Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again...
nobody is saying "Build rail and ban cars in Houston"
We are asking for an option for people that would rather not drive
People that like driving should be in favor of it, because it reduces the number of drivers on the road.
The problem is that cities who invest heavily in rail tend to let it's road infrastructure deteriorate. That's why the list of cities with the worst traffic reads like a list of Cities Who Built Rail. Check out this chart from the widely acclaimed comprehensive study on a Traffic Mobility by TAMU. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu...-table-all.pdf
Houston actually decreased it's traffic index rating from 1985-2000 (when it was building out the toll road system and HOV/commuter bus lanes) then began getting worse, in recent years much worse when Metro was ramping up it's light rail system. Coincidence?
The reality is that a dollar invested in roads yields a greater overall mobility improvement than a dollar invested in rail. You're just smitten with a Desire named Streetcar.
The reality is that a dollar invested in roads yields a greater overall mobility improvement than a dollar invested in rail. You're just smitten with a Desire named Streetcar.
I disagree,
in those calculations people always leave out the cost for right of way and maintenance
for roads, it's always going to be more expensive
No, the trip doesn't actually cost $2 by rail. The actual cost is closer to $25 if you look at transit stats. It may cost the rider $2 because he will not pay $10 or more. That just means the taxpayer is covering the rest. And I'm not at all in favor of my taxes subsidizing some out of town business visitor.
If uber or taxi costs $50 that's because the cost of trasnporting a person between those two points costs $50. Mass transit costs per passenger mile is almost always greater than by auto.
Mass transit is never economically justifiable. Fares seldom cover even 20% of operating costs. That's simply the reality of mass transit. But I'm not saying get rid of all mass transit. It's one thing to subsidize mass transit so that the poor who cannot afford a car have a means to get around, it's quite another to subsidize it so that those with ample means can just have a nicer experience.
This is absolutely true. With that said, I am completely OK with paying taxes to subsidize well-designed mass transit, simply because to me "nicer experience" means "people not spending unnecessary time sitting in traffic". Time is important (at least to me). I don't disagree that farebox revenue falls short of the revenue needed to run mass transit systems, I just philosophically disagree that fare sustainability is the purpose of mass transit anywhere. Its purpose should be to give options to deal with road congestion and create more predictable transportation networks in my view.
Freeways are great if you can build enough of them, but the freeway system Houston needs for its future is far short of what can/will conceivably be built. At minimum, Houston needs another two north-south freeway routes west of 610, or at least one additional major freeway route west of 610, plus doubling the West Loop capacity. Highway 6/FM 1960 along the west and north sides should be a major freeway corridor. Spur 5 should be completed to Alvin. The Ft. Bend Parkway should be connected to 610. We also could use another east/west route north of the North Loop and south of the Beltway. All this on top of numerous expansions of Inner Loop freeways, as well as completing the gaps in the regional arterial system. Can you really imagine driving in Houston in 20 years, with an estimated 3 million more people, with similar road capacity to what we have now? That's what we're looking at.
Given that NIMBYs, lack of funding, and lack of foresight will never allow most of those projects to happen, we need to invest in mass transit, unless we believe that driverless cars will truly save us. They might, but I'm skeptical that will happen in any predictable timeframe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnina
It's not even about people disliking public transportation - it would suit many who just want to commute to work and back. But most people are also running errands on the way home, do shopping, pick up their kids from school/activities, stop by the cleaners, etc. - they just simply need a car to do all that. Places are way to far apart to use public transportation...
So I'll give you an example - when I'm working in DC, I have a condo in Northern Virginia I stay at for the week. I only use the metro for the commute to work and back, but I have a car I use for everything else. Outside of NYC, and central areas of quite a few cities, most people would still find it much easier to have access to a car.
Since I see an ideal Houston rail-system as essentially two systems (the buildout of the current MetroRail, and a faster, grade-separated commuter rail system with park and ride lots along the freeways) I don't think that would be a huge issue. Ideally the development along the inner city light rail segments would eventually be of a dense enough character that walkability would be improved for those folks, and those who use the commuter rail would just hop in their car after work and run errands then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
The airports should be a secondary destination for any kind of mass transit. I don't understand why people keep bringing up the airports as the main reason to have transit. Heck, it's only recently that New York's airports got mass transit. Everyday commuting should be the principal reason for transit, not the airports.
I agree with this, though I think that rail connections to airports are a great asset for a city to have and would have a lot of great secondary effects for that area (i.e. boost in both tourism and business) assuming they connect to a robust system. In the case of Houston, I think its a good long term goal to have, but connecting the major business hubs would have to be the main priority.
But, extending off of the example above, my condo is almost exactly halfway between DCA and Dulles airports. DCA gets the nod most of the time because Ubering the half-mile to the metro station and taking a 30 minute ride to the airport is cheaper, faster, and more convenient than driving to the airport and paying $25-$30 a day to park. When Dulles is connected that airport will likely get a bit of a boost in competitiveness relative to the rest of the DC-area airports (which it sorely needs) since people won't have to fight traffic to get there anymore, should they choose not to.
So personally, I like the idea of connecting airports, but I don't think that it really serves local residents as much as it serves the business community and should be a lower priority when building out rail systems (as it has been in DC and elsewhere).
This is absolutely true. With that said, I am completely OK with paying taxes to subsidize well-designed mass transit, simply because to me "nicer experience" means "people not spending unnecessary time sitting in traffic". Time is important (at least to me). I don't disagree that farebox revenue falls short of the revenue needed to run mass transit systems, I just philosophically disagree that fare sustainability is the purpose of mass transit anywhere. Its purpose should be to give options to deal with road congestion and create more predictable transportation networks in my view.
Freeways are great if you can build enough of them, but the freeway system Houston needs for its future is far short of what can/will conceivably be built. At minimum, Houston needs another two north-south freeway routes west of 610, or at least one additional major freeway route west of 610, plus doubling the West Loop capacity. Highway 6/FM 1960 along the west and north sides should be a major freeway corridor. Spur 5 should be completed to Alvin. The Ft. Bend Parkway should be connected to 610. We also could use another east/west route north of the North Loop and south of the Beltway. All this on top of numerous expansions of Inner Loop freeways, as well as completing the gaps in the regional arterial system. Can you really imagine driving in Houston in 20 years, with an estimated 3 million more people, with similar road capacity to what we have now? That's what we're looking at.
That's certainly what we're looking at if we pour $10-20 billion dollars into building commuter rail lines, for sure. Like Atlanta and DC and others that focused on rail lines and neglected freeways, we would have horrendously growth-stunting traffic.
Rail could never be built extensively enough to handle 3 million more people. Dallas spent $5 Billion dollars building 93 miles of rail and it only serves 100,000 people per day. That's a drop in the bucket of total daily commuters. The $2 Billion Katy Freeway rebuild increased capacity by over 200,000 cars per day, which even if everyone drives solo means you handled 2x more people than DART at 40% of the cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Area_Rapid_Transit
We've already spent over $2 Billion on light rail lines here and average daily boardings (using METRO's slanted accounting) is under 66,000, with virtually no impact on traffic. https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/Ride...rt-102017.aspx
Sorry. Rail is a pyramid scheme that offers "options" for a select few at a high cost to many. It doesn't scale up. Look at the numbers. It is typically costing $2 Billion to serve 100,000 people or less by rail, a figure that seems to be fairly consistent all across America. Do the math.
Am I the only one that can tell that more lanes is not the solution?
How long did it take for Katy freeway's expansion to seem like a waste of money/time?
For people like you it didn't even have to open for that to be the case. For the people driving it, they still don't feel that way. They know what it was like and what it would be like now.
Exactly. It's about having other options to driving. Having elevated heavy rail, like what the citizens voted for in the 80s but that Bob Lanier directed to building skinny sidewalks, could have helped during Harvey. It's crazy that Houston has no rail link to either of its airports from the core. There was some short-sighted leadership (Lanier, Culberson, DeLay, etc.), that have contributed to traffic in Houston being so bad and not giving people other transportation options.
Lanier was not short-sighted. He realized the plan that passed was an enormous waste of money. He supported the later system because it made sense. The cities that have spent the most on rail have had the most increase in congestion. In cases like Los Angeles, transit ridership has fallen.
Money spent on rail needs to be spent wisely, not just spent just to have rail. The 1988 plan made no sense (and let me say, I voted for it-but Lanier took a good look at it and wisely scrapped it).
This is absolutely true. With that said, I am completely OK with paying taxes to subsidize well-designed mass transit, simply because to me "nicer experience" means "people not spending unnecessary time sitting in traffic". Time is important (at least to me). I don't disagree that farebox revenue falls short of the revenue needed to run mass transit systems, I just philosophically disagree that fare sustainability is the purpose of mass transit anywhere. Its purpose should be to give options to deal with road congestion and create more predictable transportation networks in my view.
Freeways are great if you can build enough of them, but the freeway system Houston needs for its future is far short of what can/will conceivably be built. At minimum, Houston needs another two north-south freeway routes west of 610, or at least one additional major freeway route west of 610, plus doubling the West Loop capacity. Highway 6/FM 1960 along the west and north sides should be a major freeway corridor. Spur 5 should be completed to Alvin. The Ft. Bend Parkway should be connected to 610. We also could use another east/west route north of the North Loop and south of the Beltway. All this on top of numerous expansions of Inner Loop freeways, as well as completing the gaps in the regional arterial system. Can you really imagine driving in Houston in 20 years, with an estimated 3 million more people, with similar road capacity to what we have now? That's what we're looking at.
Given that NIMBYs, lack of funding, and lack of foresight will never allow most of those projects to happen, we need to invest in mass transit, unless we believe that driverless cars will truly save us. They might, but I'm skeptical that will happen in any predictable timeframe.
So I'll give you an example - when I'm working in DC, I have a condo in Northern Virginia I stay at for the week. I only use the metro for the commute to work and back, but I have a car I use for everything else. Outside of NYC, and central areas of quite a few cities, most people would still find it much easier to have access to a car.
Since I see an ideal Houston rail-system as essentially two systems (the buildout of the current MetroRail, and a faster, grade-separated commuter rail system with park and ride lots along the freeways) I don't think that would be a huge issue. Ideally the development along the inner city light rail segments would eventually be of a dense enough character that walkability would be improved for those folks, and those who use the commuter rail would just hop in their car after work and run errands then.
I agree with this, though I think that rail connections to airports are a great asset for a city to have and would have a lot of great secondary effects for that area (i.e. boost in both tourism and business) assuming they connect to a robust system. In the case of Houston, I think its a good long term goal to have, but connecting the major business hubs would have to be the main priority.
But, extending off of the example above, my condo is almost exactly halfway between DCA and Dulles airports. DCA gets the nod most of the time because Ubering the half-mile to the metro station and taking a 30 minute ride to the airport is cheaper, faster, and more convenient than driving to the airport and paying $25-$30 a day to park. When Dulles is connected that airport will likely get a bit of a boost in competitiveness relative to the rest of the DC-area airports (which it sorely needs) since people won't have to fight traffic to get there anymore, should they choose not to.
So personally, I like the idea of connecting airports, but I don't think that it really serves local residents as much as it serves the business community and should be a lower priority when building out rail systems (as it has been in DC and elsewhere).
I heard a Texas transportation planner say a couple years ago-"What we have been doing is not scalable. We will continue to build as many roads as we can, but we need alternatives." I think that's pretty reasonable. There simply isn't much more Houston can do inside Beltway 8. I-10 and 290 are pretty much built out. The Hardy Toll Road is under construction and will be built out with the available ROW. The next I-45N and I-69S construction will build them out. I-45S maybe could add one more lane. You can do a little more with I-69N, I-10E and 225. The South Freeway has a lot of room for expansion. The Ft. Bend Toll Road could be continued to 610, but that's about it. Very little can be done on the north and west side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
