Houston: why expensive rail transit? (Fort Worth, Pearland: upper-class, appointed, transplants)

[kpoeppel]

Well we all agree that sitting in traffic is bad. No argument there. But putting in light rail requires land aquisition just as freeways do, unless the line is put along an abandoned freight rail right-of-way, for example. In the case of houston's light rail, the line was put right down the middle of existing streets, which is actually the worst of both worlds: it clogs up the streets just as much as busses would, but still has the added cost of laying rail and is limited to navigating the rail line. Worse still, I have read that the rail line has the highest accident/crash rate in the nation, no doubt due to being located in the middle of a street. It just makes me wonder: what were they thinking?

I'm not defending congestion, I'm merely being critical of spending lots of money on "solutions" that don't really solve the problem. We have to look beyond intentions and look at results. I don't doubt the good intentions of people who want more rail transit, but it seems (from ridership numbers) that the vast majority of people still prefer their cars, even if it means sitting in traffic. So why not look at ways of expanding road and highway capacity? Sure, the way it's been done for 50 years may not have worked, but there may be other ways. Some have suggested, instead of HOV lanes, that private firms could build express lanes above (or even below) existing freeways. Tolls would be charged at varying rates, depending on demand, similar to phone companies (in the past) charging higher rates during "peak" hours. Would it be expensive? Sure. But time is money. It'd be interesting to see a study of how much, in dollars, is lost every year due to congestion if peoples' (average) hourly pay rates were taken into account.

Back of the envelope calculation: assuming an extra hour is wasted (each way) commuting, assuming an average pay rate of $20/hour, and assuming 2 million drivers per day in the Houston area, that's $80 million per day in lost time. Maybe that's an exaggeration, perhaps not that much time is wasted. Let's use a more conservative estimate of $40 million per day. 5/7ths of 365 days per year is about 260 work days per year, assuming no holidays. Say only 250 work days per year is the average. 250 x $40million = $10 billion. Ouch. Of course, we're really only measuring time lost, not real money lost. People may not be willing to pay $20 to save an hour of traffic, even if they make $20/hour. But half of that? How much do people spend at Jiffy Lube to save an hour or two changing the oil? How much do people spend at McDonald's or Subway to save an hour of cooking? Let's say people will only pay 1/4th of their hourly pay rate to save on commute time. That's still $2.5 billion per year assuming 2 million drivers affected by traffic in Houston.

I don't know what it would cost to expand freeways. Assuming an expanded freeway wouldn't need major repairs for 10 years, a $25 billion price tag would probably be worth it, assuming that the expansion would indeed save an hour each way for 2 million commuters.

Just for a reference, Boston's "Big Dig" cost a total of $14.6 billion.

Anyone else want to weigh in on this issue?

[bostoner]

Originally Posted by kpoeppel

I don't doubt the good intentions of people who want more rail transit, but it seems (from ridership numbers) that the vast majority of people still prefer their cars, even if it means sitting in traffic.

It seems that way because as of right now, the only rail in Houston is 7.5 miles going from downtown to Reliant Arena (Astrodome area). Since the vast majority of Houstonians do not live along this single rail line, but in any one of a number of ex-urbs out in BFE, rail transit is not a viable option for them at this time.

[bostoner]

Originally Posted by kpoeppel

Well we all agree that sitting in traffic is bad. No argument there. But putting in light rail requires land aquisition just as freeways do, unless the line is put along an abandoned freight rail right-of-way, for example.

Abandoned freight rail right-of-way, you say? Hmmm, nifty idea! I-10 to Katy had train tracks that could have been utilized, but instead we are now expanding that freeway from 11 to a whopping 18 lanes! Rail would have been less invasive.

TexasFreeway > Houston > Photo Gallery > IH-10 West, the Katy Freeway

Down the homestretch on Katy Freeway widening | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

You are looking at this from the wrong end. All Houston has done up to this point is expand the freeways. I can't remember a time there hasn't been road construction on a freeway somewhere here. That hasn't worked, especially since people are continually moving here. How long and how far can we keep expanding them, cutting off neighborhoods, increasing congestion, and contributing to the wonderful air quality? It's not like all these freeways get built on top of nothing. 288 cut off part of Third Ward from the Museum District. It would have been nice if downtown weren't so closely encircled by freeways, allowing people to pass it up and abandon it for years. You should read up on the history of rail and public transit in Houston to understand how we got to this point. It didn't happen overnight, by any means.

In the case of houston's light rail, the line was put right down the middle of existing streets, which is actually the worst of both worlds: it clogs up the streets just as much as busses would, but still has the added cost of laying rail and is limited to navigating the rail line. Worse still, I have read that the rail line has the highest accident/crash rate in the nation, no doubt due to being located in the middle of a street. It just makes me wonder: what were they thinking?

Thinking? It is a well-known fact that Houston is largely unplanned chaos! I agree with you there. The Medical Center between Holcombe and MacGregor can be a cluster**** if you're driving. They should close it off to cars between those streets and leave it for rail and foot traffic. It is already a very walkable, self-contained mini-city anyway. Of course, the problem then would be finding visitor parking...

[bostoner]

Originally Posted by jfre81

When they opened the first rail line they said nobody would ride it. Then a few weeks later people were saying they were only riding it because of the Super Bowl and that it was useless. Four years later even more people are using it. And it doesn't even really go through a residential neighborhood yet. This is going to change.

I have never understood this argument either. I think they mean nobody they know would ride it. They forget about people who don't own cars (yes, there are people like this in Houston), people from other cities and countries who are used to having better mass transit options, and people who don't like driving or can't.

The bottom line is, Houston is very, very huge. It is really hard to get around this city without a car, and there's really no excuse for that. I know many, many native Houstonians, myself included, to whom entire swaths of the city are unknown and "exotic" to them. That is sad and pathetic. Bus service shouldn't be our only mass transit option. In a city of this size, it's far too slow. It's a quality of life issue.

[Go Big Red]

Ok, I don't live in Soccer Mom and Shadetree Realtor land. I live in Midtown and commute to an Inner Loop area to work. I also own a car, but I leave it at home whenever possible, take the rail to the bus station and ride the bus the rest of the way. This saves money on overpriced gasoline, I can walk a bit, and read a book or doze while riding for $2.00 a day round trip.

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by kpoeppel

Jfre81 and Guerilla,

Why so defensive of rail over busses? Do you both take trains to work daily? What happens when a person doesn't happen to live near a rail station? What if a person's workplace is not near a rail station?

These days, in most cities, businesses and workplaces are not located exclusively in centralized downtown areas. If everyone worked in a one square mile area, perhaps fixed guideway systems (like rail, subway, etc) would be an efficient way of getting to work (assuming everyone also lived along the rail line).

I just find it hard to believe that the cost vs. benefit is better for rail than busses.

Why are you so defensive against rail? You tried to show an example of Seattle, but that came out false since Seattle is constructing light rail. People WANT light rail. Houston's ONLY line right now gets 45,000 daily on just 7.5 miles. In comparison, Dallas' system gets 62,000 on 45-miles.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by kpoeppel

Jfre81 and Guerilla,

Why so defensive of rail over busses? Do you both take trains to work daily? What happens when a person doesn't happen to live near a rail station? What if a person's workplace is not near a rail station?

.

Because busses suck. They come when they want to and they are not reliable. The best cities in the WORLD have great mass transportation. They have great rail systems. They have great alternatives to cars. Pro-freeway and pro-automobile? I suggest you move to Phoenix or Raliegh-Duhram like someone else said.

[kpoeppel]

Ok, are there any people out there that agree with me? Do any suburban folk use this forum, or just the urban hipster crowd?

[Spade]

Originally Posted by kpoeppel

Ok, are there any people out there that agree with me? Do any suburban folk use this forum, or just the urban hipster crowd?

Look, you are expecting people that lives in a "city" to be like a suburb? I'm sorry but you're going to find people disagreeing you all the time. Especially about 95% of the people that live in the innerloop. If you want your pro-automobile pro-freeway type of lifestyle in the Houston area, than move to Katy or Pearland. But for Houston, they want density and urbanity. Tell us this, what city in the world has been successful with that type of lifestyle? What city in the world could actually sustain itself with being pro-freeway and pro-automobile.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

I'm amazed at the lack of light rail knowledge by some people. Both can co-exist (light rail and the automobile). I'm off for the night!

The sad thing is that the OP talks about Pro-development like it only happens around the car. Sorry but that is false. TOD's are being built around metro stations around the Country. New York and Chicago, two cities with great mass transportation and great rail networks have more development going on than the so called pro-freeway cities of Houston and Dallas. Washington DC, another city with a great rail system, is building great TOD's around the metro area and it's not only in the city. They are happening in Silver Spring, Arlington, Alexandria, Bethesda, and now Largo.

Busses are unreliable. They run in the same traffic as cars. They sit in the same traffic as cars. They come when they want to come. Nothing is stopping trains from coming on time unless they was a quick delay that they usually solve very quickly.