Texas highways more clogged, more costly

[Slick Vik]

 

Yes. Driving should be only for the wealthy. Don't want the common folk cluttering up the road, do we now? [/sarcasm]

 

 

 

 

Never said that Houston doesn't need commuter rail or more light rail lines. A large part of why there's no commuter rail paralleling 290 is not so much conservative boogeymen but rather the fact that UP has priority for freight use and other bureaucratic issues. 

 

There have been mentions of rail being part of the long term 290 expansion, but I haven't seen anything concrete (no pun intended).

[Subdude]

You mean when I go to my local Kroger, or to our favorite restaurant, I ought to have to pay for parking? I don't think so. The main reason there are charges for parking in large cities around the world is to keep freeloaders from parking in the retail lots while they go to work or visit other establishments. Or, the parking is provided by a separate entity, sometimes a government, and isn't provided by the retail establishments.

 

Actually yes, there are places where you might to pay to park at the grocery store.  That said, I think it happens because of local economics and expectations for what should be free, not because free parking was banned.  If the goal were to reduce the incentives for providing parking I would do something like taxing parking places, rather than banning free parking.  How could something that draconian even be enforced?

[Slick Vik]

Actually yes, there are places where you might to pay to park at the grocery store.  That said, I think it happens because of local economics and expectations for what should be free, not because free parking was banned.  If the goal were to reduce the incentives for providing parking I would do something like taxing parking places, rather than banning free parking.  How could something that draconian even be enforced?

 

In LA you have to pay to park at most shopping malls.

[IronTiger]

That's because many malls in LA are built super-dense and have parking garages only with minimal surface lots.

[livincinco]

Paying for parking is really a question of economics and land value. If the cost of land is high enough then the landowner may need to charge for parking, but I doubt that you'll see it where there's a potential competitive disadvantage. And no, I don't think that government should be in the business of mandating parking requirements on public land.

[Slick Vik]

Paying for parking is really a question of economics and land value. If the cost of land is high enough then the landowner may need to charge for parking, but I doubt that you'll see it where there's a potential competitive disadvantage. And no, I don't think that government should be in the business of mandating parking requirements on public land.

 

Interesting you say that, because a lot of people are stymied from starting businesses in Houston because of draconian parking requirements, just not in the direction that you prefer.

[livincinco]

I don't like those parking regulations either. I don't think that there's any reason that there needs to be government intervention in either case. I get the intent, you don't want businesses to rely on street parking, but it's overkill. Let the market decide. P

[Slick Vik]

I don't like those parking regulations either. I don't think that there's any reason that there needs to be government intervention in either case. I get the intent, you don't want businesses to rely on street parking, but it's overkill. Let the market decide. P

 

That's fair. Certain areas do well without it, like midtown, but there are parking garages to alleviate parking problems there.

[livincinco]

There have been mentions of rail being part of the long term 290 expansion, but I haven't seen anything concrete (no pun intended).

BTW - I thought I would share my commuter rail experience today with everyone because I think that it's an interesting illustration. Left my appointment in Midtown Manhattan at 5:50 pm and took commuter rail (LIRR) out to the suburbs tonight. After walking and buying a ticket, caught a train that departed at 6:12 pm. First train that I boarded was very busy and was SRO. Changed trains at Jamaica (walked right on to the connecting train) which had probably 15 people in a car that held about 150 (maybe four left by the time I got off). Arrived at destination station at 6:55 pm, which if I had a car at the station would have got me to my destination at about 7:10 pm. An hour and 20 minute trip.

Google maps lists the distance traveled as 26 miles, (which means I averaged about 20 miles/hour) and estimates that driving that distance at the time I left would have taken 48 min (35 min non-peak). The cost of the ticket was $11.00, so the cost of driving would be pretty much a wash from an expense standpoint.

I think that I experienced a pretty standard trip, no delays, so I'm trying to understand why this is considered so desirable? Seems to me that in this particular case, people would only take this because it's so difficult and expensive to park in Manhattan, certainly not because it's a preferable form of transit. It didn't even eliminate need for a car, because the train station was about 6 miles from my destination (no taxis at the station when I arrived.). Train usage was hardly optimal with one train only about 10% occupied at peak time.

And this was in an area that is much more densely populated than Houston and has a heavily concentrated job base. Would love to hear some explanations on why this should make me want suburban rail.

[Trae]

Because again, it is not all about saving time. May have taken you longer than the estimated time to drive as well. I would much rather take rail from my place to Uptown than drive if I could, even if it does take me longer. At least I would have an option.

[livincinco]

Because again, it is not all about saving time. May have taken you longer than the estimated time to drive as well. I would much rather take rail from my place to Uptown than drive if I could, even if it does take me longer. At least I would have an option.

Choice is nice, but I question how many people are willing to accept an additional hour of daily commute time in the above scenario in Houston. A train that runs 10% full at peak is highly inefficient from every standpoint including emissions. Consider that train also is making a return trip which is likely to be running even less full since its opposite commute.

Also, you've referenced that you'd like to be able to take the train to Uptown, not Downtown which points out the challenges of commuter rail in Houston. There's no consolidated job center which dilutes the target market even more.

I have nothing against commuter rail, but building a system that runs empty trains, I'm looking at you Dallas, makes no sense.

[Slick Vik]

Choice is nice, but I question how many people are willing to accept an additional hour of daily commute time in the above scenario in Houston. A train that runs 10% full at peak is highly inefficient from every standpoint including emissions. Consider that train also is making a return trip which is likely to be running even less full since its opposite commute.

Also, you've referenced that you'd like to be able to take the train to Uptown, not Downtown which points out the challenges of commuter rail in Houston. There's no consolidated job center which dilutes the target market even more.

I have nothing against commuter rail, but building a system that runs empty trains, I'm looking at you Dallas, makes no sense.

If you chose to take metro north I think you would've had a different opinion. Also as you said if you add the price of parking in manhattan plus possible tolls the price of the train is lost likely lower. Add to that there are probably weeky and monthly passes that dilute the per ride cost. That being said I agree DART took a shortcut by using abandoned right of way. It needs an east west route badly, such as the planned tex rail to Richardson via Plano.

[IronTiger]

Because again, it is not all about saving time. May have taken you longer than the estimated time to drive as well.

It's also about saving money! ...oh wait.

That being said I agree DART took a shortcut by using abandoned right of way.

Wasn't it you that said the expansion of the Katy Freeway should have spared the MKT ROW but turning it into commuter rail or something along those lines? Edited October 12, 2013 by IronTiger

[livincinco]

If you chose to take metro north I think you would've had a different opinion. Also as you said if you add the price of parking in manhattan plus possible tolls the price of the train is lost likely lower. Add to that there are probably weeky and monthly passes that dilute the per ride cost. That being said I agree DART took a shortcut by using abandoned right of way. It needs an east west route badly, such as the planned tex rail to Richardson via Plano.

I agree that as a regular commuter, there should be cost savings and honestly, if it isn't cheaper for an individual to take mass transit instead of their own car then something is really wrong with the model. The point is that even in the the most optimal market for commuter rail in the country there were points of concern that would be amplified significantly in a market like Houston which is a less than optimal market for commuter rail.

[Slick Vik]

It's also about saving money! ...oh wait.

Wasn't it you that said the expansion of the Katy Freeway should have spared the MKT ROW but turning it into commuter rail or something along those lines?

Yes it should have. The difference is that would have been an extension of a light rail system instead of like Dallas where the entire system is basically rail to suburbs.

[livincinco]

Yes it should have. The difference is that would have been an extension of a light rail system instead of like Dallas where the entire system is basically rail to suburbs.

The problem is still transit time and last mile. Let's say you have commuter rail down the Katy Freeway and you're going from Katy to the Med Center. You have to get to commuter rail which will be by car most likely and then take commuter rail to downtown - combined 1 hour for those two things. Then you're getting on light rail which is another 30 min to the Med Center. You're a combined 3 hours a day for that commute and you still have to have a car. That's not even considering that I'm still waiting to hear someone explain where that Katy Freeway commuter rail line is going to run through once it gets to the loop because the HOV lane ends there. (The MKT right of way didn't run to downtown either).

It gets even worse if you consider Uptown if that line were built. You'd basically ask people to go into downtown and then travel backwards to go to Uptown at 15 mph. Ain't gonna happen.

That's usually the problem with this kind of thing. It looks great when you look at a high level...until you start to look at the details of actually executing it.

Edited October 12, 2013 by livincinco

[Slick Vik]

The problem is still transit time and last mile. Let's say you have commuter rail down the Katy Freeway and you're going from Katy to the Med Center. You have to get to commuter rail which will be by car most likely and then take commuter rail to downtown - combined 1 hour for those two things. Then you're getting on light rail which is another 30 min to the Med Center. You're a combined 3 hours a day for that commute and you still have to have a car. That's not even considering that I'm still waiting to hear someone explain where that Katy Freeway commuter rail line is going to run through once it gets to the loop because the HOV lane ends there. (The MKT right of way didn't run to downtown either).

It gets even worse if you consider Uptown if that line were built. You'd basically ask people to go into downtown and then travel backwards to go to Uptown at 15 mph. Ain't gonna happen.

That's usually the problem with this kind of thing. It looks great when you look at a high level...until you start to look at the details of actually executing it.

I believe there were talks about the Katy commuter line ending at northwest transit center where it could connect to a line going downtown or one going uptown.

I do agree on the last mile point though it annoys a lot of people to have to stop anywhere once in the car. But that's why a good bus system that feeds into a rail system is important.

[livincinco]

I believe there were talks about the Katy commuter line ending at northwest transit center where it could connect to a line going downtown or one going uptown.

I do agree on the last mile point though it annoys a lot of people to have to stop anywhere once in the car. But that's why a good bus system that feeds into a rail system is important.

I think that a proposal to have people ride the bus to commuter rail to the edge of the loop and then transfer to light rail to downtown and then potentially transfer again to their final destination is probably going to get embraced by only the most fervent urbanists. Of course, those people probably don't live in Katy to begin with.

I do agree with the importance of bus service though and absolutely feel that Metro should be devoting the majority of its resources to building a top notch bus system that covers its area of responsibility.

[IronTiger]

Yes it should have. The difference is that would have been an extension of a light rail system instead of like Dallas where the entire system is basically rail to suburbs.

 

I'm confused. First, you say that the MKT (abandoned and stripped in '97, IIRC) should've been kept as a commuter rail. Then you admit that the Dallas system is inefficient because they used abandoned ROWs. Now you say that the Katy line should've been light rail too?

 

[mfastx]

The problem is still transit time and last mile. Let's say you have commuter rail down the Katy Freeway and you're going from Katy to the Med Center. You have to get to commuter rail which will be by car most likely and then take commuter rail to downtown - combined 1 hour for those two things. Then you're getting on light rail which is another 30 min to the Med Center. You're a combined 3 hours a day for that commute and you still have to have a car. That's not even considering that I'm still waiting to hear someone explain where that Katy Freeway commuter rail line is going to run through once it gets to the loop because the HOV lane ends there. (The MKT right of way didn't run to downtown either).

It gets even worse if you consider Uptown if that line were built. You'd basically ask people to go into downtown and then travel backwards to go to Uptown at 15 mph. Ain't gonna happen.

That's usually the problem with this kind of thing. It looks great when you look at a high level...until you start to look at the details of actually executing it.

 

If you look at the old 1983 heavy rail master plan that was never approved, it had a line going from Katy to downtown, and from there you could transfer to a line going south.  Would have taken about 45 minutes.  Light rail and commuter rail is much slower. 

[Slick Vik]

I'm confused. First, you say that the MKT (abandoned and stripped in '97, IIRC) should've been kept as a commuter rail. Then you admit that the Dallas system is inefficient because they used abandoned ROWs. Now you say that the Katy line should've been light rail too?

The Dallas system used abandoned Row for a large part of the system whereas houston is laying down new track for most of its system. The Katy mkt tracks would be one part of a larger system that would be more efficient than Dallas's.

[Ross]

The Dallas system used abandoned Row for a large part of the system whereas houston is laying down new track for most of its system. The Katy mkt tracks would be one part of a larger system that would be more efficient than Dallas's.

 

Of course, there's also the whole "not wide enough for two tracks" issue with the MKT ROW.

 

[livincinco]

If you look at the old 1983 heavy rail master plan that was never approved, it had a line going from Katy to downtown, and from there you could transfer to a line going south. Would have taken about 45 minutes. Light rail and commuter rail is much slower.

I've never seen a detailed map of the 1983 plan and would be really curious to see exactly where it was planned to route once it got inside the loop. While I was looking for that map, I happened upon the below article from the time that I thought provided some interesting historical context.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/16/us/houston-s-plan-for-rail-system-meets-opposition.html

[IronTiger]

The Dallas system used abandoned Row for a large part of the system whereas houston is laying down new track for most of its system.

You mean new right of way? The Dallas method took lines that were abandoned in the 1990s (and long stripped) and used them as new lines for light rail. Houston is (for the most part) putting light rail in the middle of the roads. While obnoxious in some respects (shaves off ROW, eliminates lanes/lane width, bans left turns), it does put the light rail where the people are.

[Slick Vik]

You mean new right of way? The Dallas method took lines that were abandoned in the 1990s (and long stripped) and used them as new lines for light rail. Houston is (for the most part) putting light rail in the middle of the roads. While obnoxious in some respects (shaves off ROW, eliminates lanes/lane width, bans left turns), it does put the light rail where the people are.

Agreed

Of course, there's also the whole "not wide enough for two tracks" issue with the MKT ROW.

One track is better than zero

[livincinco]

One track is better than zero

 

I could go into a whole discussion of cost benefit analysis and rate of return on dollars spent...and then I remember that those things never matter in these discussions. 

 

[august948]

The problem is still transit time and last mile. Let's say you have commuter rail down the Katy Freeway and you're going from Katy to the Med Center. You have to get to commuter rail which will be by car most likely and then take commuter rail to downtown - combined 1 hour for those two things. Then you're getting on light rail which is another 30 min to the Med Center. You're a combined 3 hours a day for that commute and you still have to have a car. That's not even considering that I'm still waiting to hear someone explain where that Katy Freeway commuter rail line is going to run through once it gets to the loop because the HOV lane ends there. (The MKT right of way didn't run to downtown either).

That particular trip is already available from the Kingsland P&R. Trip time is listed at about 1 hr 15 mins. Factor in car to the P&R and it's probably also about 3 hrs round trip. Only one change of transport instead of two and no rail construction required. Metro could expand the P&R service at much less additional cost and provide better flexibility to boot.

[Slick Vik]

I could go into a whole discussion of cost benefit analysis and rate of return on dollars spent...and then I remember that those things never matter in these discussions.

Regarding your anecdotal discussion on the LIRR, well

. It is the busiest commuter railroad in North America, serving nearly 335,000 passengers daily.

I could go into a whole discussion of cost benefit analysis and rate of return on dollars spent...and then I remember that those things never matter in these discussions.

Yes they only matter when discussing mass transit, but not freeways

That particular trip is already available from the Kingsland P&R. Trip time is listed at about 1 hr 15 mins. Factor in car to the P&R and it's probably also about 3 hrs round trip. Only one change of transport instead of two and no rail construction required. Metro could expand the P&R service at much less additional cost and provide better flexibility to boot.

One 7.5 rail line has more ridership than all the park and rides combined and it cost less to make

[mfastx]

I've never seen a detailed map of the 1983 plan and would be really curious to see exactly where it was planned to route once it got inside the loop. While I was looking for that map, I happened upon the below article from the time that I thought provided some interesting historical context.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/16/us/houston-s-plan-for-rail-system-meets-opposition.html

 

Yeah, the master plan I saw wasn't detailed either. 

 

And that is a very interesting article.  We decided to spend the money on HOV lanes.  Makes you wonder what ridership would have been like had we built the rail lines instead. 

[Houston19514]

If you look at the old 1983 heavy rail master plan that was never approved, it had a line going from Katy to downtown, and from there you could transfer to a line going south.  Would have taken about 45 minutes.  Light rail and commuter rail is much slower. 

 

Where can one get a look at the old 1983 heavy rail master plan?   I think this is the first I've ever seen or heard of it going all the way out to Katy.

 

Edited October 13, 2013 by Houston19514