't get stranded or lost I think is a big plus.

Also, rail networks, even london and nyc, are much smaller than bus networks, including london, nyc and here.

One can't memorize an entire bus network..So there is no learning the system.

London's tube or NYC's subway, as big as they are... are big colorful fixed lines on a map, small in number and one learns where those lines go pretty quickly and easily. Also, because the networks are smaller, and isolation from vehicles (obviously the degree to which they are separated is a big factor which has been discuseed elsewhere) scheduling of stops is easier, so the reliability, or least perceived reliability of rail makes it more comfortable to the user.

So yeah, its not just a cool factor... rail is more trustworthy both in place and time and therefore much easier to use. I think lost of people that don't normally use bus, if given a useable sytem, would be comfortable enough with rail to ditch the cars for routine travel.

[lockmat]

I don't think its just a cool factor. Psychologically, rail is easier to use than busses.

Rail is in a permanent location.. bus routes are not. Knowing if you get on a line, that where you are going won't fluctuate, and that you won't get stranded or lost I think is a big plus.

Also, rail networks, even london and nyc, are much smaller than bus networks, including london, nyc and here.

One can't memorize an entire bus network..So there is no learning the system.

London's tube or NYC's subway, as big as they are... are big colorful fixed lines on a map, small in number and one learns where those lines go pretty quickly and easily. Also, because the networks are smaller, and isolation from vehicles (obviously the degree to which they are separated is a big factor which has been discuseed elsewhere) scheduling of stops is easier, so the reliability, or least perceived reliability of rail makes it more comfortable to the user.

So yeah, its not just a cool factor... rail, whether perceived or real, is more trustworthy both in place and time and therefore much easier to use. I think lost of people that don't normally use bus, if given a useable sytem, would be comfortable enough with rail to ditch the cars for routine travel.

I agree.

Not that I would have said everything you did, but I had thoughts like that and even heard that before, but I couldn't communicate the idea.

That's also a point many people in here don't bring up.

But BRT, if given it's own lane where other cars couldn't get into it, could give the same permenance that LRT can.

[Guest danax]

So yeah, its not just a cool factor... rail is more trustworthy both in place and time and therefore much easier to use. I think lost of people that don't normally use bus, if given a useable sytem, would be comfortable enough with rail to ditch the cars for routine travel.

I think rail is the best way to get the pedestrian ball rolling. Pedestrians are a super-niche market right now here so why would retailers risk for them?

Buses have some advantages over light rail but one of them isn't getting people who can afford cars out of them.

[ricco67]

BTW: music man, as far as cities that have the necessary density;

Los Angeles and Chicago, Seattle, St. Louis, and Possibly Pittsburgh.

While they may not have the populations of NYC, they have enough of a density where they either have, or about to, upgrade their mass transit to have rail and subways.

[Double L]

There is a very extensive argument as to why light rail is better than BRT.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-08a.htm

[musicman]

If only one person wants to live in a pedestrian oriented area you need to build it for them. You can't tell them what to do. This is America.

LOL Such clear, objective thinking. LOL

[musicman]

If not a lot of people want to have pedestrian oriented neighborhoods then not a lot of businesses will move there and not a lot of people will move there. But they do and they move to these neighborhoods along with businesses and they voted to approve a metro rail plan. We have enough demand in Houston for these things to be happening.

As a transit system it is not inherently damaging to business. It attracts people and that attracts business.

Your train of thought, pun intended, is hilarious. No substantiative evidence presented whatsoever.

But people should be able to think for themselves as well.

LOL

[GovernorAggie]

Hopefully this isn't too much of a tangent.

Given my previous posts, all can see that I am pro-rail for a few reasons, but I don't think rail is necessary in order to have a pedestrian oriented environment. However, if you are going to present transportation options, rail should be one of them for a couple main reasons--scale and dependability (which was alluded to earlier). With regular buses, you have to look up a schedule or know a schedule and time everything around you 7:38 1 Hospital bus. If you miss that bus, it might be 35 minutes till your next one. Compare that to the longest time to wait for METRORail today during the peak is 6 minutes and I think 12 in the off-peak.

Also, regarding the dependability, how many routes have been cut due to low performance? What about those people who still needed a bus that was taken away? That uncertainty is a big problem to developments locating near a bus stop.

Yes, BRT can be as effective as LRT, but the O&M costs can be a issue later down the road--more vehicles would be needed to carry the same amount of people. Each of those vehicles must be driven, each must be fueled, each must be serviced, each will need at least 6 tires periodically, and so on. Most BRT vehicles will carry at the most about 100-120 people (standing and sitting). LRT vehicles can carry 200 (standing and sitting) and can be coupled together to carry 400 people. Regarding the scale, give each person a car of average size and see how much space that takes up. Or, take the max BRT load (about 2 normal buses worth) or the max LRT load (about 7 buses worth) and see how much room is needed.

Houston will always have different types of development patterns, and that's what people want (see the Envision Houston Region results). Given time, development (likely smaller or medium scale pedestrian-oriented) will grow up around rail, just like other developments have around Houston's freeway system (and every other city's freeway system). Look at a facility such as the Fort Bend Tollroad, or the much-anticipated (by real estate developers) Grand Parkway. It's just taking Houston longer to reach that point, IMO than other cities BECAUSE Houston's freeway network is so good. Other cities like Charlotte (a fellow Sunbelt city who's LRT line is not even built yet and is modeled to carry fewer people that the Red Line while being 2 miles longer and costing $100 million more) have huge development demands and all kinds of "pedestrian oriented" development in the works (including a Lowe's development that may include a residential component) but have garbage freeway systems with no hope of widening or improvements anytime soon (I-77 has over 200,000 cars a day with only 6 total lanes and no widening scheduled until maybe 2030).

Lastly, I don't think it's foolish or a waste of money to invest in a rail system. HGAC's last plan proposed something like $77 Billion in road improvements to 2025. This is for a predicted growth that, like TheNiche says, may or may not happen. Why plan for $77 Billion in roads, especially many that today are in the middle of nowhere where nothing is and no one can imagine anything ever going), but not plan $8 Billion in transit improvements (including rail) where people already are?

[TheNiche]

Nice sentiment but........this is America, add up all taxes, and like it or not you are told what to do with about half of your hard earned money. I mean we all get stuck paying for things we don't want.

My comment was intentionally oversimplified and blunt. It was a dry attempt at poking fun at the oversimplified and blunt comment to which I was responding.

It is impossible to please everybody, but there are reasonable measures and there are unreasonable measures. What is reasonable can be determined through cost/benefit analysis. I can assure you that the extreme scenario proposed did not warrant public investment.

[Double L]

Well the "extreme scenario proposed" is exactly what's happening right now.

The people have made their decision and we are building light rail and these pedestrian oriented neighborhoods in Houston are growing.

[TheNiche]

Hopefully this isn't too much of a tangent.

Given my previous posts, all can see that I am pro-rail for a few reasons, but I don't think rail is necessary in order to have a pedestrian oriented environment. However, if you are going to present transportation options, rail should be one of them for a couple main reasons--scale and dependability (which was alluded to earlier). With regular buses, you have to look up a schedule or know a schedule and time everything around you 7:38 1 Hospital bus. If you miss that bus, it might be 35 minutes till your next one. Compare that to the longest time to wait for METRORail today during the peak is 6 minutes and I think 12 in the off-peak.

Also, regarding the dependability, how many routes have been cut due to low performance? What about those people who still needed a bus that was taken away? That uncertainty is a big problem to developments locating near a bus stop.

Yes, BRT can be as effective as LRT, but the O&M costs can be a issue later down the road--more vehicles would be needed to carry the same amount of people. Each of those vehicles must be driven, each must be fueled, each must be serviced, each will need at least 6 tires periodically, and so on. Most BRT vehicles will carry at the most about 100-120 people (standing and sitting). LRT vehicles can carry 200 (standing and sitting) and can be coupled together to carry 400 people. Regarding the scale, give each person a car of average size and see how much space that takes up. Or, take the max BRT load (about 2 normal buses worth) or the max LRT load (about 7 buses worth) and see how much room is needed.

Houston will always have different types of development patterns, and that's what people want (see the Envision Houston Region results). Given time, development (likely smaller or medium scale pedestrian-oriented) will grow up around rail, just like other developments have around Houston's freeway system (and every other city's freeway system). Look at a facility such as the Fort Bend Tollroad, or the much-anticipated (by real estate developers) Grand Parkway. It's just taking Houston longer to reach that point, IMO than other cities BECAUSE Houston's freeway network is so good. Other cities like Charlotte (a fellow Sunbelt city who's LRT line is not even built yet and is modeled to carry fewer people that the Red Line while being 2 miles longer and costing $100 million more) have huge development demands and all kinds of "pedestrian oriented" development in the works (including a Lowe's development that may include a residential component) but have garbage freeway systems with no hope of widening or improvements anytime soon (I-77 has over 200,000 cars a day with only 6 total lanes and no widening scheduled until maybe 2030).

Lastly, I don't think it's foolish or a waste of money to invest in a rail system. HGAC's last plan proposed something like $77 Billion in road improvements to 2025. This is for a predicted growth that, like TheNiche says, may or may not happen. Why plan for $77 Billion in roads, especially many that today are in the middle of nowhere where nothing is and no one can imagine anything ever going), but not plan $8 Billion in transit improvements (including rail) where people already are?

The predicted growth may also be exceeded, and as land values rise within inner city areas, the percentage of households that can afford to live there declines, resulting in decelerating long-term population growth and certainly a lower share of population growth. My great grandmother actually predicted that this would happen. When my grandparents moved to Bacliff back in the 60's, she commented many times over that one day, the prairies between League City and Dickinson would be completely covered in homes. Nobody took her seriously at the time, but today, it is a foregone conclusion. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this pattern will cease. There may be better ways to fund new road construction, but I have little doubt that the roads will be necessary. It is only a matter of time.

Btw, I believe that the reason that cities like Charlotte get that kind of development is because it is contrived by way of land use controls. It has long been recognized by researchers in the field of urban economics that extensive TOD without land use controls is unlikely except in relatively few circumstances...and then there's usually a very long wait. To me, though, it sounds like Charlotte is a severely mismanaged city. If it is as bad as you describe it, then I certainly won't be moving there any time soon. Call it revealed preference on my part.

As for the theory of bus route uncertainty, I'd like to deflate that. Poor people know how to use bus routes, and they demonstrate it quite thoroughly. I would hypothesize that wealthier people would have the mental capacity to figure it out as well. They'd also have better access to the online route planner, which also eliminates uncertainty.

[musicman]

Given my previous posts, all can see that I am pro-rail for a few reasons, but I don't think rail is necessary in order to have a pedestrian oriented environment. However, if you are going to present transportation options, rail should be one of them for a couple main reasons--scale and dependability (which was alluded to earlier). With regular buses, you have to look up a schedule or know a schedule and time everything around you 7:38 1 Hospital bus. If you miss that bus, it might be 35 minutes till your next one. Compare that to the longest time to wait for METRORail today during the peak is 6 minutes and I think 12 in the off-peak.

I think rail should be important but the proposed implementation will affect more drivers than will actually ride the train. The best implementation would be one that doesn't comingle with traffic. As for schedule, METRO augments bus service during demand times by adding more buses. There could be special lines that run more frequenty so schedule won't be a factor.

Also, regarding the dependability, how many routes have been cut due to low performance?

Dependability and low performance are two different beasts IMO.

Yes, BRT can be as effective as LRT, but the O&M costs can be a issue later down the road--more vehicles would be needed to carry the same amount of people. Each of those vehicles must be driven, each must be fueled, each must be serviced, each will need at least 6 tires periodically, and so on.

METRO is having high service costs with the LRT due to indeterminable line losses and other unforseen problems.

Houston will always have different types of development patterns, and that's what people want (see the Envision Houston Region results). Given time, development (likely smaller or medium scale pedestrian-oriented) will grow up around rail, just like other developments have around Houston's freeway system (and every other city's freeway system). Look at a facility such as the Fort Bend Tollroad, or the much-anticipated (by real estate developers) Grand Parkway. It's just taking Houston longer to reach that point, IMO than other cities BECAUSE Houston's freeway network is so good.

I would tend to agree with you here. Let's just hope that some development happens around rail. Currently it's just not happening.

The people have made their decision and we are building light rail and these pedestrian oriented neighborhoods in Houston are growing.

You had mentioned alot of Houston businesses are now supported solely by pedestrians. Which businesses?

[nmainguy]

Isn't walking the best form of transportation for pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods? And can't their feet take them to bus stops as easily as rail stations?

Perhaps we're lucky. We live within 75 feet of the southbound #9 METRO bus that takes us all the way to the Red Line, which then takes us to Macy's, the Museum District, TMC and Reliant. On the way home we might stop and have dinner at Mia Bella or maybe Spanish Flower. In any event, we've enjoyed a stress free trip that allows us the extra energy to take a healthy walk up to the Boom Boom Room to have coffee the next morning or to Grogans to pick up a sack of nails or a gallon of paint.

Ultimately, we have contributed our small part to better health through exercise thus lower healthcare costs and to more efficient and less fuel consumption.

Now there are some here who say that just takes too much time to wait for a bus or train or to walk a few blocks in the cool of the morning for a cup of coffee, a sack of nails and a gallon on paint. Great. Don't do it. Jump in your SUV. But don't berate those of us that choose not to take your route. I would appreciate your acceptance for my willingness to contribute to responsible conservation.