Rail down Richmond

Austin, unlike Houston is limited by barriers to growth. Have you noticed there are only 4 East West thouroughfares? Then there's that big lake and the remnants of a once progressive eviromental movement.

There is nothing but flatness in Houston from the San Jacinto to the Brazos river. An ambitious developer could pave the whole thing and barely even need to grade it. And, with the right political connections here, no one would stop him. It's a blessing or a curse depending on your point of view but it is a unique fact of this city. No mass transit solution will change it much. It is a city of personal freedom, designed around personal transportation.

That's why Texx's support of busses makes sense, the infrastructure is already there and the flexibility suites the density of the 500 square miles of town that already built. Oyher than node to node (airports, downtown, Gallaria, Medcenter) you just can't get masses of people onto a train in a ultra-low density urban enviroment. And to build node to node without disrupting the existing inhabitants you need to think up and over. To capture peoples imagination and inspire them to build you innovative thinking.

In my opinion the train was a boondogle during construction and was overhyped for utility and cost/effect.

 

The only difference between the train and a static bus route is the track, the cost, and the envy. Good government should provide the best service for the most people at the lowest cost to the taxpayers. Why do you want the 95% of the people who already live where a train will never serve them to pay for your convenience? What would a train ride cost if it wasn't subsidized?

If the city if Houston had begun mass transit development 50 years ago, you could have influenced growth patterns. But the fact is this city of 4 million is one of the least dense major cities on earth. It was built for the personal auto. You could build trains till the city was totally bankrupt and you couldn't change that fact by 10%. Did you know that studies by the Urban Land Institute show that the most people are willing to walk is about 1500'. I don't know if that factors in Houston's heat and rain but say it does, that would mean a train would only influence transportation patterns within 1500' around each station, not the track, the station. That encompases a lot of people in New York City but it won't get you very many people in the existing single family home neighborhoods of Houston.

I understand "image" and the desire to be world class and I would spend some tax money to acheive that. But to think a little surface train from downtown to the med center does that is ludicrous. It acheives no image goals and acheives no real utilty. You want image, build something forward thinking. You want utility, use the existing infrastructure to build a biodesiel bus system...with static routes that make sense. You want to promote jobs and sustainablity for the city we have already built, develop a low cost personal transportation vehicle industry. Maybe not government's job but they can certainly facilitate a private effort.

As a tax payer in the City of Houston I say if people need mass transit but won't ride the bus, then ****'em.

Trains running down city streets is just a stupid idea most cities gave up on in the 1920's. The one in San Francisco is cute though.

 

Can't believe I didn't notice this thread before.

Haven't read any other posts.. so please bear with me if I repeat anything anyone has said.

I'm actually very involved with this rail development campaign.. the two sides that are really going to have it out are Richmond and Westheimer..

In all likelihood the rail is going to be placed on Richmond throughout most of the inner loop and then it will move through Westheimer for the highland village shopping center, which will pass the train north of the neighborhoods that are in the western part of inner-loop richmond territory.. from that point on it will go back to richmond where it will go from the galleria and onward...

http://www.keepwestheimermoving.com/

Westpark really isn't a threat here.. i can't see them using it for rail.. unless they'd add a long distance commuter line in later..

 

The Afton Oaks subdivision on Richmond is well organized and well funded. They have been fighting this fight for 20 years.

Remember the prototype monorail column they left up for a few years with the "no to monorail" signs.

Gondolas....right over them they never have to deal with losing their trees or streets, see, it's not a dumb idea, it's a political compromise.

Here's a good little promo for monorails: http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/HowMuch.html

 

I don't know how much of the development would've happened anyway, but there are new developments popping up along the DART line in Dallas, many of which note the presense of the DART line as a major factor in their choice to undertake the development (certainly East Plano has started to spring back to life since the rail stop opened there, and there's a whole big new development underway in Richardson, etc.).

While it doesn't appear that the DART line has so far had a significant impact on traffic, it is certainly well used. I use it when I go downtown (and will use it more when it goes more places I need to go).

I've been good. How have you been? I can't imagine I'll be as active as I once was, but I hope to contribute now and again.

 

Bus sytems are adequate for the task of moving people. Arguing that by putting the bus on a track makes it more atrractive is ludicrous. Buy eveyone a BMW, they will really like that.

You can't deny the fact of the trillions of dollars of existing infrastructure. You have to serve the people and the patterns that exist first before embarking on your city of the future plan. I'm not against it, but a train down a city street is not an imaginative answer. If the people are demanding mass transit now you can't build it where you want it and expect them to sell their houses and move to it, you have to bring it to them.

A failure to recognize the reality the endgame of the petro-economy is short sighted at best, and possibly traitorous. If Houston doesn't use our oil income to lead the way to a sustainable economy then we will deserve the fate of the rustbelt cities we've replaced. The vested interest is to not become a second class nation, to not be at the stranglehold of the Wahabbist movement we are funding, not to set our children up to live lives less fruitful than our own.

You want human nature, then quit subsidizing grandiose, non-effective schemes and make people pay for the systems they use. If a ride on the train reflected it's real cost, people that need transportation would take the bus. That would people who need mass transportation, not real estate developers and city bureacrats.

We are not that far apart really, I just think a train on a city street where it conflicts with cars, busses, pedestrians, utilities and only serves a limited corridor in a low density city with a slow speed service was a wrongheaded effort. And it would be more wrong to expand a bad system than to accept is shortcoming and rethink our plans.

What's the wreck count up to?

 

I've been good as well. I was wondering what had happened to you. This place is kind of strange, in a way, because a person could simply choose to take a long hiatus (which I ponder occasionally, and then post again, lol), become ill, or have an accident, and we wouldn't have a clue, one way or another... unless it was someone known outside of the BBS.

Still writing screenplays?


Your post illustrates what happens long term around rail lines, btw, very well. Austin is in the very early stages of starting a rail system, with one running northwest out to Leander, and those who commute from those suburbs to the Capitol/ Downtown, or the university area, (and workplaces along the route) will use it a great deal. The traffic is murder driving in from out there, with Lake Travis providing a natural funnel, preventing the "shortcuts" some of us use that live in other parts of the city. It all takes time... time to get support from the public, time to aquire the needed right of way, time to build the actual system, and time for people to figure out how to take advantage of it. The development, like you mentioned, flows naturally to them, with time.

What doesn't change is that the longer a city waits to create a system, the more expensive it is to build.

 

Whenever I am in Europe, I marvel at how well the trains move people over there.

Just amazing, and I can't believe that we don't have one yet.

A bullet train connecting San Antonio, Dallas, & Houston would open up commerce in the whole state.

Train down Richmond....SURE !!

DD

 

If you are going to complicate traffic in a high traffic area with the introduction of a train, and at the same time develop a train which will not have the speed it could have in an elevated system, perhaps it is best not to undertake this expenditure at this time.

In short, if you are going to build a rail system, you must build it in the right way.

 

If people need mass transit why won't they ride busses?

That's a conundrum to me. If I ran the Houston Metro system I would have a "train" of busses running up and down the feeders of every major freeway and up and down most of the major thouroughfares. They need to be scheduled where if I wanted to commute all I would have to do is get to a major thouroughfare/freeway intersection and I'm on. I would run them, where you never had to wait more than 15 minutes on the freeway or major thoroughfare.

On your second point, you cannot deny the existance of the current city.
Right or wrong, it is what it is on a scale that cannot significantly change.
And we already do have decent transportation, it is just based on gasoline powered single person vehicles. That is great as long as you can afford it, can live with rush hour and don't mind the pollution. And Houstonians seem to be fine with that. It's only us social reformers and poor folks without cars that give a crap about mass transit. Well and the developers that want to build new high density, high profit housong.

Here's my 4 point plan to address Houston mobility:

1. Make the bus system work. Understandable, logical routing based on real user patterns and needs. Efficient low polluting vehicles.

2. A real high speed, nonconflicting solution between the major nodes.
From a large park and ride center in Montgomery County (Spring Creek Floodplain) , to IAH, to Downtown, to the MedCenter, to Hobby to a large park and ride center in Clear Lake. The urban stations should connect easliy to the bus sytem to expand their utility. The Ft. Bend/Medcenter route is negotiable but Katy and Sugarland to downtown I think should be fine with HOV busses.

3. The city and county should work in partnership to promote innovation in efficient personal transportation....the kind of transportation we have been commited to fo 50 years and invested trillions of dollars in. I would like to see the city and county offer 30 year tax abatements and free trade zones to any companies that will commit to building highly efficient personal transportation in Houston, something like a vehicle that would transport two adults in air-conditioned comfort at 60 MPH getting 60 MPG or that uses alternative less polluting fuels. And to guarantee a market for the vehicles the city and county should allow them on HOV's with only one occupant and use the tollway free or at a significant discount.

You get jobs, innovation, and mobility.

4. And of course I would build a an aerial tramway from the Galleria to the downtown transit center, that's a given Hell it would pay for itself in tourists alone, no streets get torn up, no trees and no cars would ever turn in front of it. Bold, innovative thinking! Oh yeah, you dredge out Buffalo Bayou and run commuter jetboats downtown from Memorial. Well maybe you atleast finish Tinsley Park all the way to downtown so you might could use it for bicycles.

And if you think the "train" is effective show me where it has had any positive effect on traffic. I think it complicates the traffic more in the small area it serves than helps. It is a curioisty at best, a cute toy the city beaurocracy holds out to convention planners. The reality is Houston is spread out, it will never be dense, the only mass transit that will serve the people with any real utility is one that flows like blood in the body, big arteries to move a lot of people quickly on the main routes, and little veins that reach every every cell. The only way to reach the people where they live is to come to the residential streets, and that my friend means busses, not trains.

This is fun by the way.

 

You sound like the Bush Administration claiming a 51% victory as an overwhelming mandate.

The fact is when large scale referendums make it to the public polls it's not like the people have lots of choices. It's either light rail, heavy rail or nothing. While it's true public comment is taken the plans as submitted to the voters are those political compromises that are formulated by the parties with the vested financial interest. How would the people of Houston even imagine how light rail would work in their city?

What the city referendum came down to was the same old political stuggle.
The monorail system was voted down because it was the Republican power broker's way to bring down Kathy Whitmire. It was a little ahead of it's time, so it was easy to ridicule and easy to make the mayor look ridiculous.

The surface train was a political compromise that could be supported by the real estate lobbies, could get federal subsidies and make Mayor Bob look like a mover and shaker. Hey, I'm just another bozo with time to kill, I don't know why you are investing so much timed in defense of the status quo but you sound like you have a personel investment in it. Step away and look at the reality of light rail in Houston and you will see it's just a feel good government program with no real benefit to the masses of people who pay for it. Take a map of the City of Houston and draw on the area of influence for light rail and compare it to area of residential housing, you know where the people actually live right now. What is all the fuss over? Maybe 5%.

And it certainly is in the purview of local govenment to secure the future of it's people. How many city and county agencies worked together to secure the Toyota plant for San Antonio, a city in the middle of nowhere with no water, no port and little rail. Now that we've got all our stadiums and had all our Super Bowls and All Star games, maybe our local civic leaders can focus on something that really matters and has lasting effects on Houston and the planet. Or we can build a train down the middle of the street, choo choo!

 

A better solution is out there

 

i'd love that. can't even imagine what the cost would be, though.

 

The monorail/skybus idea is all well and good until you stop for a moment and think about the amount of fus people make whenever someone makes an illegal turn, or runs a red light, and smashes into a light rail train..

Now, imagine those same people crying foul whenever a monorail/skybus crashes and kills everyone on board. I think I hear TJ licking his chops.

That, my friend, is why we will never have that.