We're World Class!
I don't suppose those touting Houston as a World Class City were looking for this kind of exposure in USA Today:
For a full year, Houston tried to prepare its drivers to share the streets with the city's new light-rail transit system.No, it's a problem of rail not being well segregated from streets where drivers had developed driving patterns from years of experience. METRO's arrogance on that point and insistence that nothing could ever be wrong with their little choo-choo and how they've chosen to implement it contribute to the ongoing problem (oh, and for the record, the count is up to 23 accidents total).There were public service announcements, community forums and safety classes to educate drivers. The sleek trains were equipped with strobe lights, horns, bells and whistles to warn motorists.
A test of the safety campaign didn't fare well. An average of five drivers on Houston's streets each day plowed into trains while the system was working out its kinks before the Jan. 1 opening. Worried transit officials immediately launched more television ads. One had Metro Police Chief Tom Lambert growling, "So, what part of safety do we not understand?"
Nobody really knows the answer to that question. But since the MetroRail trains began running full time Jan. 1, there have been 15 more collisions. No one has died in the accidents. Police blame motorists in all of them. "It's not a rail problem," says Ken Connaughton of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. "It's a driver problem."
Indeed, the stretch of rail in Dallas that is not well segregated from traffic has experienced similarly high accident numbers:
Among the hazards are the street-level crossings. The train tracks run even with the street, rather than being elevated or underground. Traffic lights control almost all of the 64 crossings.Imagine that -- put heavy, dangerous railcars at street level where traffic patterns have long been established, and accidents occur. It sounds like the DART people are at least a little more honest and a little less arrogant about the nature of the problem than our METRO officials.That poses a problem for motorists, especially when turning left ahead of a train. At least half of the drivers involved in crashes have been cited for illegal turns.
"I'm not sure it's the drivers," says Morgan Lyons, a spokesman for Dallas Area Rapid Transit. Most of the crashes in Dallas have come on a 3.1-mile stretch of the DART rail line where the crossings are all at street level, Lyons says.
Proponents of rail are starting to give away some of their real goals in interviews like this:
So what's the matter with Houston?For some, light rail is zoning by another name (and at much greater expense). They just rarely admit as much."No one walks here," says Stephen Klineberg, a sociology professor at Rice University in Houston who studies the city's transportation habits.
Almost everybody in Houston drives. The city has 3.9 million registered cars and one of the longest average commutes in America. "This is the most auto-dependent city in the nation," Klineberg says. Drivers aren't used to sharing their streets with 49-ton trains.
Houston's experience points up the clash of America's car culture with the advent of light rail. Houston is the 19th city with a light-rail system. Minneapolis will open its 11.6-mile line this year. Thirty-six cities have systems under construction or on the drawing board.
Transit ridership increased 22% nationwide the past six years, according to the American Public Transportation Association. Much of that increase is attributable to light rail. "We've seen phenomenal growth since the 1980s," says Greg Hull, the association's director of operations for safety and security.
Like other cities, Houston sees light rail as a key to reining in sprawl.
Houston was barely a dot on the map until the oil boom in the early 1900s. It grew until the oil bust of the 1980s. In between, the search for affordable housing pushed the metro area 50 miles from the center, creating a metropolitan area as large geographically as the state of New Jersey. A car was a necessity.
"This is a car city — it was built by, for and on behalf of the automobile," Klineberg says. "The 21st century is configured for a different reality."
Transit, or more specifically light rail, is seen as a way to spur a reconfiguration of the city to create a densely populated urban core, where a car is an amenity, not a necessity.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 03/08/04 13:07 | Danger Train | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
Comments
At least we are becoming known for something. We should strive to have the most light rail wrecks in the country. Metro could then speed up the trains and get us there in half the time.
Posted by klesher @ 21:56 on 03/08/04
"Transit, or more specifically light rail, is seen as a way to spur a reconfiguration of the city to create a densely populated urban core, where a car is an amenity, not a necessity."
It'll work, too. Look at other cities, like D.C., whose subway when it was first built drew similar cries of "no one'll use it." Cities grow into these things.
What remains to be seen, as you point out, is whether METRO will grasp that public transportation is a partnership that requires compromise on both sides, not just by the public.
Posted by Chris Zarate @ 08:19 on 03/09/04
Chris,
D.C.'s subway has been LOSING ridership steadily for more than a decade. Furthermore, D.C. is a heavily-planned very desified city, so even if the subway weren't failing to keep riders, it would still be an awful comparison. D.C. is nothing like Houston.
The bottom line is, without government effectively forcing people out of their cars, they aren't going to use mass transit in large numbers. That, contrary to what Klineberg says, is an attempt to make Houstonians use antiquated transportation systems. In the 1920's most Houstonians used public transportation. Just ten years later ridership had dropped off severely, because of the rise of the automobile. You can't simply turn back the clock, you can only deny existing realities.
Posted by Owen Courrèges @ 14:51 on 03/09/04
If by "work" we mean that rail will significantly reduce congestion on Houston's freeways, then no, I don't think rail is going to "work" here.
If by "work" we mean it will give urban planners a chance to engage in activities that come to resemble zoning in an effort to boost use of a train that otherwise couldn't justify its existence (in terms of cost/mobility) and at the same time remake Houston to fit their notions of "city" life, then maybe it will "work." But that's my complaint -- mobility isn't really the concern of some of these folks. They see rail as promoting a different end.
Posted by Kevin @ 23:33 on 03/09/04
D.C. Metro ridership has NOT been decreasing for more than a decade. It's more like the past few years. It actually increased pretty heartily from 1995 to 2000. But anyway.
Kevin, I understand what you're saying, but I think you know that Houston's current tactic of adding lanes to combat traffic volume (which fails, every time) is simply unsustainable. I'm not sure what you see as the solution but I am genuinely interested to hear it.
What Klineberg is saying is not that we need rail because it will reconfigure our city and make us more like New York. What he's saying is that we need to reconfigure our city, because Houston can't sustain operating the way it does forever.
His comments may strike you as trying to sell Springfield a monorail, but the distinction is whether or not you have the data to support it. I think Houston does, and so does METRO. As much as one may decry their ineptitude on other fronts, they did do their homework on this subject.
I agree that the current stretch of rail is not incredibly effective at much of anything, and, taken by itself, seems like an attempt to gentrify rather than connect. But if you look at the long-term rail plan, it seems obvious that the system will do some good, and it is also apparent that the Main St line is a necessary piece of the puzzle.
My point is, if you wait until you really need mass transit, it takes you too long to build it, and you hurt the growth of the city. Is it a risk? Sure. But calculated risks aren't something we should shy away from because there's more negative in the present than in the future.
I agree that the current implentation (street-level, no dividers) of light rail may not be the best fit for Houston, but I think the city does need it--not to alleviate traffic, as many mistakenly believe, but to increase throughput in an increasingly populated area.
Posted by Chris Zarate @ 10:38 on 03/10/04
I just can't accept the fact that our drivers won't learn to deal with a street-level train. The same learning curve happens when a new traffic light goes in. There will always be wrecks until people get used to its presence.
Street-level trains work perfectly well in Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, and Denver.
Posted by David @ 16:28 on 03/10/04
Chris Zarate,
>>D.C. Metro ridership has NOT been decreasing for more than a decade. It's more like the past few years. It actually increased pretty heartily from 1995 to 2000.<<
The most reliable figures for transit share come from the US Census, and while it may be true that real ridership has increased overall, the market share for transit has been steadily declining for the past forty years. I'm sorry, but if you want to say that D.C. Metro isn't a failure, you're going against the numbers.
Source: http://www.publicpurpose.co...
>>[Klineberg's] comments may strike you as trying to sell Springfield a monorail, but the distinction is whether or not you have the data to support it. I think Houston does, and so does METRO. As much as one may decry their ineptitude on other fronts, they did do their homework on this subject.<<
No they didn't. What numbers do that have which indicate that light rail will be cost-effective? What figures show that it will increase transit's market share? The answer is absolutely none.
Kevin and I, on the other hand, have a joint MIT-Harvard study showing that light rail has been a near universal failure across the country.
Source: http://the-tech.mit.edu/~ri...
>>My point is, if you wait until you really need mass transit, it takes you too long to build it, and you hurt the growth of the city. Is it a risk? Sure. But calculated risks aren't something we should shy away from because there's more negative in the present than in the future.<<
So you don't want any accountability? Let me put it this way. Light rail doesn't work anywhere. Cities have systems that are thirty years old now, and they all are still cost-ineffective, with high-costs, high travel-to-work times, and high congestion rates. Given the choice, people still prefer cars, and so the best way to improve travel times is to improve roads.
It isn't a perfect solution, but then again there is no perfect solution. There is only the solution that respects what people want, and not what the government wants to force on people.
Posted by Owen Courrèges @ 20:51 on 03/10/04
>>Kevin, I understand what you're saying, but I think you know that Houston's current tactic of adding lanes to combat traffic volume (which fails, every time) is simply unsustainable. I'm not sure what you see as the solution but I am genuinely interested to hear it.<<
I think it's fair to ask what I would propose as an alternative to rail.
But first, it should come as no surprise that I think rail in many cases is an answer to a question based on bad assumptions. One such assumption is the idea that adding highway lanes fails every time. Back to the question I asked about "work," how shall we define "fail?" Obviously, I don't think adding lanes to the Southwest Freeway has been a failure. It moves an enormous amount of traffic efficiently compared to the time before it was expanded, and it has contributed to the spectacular growth of the Houston metro area as well as the spectacular growth of Fort Bend County. Has it "failed" in the sense that things jam up between 7-9 am and 4-6 pm during the week? Yes. By the same token, the little choo-choo that took an hour to shuttle people from the rodeo back to downtown recently did not fare any better during a peak congestion time, and a case can be made it fared much worse! We can't build any mobility system (highways, choo-choos, bullet trains, whatever) that can be both cost effective AND manage to move everyone if they decide to travel at a certain time. That sort of excess capacity is not cost effective, and is highly wasteful in any system. Furthermore, it it does turn out such expansion is unsustainable, as you suggest, then the existing HOV lanes built into 59 will just have to be more fully utilized (either by buses -- the most flexible solution -- or even by rail).
Now, I'll concede that not all of Houston's freeways do work as well as 59. The I-10 and 610 West Loop expansions should remedy that, at least for a while, but there will still be congestion during peak times. That's guaranteed. And we can spend a ton of money on a rail system, and that's still going to be the case.
So maybe we should be concentrating at least some effort on getting businesses to be more flexible in their work hours, or to encourage carpooling, or even telecommuting. Because the enemy we are facing is not freeway capacity, but freeway capacity during certain times.
I'd like to see us develop more limited-access thoroughfares (free roads like Allen Parkway, and also toll roads like the new Westpark Toll Road) to move people through town, which is something Orlando Sanchez advocated during the last election. Owen has written about busing options, and I think he's made a pretty good case on his blog that buses can be a much more cost effective and flexible solution for Houston than light rail.
Posted by Kevin @ 21:22 on 03/10/04
>>It isn't a perfect solution, but then again there is no perfect solution. There is
only the solution that respects what people want, and not what the government wants to
force on people.<<
Owen, I thought voters approved a referendum to expand the system. I guessing it's not
so simple as that, to you, though. And that's fair. What's not fair is that I'm
stealing your >>quoting style<<. I like it, and now I'm using it.
>>I'm sorry, but if you want to say that D.C. Metro isn't a failure, you're going
against the numbers.<<
That's just inflammatory. The whole system a "failure?" If we got 10% utilization in
Houston, METRO would cream its jeans. And remember the danger of looking at raw
numbers: those census figures are also a function of population clusters springing up
that are not served by Metrorail. There are currently plans to expand the system to
serve them.
Kevin,
I'd love to see a system-wide express bus solution in Houston; I'd love even more to
see people riding them. Carpools/HOV lanes fly right in the face of the autonomy that
you say Houstonians desire. I actually don't know much about the Westpark toll road,
but I can't see us building enough of these parallel routes to really be an effective
solution.
As to the SW Freeway, an appropriate addendum to my "fail every time" comment would be
"beyond a reasonable threshhold." Yes, the extra lanes helped traffic congestion on
59, mostly because it used to be only two lanes outside of Beltway 8, and three under the. Would more lanes
help it more? Not likely. There are diminishing returns. Will more lanes help I-10
congestion? I'm not holding my breath.
But again, rail is not about eliminating traffic congestion. It can, however, (A)
increase overall traffic throughput significantly, and (B) reduce "peak" times. You
cite 7-9am and 4-6pm like these times are constant and altogether normal. As you add
cars, these peak times will expand--as they already have on certain freeways. Adding
lanes will not infinitely increase throughput. Adding alternative methods of
transportation that are independent of each other will.
Express buses with dedicated lanes are a great solution to this problem. If there's
one point we agree wholeheartedly on, it's this. The express bus service is far and
away the better solution, compared to rail. Cheaper, more decentralized, flexible ...
it's got it all. But will people ride it? I really, really don't think so.
If this is where I'm wrong ... if rail fails where an expanded bus system succeeds,
then I tip my hat to you. Clearly, I don't have as much invested in it as you do, since I no longer live in Houston (but reserve the right to return). Since the people have spoken (I think), now all we have to do is wait to see who, if anyone, was right.
Posted by Zarate @ 10:50 on 03/11/04
Not sure what happened with the line breaks--my bad.
Posted by Zarate @ 10:51 on 03/11/04
Zarate,
>>That's just inflammatory. The whole system a "failure?" If we got 10% utilization in Houston, METRO would cream its jeans.<<
It's still rather pitiful for a high-density city with an extensive subway system. I consider 10% within the range of being a failure.
>>And remember the danger of looking at raw numbers: those census figures are also a function of population clusters springing up that are not served by Metrorail. There are currently plans to expand the system to serve them.<<
Metrorail in D.C. extends throughout the city limits and beyond, even into Arlington. It could be expanded slightly, but you're trying to tell me that a few expansions are going to reverse a forty-year trend. That's not realistic.
>>As to the SW Freeway, an appropriate addendum to my "fail every time" comment would be "beyond a reasonable threshhold." Yes, the extra lanes helped traffic congestion on 59, mostly because it used to be only two lanes outside of Beltway 8, and three under the. Would more lanes help it more? Not likely. There are diminishing returns. Will more lanes help I-10 congestion? I'm not holding my breath.<<
You're looking at this entire issue incorrectly. It is not a matter of simply adding general traffic lanes; it is a matter of adding four types of lanes -- feeder lanes, general use lanes, toll lanes, and HOV lanes (the last two are usually combined). In short, freeway expansion can lead to different choices for motorists along the same road. If time isn't an issue, they can just use the general use lanes and deal with the congestion. If time is an issue, then they can pay extra for a toll to get in faster lanes, with prices regulated to keep congestion low. Furthermore, they can access these lanes for free simply by carpooling.
This is what the I-10 expansion is going to be. It's called a managed-lane freeway, and only by adding new lanes can the flexibility be had to start introducing more tollway/HOV lanes, which will provide more highway funds and lower congestion. Can rail do this? Absolutely not.
>>[R]ail is not about eliminating traffic congestion. It can, however, (A) increase overall traffic throughput significantly, and (B) reduce "peak" times. You cite 7-9am and 4-6pm like these times are constant and altogether normal.<<
This just isn't true. First of all, light rail is quite slow and actually increases travel times for the commuters that use it. Secondly, it takes up lanes that would otherwise be used by automobiles and monopolizes right-of-way, which seriously reduces traffic flow. There is no evidence that rail is a solution, in any way, to traffic congestion or mobility problems.
>>Express buses with dedicated lanes are a great solution to this problem. If there's one point we agree wholeheartedly on, it's this. The express bus service is far and away the better solution, compared to rail. Cheaper, more decentralized, flexible ... it's got it all. But will people ride it? I really, really don't think so.<<
They already ride buses near full to capacity at peak travel times. Perhaps you didn't notice that while in Houston. In any case, I don't think you have any basis for saying that people won't ride an expanded bus service. They can and do in other cities. Read Richmond's study if you want proof.
It isn't enough to believe something. You need actual evidence on your side.
Posted by Owen Courrèges @ 12:33 on 03/11/04
>>Metrorail in D.C. extends throughout the city limits and beyond, even into Arlington. It could be expanded slightly, but you're trying to tell me that a few expansions are going to reverse a forty-year trend. That's not realistic.<<
Do you even know where Arlington is? It's like 2 miles from the Washington Monument. Yes, it's outside the "city limits", but take a look at a map: D.C.'s city limits haven't changed since L'Enfant drew them, and have no correlation with its metropolitan area. The plans I mentioned are to expand the Metro to Dulles airport and to Tyson's Corner, which desperately wants it.
And a "forty-year trend?" The first metro segment opened in 1976, and was 5 miles long. The full subway system as originally conceived was just completed in 2001. Those census stats you cite are by no means restricted to Metrorail. They reflect broader trends in population and transportation, which can be seen nationwide. Again, the danger of looking at raw stats. Has real Metrorail usage gone down? Yes. Is it "pitiful"? Hardly. I doubt you'll find any intelligent commentary that supports your statement.
I'll crawl away and admit I was acting more on feeling than fact RE: express buses in Houston, if you'll do the same about Metrorail.
FYI, I used to ride the 228 out to Katy, the 265 to W. Bellfort, and later the 8 Main and 15 San Jac when I moved inside the loop. Yes, the express buses were full, sometimes overflowing. People often stood on the bus just to get home (not exactly safe on a commuter), because the buses didn't run often enough, got caught in downtown traffic, and filled up before they reached the later stops on Louisiana. The buses got stuck in traffic before they could get on the HOV lane, and again after they got off. Rider turnover was high. Late bus service was practially non-existent. Maybe it's changed, or can be changed; I hope so.
Do you have stats on METRO bus usage? I looked a bit and couldn't find any.
Posted by Zarate @ 16:01 on 03/11/04
Zarate,
>>Has real Metrorail usage gone down? Yes. Is it "pitiful"? Hardly. I doubt you'll find any intelligent commentary that supports your statement.<<
Sorry, but it's be declining at a rapid rate, and I do believe that's rather pitiful for a system that costs so much and is awash in federal subsidies. That's intelligent reasoning.
>>I'll crawl away and admit I was acting more on feeling than fact RE: express buses in Houston, if you'll do the same about Metrorail.<<
Look, the D.C. transit system (and I won't look at one method of transit to the exclusion of the entire system) has been losing its market share gradually for the past forty years. That's horrible. The mismanagement is staggering. Currently, the Red Line has been cut down to one set of tracks, because with all those billions, D.C. couldn't even find the time to add a parallel line.
It's a failure, and I'm relying on facts, not just emotions. I won't retract my criticism.
>>FYI, I used to ride the 228 out to Katy, the 265 to W. Bellfort, and later the 8 Main and 15 San Jac when I moved inside the loop. Yes, the express buses were full, sometimes overflowing. People often stood on the bus just to get home (not exactly safe on a commuter), because the buses didn't run often enough, got caught in downtown traffic, and filled up before they reached the later stops on Louisiana. The buses got stuck in traffic before they could get on the HOV lane, and again after they got off. Rider turnover was high.<<
Well, then, adding buses rather than spending hundreds of millions of dollars on light rail would clearly be a better solution. But I wouldn't paint the bus service as being as bad as you say. Even along Fannin where light rail has been installed, buses still garner similar ridership. And because of rail, Metro is discontinuing free trolley service. It's clearly become a net loss for downtown mobility.
You could give express buses just a bit more right-of-way and add more HOV lanes, and you'd get the supposed benefits of rail at a fraction of the cost. But by itself, rail simply saps resources from the rest of the system, and thus inhibits mobility.
>>Do you have stats on METRO bus usage? I looked a bit and couldn't find any.<<
The Richmond study I cited above compiled Metro's bus statistics and compared them with light rail across the nation, finding that money was better spent on bus improvements than light rail. I'd really suggest you read his report.
Posted by Owen Courrèges @ 10:43 on 03/12/04
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.