Option of Urbanism: The Endless Landscape

If you haven't read Tom Wolfe's A Man in Full, I highly recommend it. It was a great story with the real estate markets of San Francisco and Atlanta used as backgrounds. I wasn't surprised when a specific quote showed up in the Option of Urbanism.

The only way you could tell you are leaving one community and entering another is when the franchise chains start repeating and you spotted another 7-Eleven, another Wendy's, annother Costco, another Home Depot... [T]he new monuments were not office towers or monuments or city halls or libraries or museums but 7-Eleven stores.

I was somewhat reminded of this in downtown Houston where chains dominated much of the landscape and shopping centers with parking out front and a little bit different finish than the last one seen were the norm.

The Hub of Progress

So my parents got me an awesome book on the History of Houston's street railways. On page 92 there's a flyer that has a picture of a streetcar, a bus and an interurban railcar in the center of a wheel. On the outside ends of the spokes there are pictures of destinations along the line such as shops, suburbs, factories, homes, offices, churches etc. The title of the flyer is "The Hub of Progress"

The text is just as interesting:

The hub around which the wheel of prosperity turns in city life is the transportation system.

Houston has grown very rapidly - to become one of the nation's leading cities, the streetcar, bus, and interurban transportation in a large way made possible the Houston of today.

They help to build new residential sections, they carry customers to the merchant, patrons to the theater and are the means by which the great army of wage earners go to and from their place of employment.

Their value to a city cannot be measured in dollars and cents. (emphasis added)

Perhaps we should remember that. Transit systems are often over analyzed in terms of cost and under analyzed in terms of benefits. We can use streetcars and interurbans to build the cities of tomorrow, while remembering that they built some of the best neighborhoods of today.

Because Everyone Wants to Live in Houston

Right? I grew up there, but don't think I'm moving back any time soon. (Sorry Mom + Dad) Sure its much less expensive, but its really hot and I would have to start using my car again. I've gotten used to my minimal car lifestyle and what I remember most about Houston is that I often had to train at midnight in order to get my mileage up in the summer because it was so hot. Even then I would get back from my run and use the garden hose to cool off even though I was already drenched. (I really like Golf Courses at midnight better than in the day though)

Ed Glaeser says its a middle class paradise when it comes to costs. What do you think? I feel like there is something missing. Isn't giving up something a cost? Isn't there a cost in a primarily car oriented lifestyle which seems to cause Houston to have somewhat of an obesity problem? I know there are a lot of people in New York or even here in San Francisco who would rather be lower on the totem pole than rich in Houston. Would San Francisco be the same place if we reduced regulations? Probably not. I don't know the overall answer to any of this, I just know that pitting one city against another is hard to do because they are such different places. So many different variables.

If Ridership Is Up, Why Service Cuts?

My friend Nick was wondering, if ridership is way up, why are some places cutting routes and service. Wouldn't the increased ridership pay for it? In theory I guess it should but there are a number of factors that are specific to the economy and transit funding which need to be addressed.

Part of the problem is that most transit agencies are primarily funded through sales taxes. The problem with this is that when the economy is down and people need to take transit more, transit suffers more because revenue comes down due to that already existing gloomy market. Also, ridership only pays a fairly small amount for most transit system's budget. An article in the Boulder Daily Camera covers this quite well:

But, therein lies the terrible Transit Paradox. It turns out the same factors that are driving a spike in demand for transit services are having an unfortunate negative impact on RTD finances.

Fuel costs, roughly 9 percent of the RTD expenditure budget, have risen 47 percent over last year's rates. At the same time, sales and use tax income, which accounts for approximately 66 percent of RTD operations revenue, is coming in at about 5 percent below projections. The cumulative impact of these two economic factors, alone, is expected to be a hit of about $23 million to RTD's total operations budget.

Adding insult to injury, the fares transit riders pay only cover a portion of the cost of each bus or train trip. Thus, the unprecedented 9 percent increase in transit ridership that RTD is welcoming into the system is actually creating a substantial additional financial burden.

What needs to happen is a better way to fund projects and operations than the sales tax. While it seems the most common form of funding for transit, it often creates these problems with the shrink swell of funds and service. Tri-Met funds transit through a payroll tax. I'm not sure if that is much better but its something different. And then there are development fees for capital expansion and perhaps carbon taxes for operations. Another idea thats used is parcel taxes on estimated value. Anyone have ideas on this?

So also there was an article in the Rocky Mountain News that tests the water for another increase, the idea of just 4 years after Fastrax was passed, having to go after more money to pay for the program. This is somewhat of a problem from an advocates standpoint. It gives opponents a lot of fodder, even though none of them really complains when freeway projects go over, which they almost always do. See Katy Freeway in Houston and I-485 in Charlotte.

Even though the Denver Projects (T-Rex, SW Corridor) have been on time and on budget, its hard to predict the amazing increases in materials that have happened since the initial project budget was created in 2004. It's also hard to predict what the costs are going to be in the future when the lines hadn't even been engineered yet. I think that is kind of the problem with engineering projects. There is generally a standard and other projects, but all projects have different challenges and difficulties. While I think cost/benefit analysis is good, people getting super upset if a big project doesn't meet its exact budget is a little bit out of order. But unless its a project like the big dig which was a ridiculous overrun, people see the benefit in freeway projects, but chide transit projects...why? Most of the time they have no alternative plan, they just don't like transit for some reason.

Want Legroom?

Take Rail. In fact, why would you ever fly for a short distance trip if you had a choice?

Space Race Update: Houston

Houston is really starting to pick up on the space race. After building the Red Line which has the highest ridership density per mile of any new rail line (40,000 riders a day) , Houston dreamt big and went for a bigger expansion plan. This included 5 more light rail lines and plans for commuter rail and other improvements.

Now there are beginning to discuss studying 5 commuter rail lines. They have express buses that run in HOV lanes, however these additions will begin to allow for nodes to build up around the stations creating new job centers and destinations. From the Houston Chronicle:

A commuter rail study for the Houston area, unveiled Tuesday, recommends starting with five lines — but none would provide direct service to Sugar Land, The Woodlands or Kingwood, or to Bush and Hobby airports.

Alan Clark, who heads transportation planning for the Houston-Galveston Area Council, where the plan was presented, said conflict with heavy freight rail operations would prevent commuter rail to those destinations in the near future.

You can find the HGAC plans here.



Houston is beginning to catch up and as we've stated before, is at the head of the class.

Community Investments

There are a lot of problems with comparing costs across modes. You never know what is going to be included in the estimate and often times critics will take total costs and point out their expense. For example, the City of Houston has to approve Metro to build light rail in their streets. But in addition there need to be other mobility improvements including sidewalks and bike infrastructure.

In this instance it will be provided by the City of Houston, but in the case of Minneapolis and the Central Corridor, the street reconstruction costs are added into the rail line's total costs. The Central Corridor will end up costing $1 B for 11 miles. At first blush you think, wow that's expensive, until you realize that includes reconstructing the whole street and sidewalks.

University Avenue reconstruction, to include the mill and overlay of travel lanes and the reconstruction of 85 percent of the curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Central Corridor planners stated that the City of St. Paul and Ramsey County are considering funding the remaining 15 percent as part of the project.

In terms of pure people carrying capacity though this is important because when compared to highways, it's all throughput, but there aren't any walkers and bikers on a freeway. They also don't need a place to park at their end destination (bikes need space but take up less space for sure). So when we look at costs we should be careful to see all what is involved in the project. There might be more going on than the other side cares to acknowledge.

Transit Space Race 202: Who's On Top?

Every once in a while we have to review where the TSR is going. Today let's take a short look at the leader board. Previous TSR update for the whole race can be found here. Keep in mind legacy cities are expanding transit as well, but the cities in the TSR are those which have pushed off transit until recently and are trying to bring it back.

The leaders are far ahead of the other cities, many of which are either just building as funds come available or still in the initial stage of denial. That doesn't mean there's not time to catch up, but these leading cities are still the reason I started covering the space race. Because they were accelerating expansion far beyond the line at a time doctrine and capturing the hope that things can change and people are ready for it.

Denver - Fastracks is still the granddaddy of expansion. The West Corridor has begun construction and the 119 new miles of rail are expected to be completed by 2016. That seems so soon, so awesomely soon in fact that folks are starting to look at the next round of possibilities.

Houston - While not as publicized as much as the Fastracks expansion, the Metro Solutions expansion was actually voted on before Fastracks. However it wasn't seen as such a big deal until it was looked at in the context of all these other expansions. It's more of a central city circulation system but works with existing HOV bus lanes to allow people in the dense core of Houston to get around. I wonder what the weighted Density is inside the loop. AC?

Salt Lake City - Fast on the heels of Denver and Houston, Salt Lake City passed a sales tax measure to expand on the initial success of their first line, which opened in 1999. The expansion is called Front Lines and will build 70 miles worth of rail in 7 years.

Minneapolis - While there isn't a plan in place for expansion like the other cities, there are lines that will get the money when it comes. The DFL party in Minnesota passed a sales tax expansion for capital transit expansion and overrode a veto by vice presidential hopeful Gov. Pawlenty. This doesn't include a possible center city streetcar network under discussion.

These four cities are in the fast lane. Other cities are building network expansions but at a slower pace. Charlotte passed a half cent sales tax in 1998 but is expanding their 5 line system slowly. There are considerations for further tax increases for expansion in other cities as well including Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Dallas and Sacramento among others. We will be watching as gas prices goes up and the call for expansion increases. It wouldn't hurt either to have a more friendly administration in the White House.

Oh, and let's not forget the godfather, Portland. 4 lines and a streetcar exist. Two lines are under construction while three other lines are in waiting with a center city streetcar network looking more likely. They are still the leaders and set the standard but the next generation is gaining.

Where Are the Whiners on This One?

Man that Houston can sure build roads! Good thing they're starting to get a little balance. An email on the LightRail_Now yahoo group came in with an article about the Hampton Roads cost increase for a specific piece of the route. Now they have contingency money set aside so its not busting the budget but the ridiculousness of transit opponents comes out when overruns occur. It's a "boondoggle"! they say.

Well what about boondoggles like this: the Katy Freeway in Houston. Charles Kuffner covered this back in February but the email reminded me about this fantastic project that's $1.7 Billion over the original $1 Billion or $1.2 Billion estimate. How many more billions in GHG cleanup will this one cost?

As for Hampton Roads and other FTA projects, what do you expect when you start a project and over10 years it gets changed a little and built. This type of time overrun has got to stop. We can't wait that long anymore. Don't get me wrong, we need to build it right...but ten years?! Give me a break.

Space Race Update: UTA Vehicle Purchase

UTA, the transit agency on Utah's front range which includes Salt Lake City has started up the PR campaign and purchases for its Front Lines 2015 program. The plan is to build 70 miles in 7 years. So to keep on track with that, they are buying up 77 Siemens SD70 Avantos for $277 million or $3.6 M per vehicle. The same type used in Charlotte and Houston.

To make the order cheaper, buy in bulk. And that bulk includes an option for 120 more. My best guess is that either Houston or San Diego is going to be exercising those options with San Diego's cars reaching the end of their 25 year life and Houston embarking on the metro solutions plan. It might also be split up into smaller orders if cities that are running low based on this most recent ridership surge.

Siemens' news release about the contract lists an option for 180 more rail cars, though UTA General Manager John Inglish said the agency most likely won't use that many. It's common practice to secure more than needed at a good bulk price, he said, then offer the excess to another transit system that needs the cars.

Looks like the Siemens plant in Sacramento is going to be working overtime. Glad that these vehicles are all being built here. Imagine the economic impact if every city was building new LRVs and transit networks. Jobs Jobs Jobs.

Update: a Railway Gazette Article states that the Siemens vehicles will be a bit shorter than the Charlotte and San Diego Cars in order to accommodate 4 car trains.

Looks Like Houston Is In for 2 More, Space Race Heats UP

2 Lines and an FFGA by the end of the year. Kay Bailey has been good on rail issues. The Houston Chronicle reports:

The Federal Transit Administration is committed to helping the Metropolitan Transit Authority qualify for funding of two light rail lines by the end of the year, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said Tuesday.

Hutchison's statement came after a closed-door meeting in her Washington office, where FTA Administrator James Simpson and Deputy Administrator Sherry Little talked with Mayor Bill White, Metro President and CEO Frank Wilson, board chairman David Wolff and a bipartisan congressional delegation from the Houston area.

Lot's of Space Race movement lately, might have to upgrade the rankings soon.

High Ridership = Rail Bias

So the FTA does this thing to cities that haven't had a rail project where the first project is not given a rail bias. We know a bias exists and is about 34-43% according to a TRB report by Ed Tennyson. So in cities like Portland and Denver where they are extending their lines, they were able to use their bias. However cities like Minneapolis and Charlotte weren't able to. In 2020, the Hiawatha line was supposed to get 24,000 riders a day. But here it is 2007, 13 years away from the goal and ridership is at 29,000.

So after a year's worth of ridership data, Charlotte planners will be able to use the bias that they weren't able to use on the first line, which if the FTA used current regulations, wouldn't even have been built. Charlotte got a medium low on their cost effectiveness rating, which now the FTA says you must have a medium to even get into Preliminary Engineering. But guess what they use to calculate cost effectiveness? Ridership! Which seems to be behind recently; Houston, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Denver have all opened lines recently and have had much higher ridership than predicted. So higher numbers lead to better CE measures, but new lines aren't allowed the bias. Does this mean that new lines aren't afforded the right numbers? Ask the folks in Columbus Ohio. Early indications say that ridership in Charlotte will be exceeded. 9,000 riders were expected and so far daily numbers have been around 12,000. I expect it will die down a little but as more development on the South Corridor comes online, more ridership will be added. What this tells me is that more cities are going to get the short end of the New Starts stick. Is anyone else ready for a new administration that cares about urban issues?

Houston vs. FTA Update

As it turns out, Houston had submitted documents to the FTA describing rail ready BRT lines that could be converted at some point. They just decided to go straight to light rail instead. In an article today in the Houston Chronicle, the information requested from the FTA was found to be mostly documents that Metro had already submitted. The letter that was sent seems like a last ditch effort by the FTA political appointees to scare Metro into keep moving towards the FTA's currently favored mode.

The FTA's motives for withdrawing its approval after earlier approving the planned conversion to rail are unclear, but the move smacks of partisan vindictiveness. Although Little claimed in her letter that federal guidelines required the proposal to be resubmitted, Metro officials pointed out that the document's harsh tone was a striking change from previous cooperation between the agencies.

Metro's initial plan called for rail to be laid and covered on the BRT routes in preparation for an eventual shift to trains. After the FTA allowed different formulas to be used in measuring potential ridership for the lines, Metro officials decided rail construction was feasible for all the routes.

Hopefully by next November all this political jostling will be over. However I would also like to see the transit agencies stand up to the FTA and tell their congressmen they are tried of having to deal with ideology when building their transit systems. With agencies not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them, they have just let the FTA continue to push towards higher and more ridiculous standards that keeps some cities from even applying for federal funds. Perhaps this move by Metro is the first in a set of moves by the transit industry to fight back. The Chronicle editorial says it best and speaks for all transit agencies in its comments below.

Houston needs an expanded mass transit system sooner rather than later. Our elected federal officials who support that plan need to make their voices heard at the FTA to counter rail opponents and make sure backroom power plays do not delay construction.

Those BRT Lovers at the FTA Again

Update: Here is a copy of the letter sent to Metro in Houston. I encourage you to read it as it shows the FTA's BRT bias. They had no problems changing from LRT to BRT but balk when Houston wants to go back.

These guys are ridiculous. Houston was told by the FTA that they would have to resubmit engineering forms for Preliminary Engineering now that they've gone to LRT from BRT. The annoying part is that these guys don't quit trying to water down transit. I can't wait for this administration to be gone so this crap stops happening.

But perhaps the thing that annoys me the most is that these lines were to be planned to always be LRT. In fact the EIS was supposed to have a convertible alternative in it where they would build the line and run buses on it. The FTA can't call takebacks on this as its in the New Starts Report for Houston. So they decided to change the timeline and go LRT early. It's not like the FTA didn't know they were going to do it eventually. This is a stall tactic and I'm wondering if someone named Culbertson isn't behind the details. The current congressional delegation needs to step up now and set it straight.

Why The Decision in Houston is a Big Deal for Everyone

While the decision to go with Light Rail for 5 corridors caught a lot of people by surprise in Houston, it might have opened up a floodgate for cities to get funding for new transit projects. I can't stress enough how big this network effect is to cities who want to build new rail transit networks. Because the federal funding process is getting tighter, cities that want to build rail networks are going to have to get creative and Denver, Houston, and Salt Lake City have so far done that in their quest for funding.

It's interesting to note that some folks around the country might have been paying attention. Mayor Funkhouser in Kansas City believes that its a regional plan or nothing for his area. Some have thought it was a bit heavy handed of him to declare Clay Chastain's plan dead, but if he's thinking about really getting federal funding for a new transit system, he needs to lead the region towards a solution that will eventually get funding. Through the current rules, it looks like a high ridership starter line that can pass the current administration's cost effectiveness test (which Chastain's plan might not have) is how it should start. The other reason is that you'll need this first line to fund an extended network later.

But because the current rules are geared towards low end BRT projects, (The Orange Line and Euclid BRT projects would have not passed the required Medium cost-effectiveness rating rule the administration wants) Houston's recent deal might breathe new life into the application process for new expansion lines in cities that want to drastically expand their systems. Currently cities like Minneapolis are building a line every 10 years, meaning a simple 6 line network could take 40 more years. A problem might arise however with cities that don't have a starter line so that the rail bias can be attained for ridership measures.

It's been pretty easy to get extensions funded by the FTA in the past and they are generally the best modeled in terms of ridership. But the FTA has been making projects cut down their costs to make the rating. The Central Corridor has had a cap on how much it can cost meaning the locals don't have complete control over some of the decisions including a tunnel under the university because of that cost. This is a project that should have been built about 30 years ago but people are just starting to get it. But Minneapolis has plans for two more lines, the Southwest Corridor and the Northwest Corridor. So if cities are going to get serious about building expansive transit networks, Houston has shown the way to go for the time being. With a new administration who knows what could happen, but if you have to dance with who brung ya, it seems like Houston has opened the door to the ball.

All Rails in Space City

This afternoon the Metro board finally approved rail on Richmond putting the best line forward they could even if it wasn't the best line (Thanks Afton Oaks!). In a shocker that I don't think anyone expected, they also voted for light rail on all 5 lines! But after reading Christof's blog I was wondering if what he said about funding and the FTA was true? I haven't noticed any change in the funding mechanisms so what is going on down there? Is it possible that because Tom Delay is gone they have better support from their legislators (sans "I don't like rail" Culbertson)?

This was made possible by the other surprise of the day — the Southeast Line on Scott, along with all the other 2012 lines, will be light rail, thanks to new FTA funding rules. Thus, the Southeast Line and University Line will be able to share track on Scott. And that amended idea carried.

Perhaps they have been behind the scenes like Salt Lake City working out a deal with the feds to pay for their lines in bulk since they have a master plan. I think that might be the wave of the future so other cities might want to look close at how to plan a system then get funding for it rather than going line by line. We'll probably hear about it more in the coming days. From the Chronicle:

"We now feel we can pass federal muster (to obtain 50 percent funding) by going to light rail on all five lines at once," board chairman David Wolff said. "We can't help but believe that people will be thrilled by it."

In 2005, residents and elected officials along the planned North, East End, Southeast and Uptown lines were dismayed to learn that Metro analysis showed cost and ridership on them would be too low to justify federal funding for rail.

Check out the link to Christof for a new system map.

Breaking Development in the Transit Space Race

Something big happened today. The Utah transit authority and the FTA signed an agreement that would allow the federal government to pay for 20% of Salt Lake Cities 5 line rail expansion. I'm not quite sure yet who got the better deal, but I think it was the Utah Transit Authority. According to the Deseret News:

UTA general manager John Inglish said the letter of intent, known as a memorandum of understanding, was an unprecedented agreement between a state agency and the Federal Transit Administration. Normally, transit agencies approach the federal government for funding on projects one-by-one, not as a package deal, he said.

Because the letter of intent applies to all five projects, Inglish said his agency will save what would have been years of waiting through a lengthy federal funding process.

So instead of going through the New Starts process while waiting for the FTA to reject their projects or cause cost inflation and change station locations to fit the ridership model which favors bus projects, they can actually plan to come in under budget and on time and with the projects the voters wanted. The memorandum of understanding states that UTA will fund two light rail lines and a commuter line on it's own while the FTA pays for 80% of two other light rail lines.

Ever since the New Starts program started, the federal share has been dwindling for fixed guideway projects. Starting out on the same footing as highways, federal funding began at 80% of the project cost but has since dwindled to 50% with a 10 year waiting period. While 20% overall might be a little low, the signing of the document today by the UTA has opened up options for cities that want to get into the transit space race. Cities that have been able to raise local money yet have a master plan to build a transit system. This fits into one of the reasons why I started this blog, which is to document the transit space race.

This might be a good model for cities that are just now looking to build light rail networks or who might want to get back into the hunt. Now it should be said that in keeping up with Denver and Portland, Salt Lake City had a referendum to raise their sales tax to fund their rail extensions. I know there have been a few thoughts that this might be happening but UTA was traveling under the radar until this announcement. Other cities might take notice and see this as an opportunity to make a deal with the FTA. Minneapolis is looking to build 3 more LRT lines, Tampa just announced a new rail plan and Birmingham is starting to think about it.

Houston tried to do this a few years ago but the idea got blocked by former Rep Tom Delay and John Culbertson. They asked that the FTA fund the first two rail lines while they built the next two locally. They were asking for 50% of the total and before that they were trying to use the main street line as a match. Because they couldn't get it through though, they had to downgrade some lines to BRT.

As I said before, this is a pretty big deal. It might signal a big change in how transit expansion is going to get funded. Hopefully it moves back up from 20% and perhaps the death of the process that has caused so many problems by taking quick decision making away from local jurisdictions.

How To Hate Light Rail in Houston

Apparently there is a recipe in Houston for anti-rail arguments. Go to any Houston anti-rail site and there is a clearly a template for bashing rail lines. I can see the book now, steps for being against rail in Houston. I noticed some of the many steps in a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle.

Step 1: Claim the Light Rail Blocks Traffic and Hogs the Road.

Though the light-rail trains don't often sit still to clog streets, the right-of-way hogs do stifle traffic through downtown and Midtown each day. If the leaders of the Metropolitan Transit Authority have their way, Richmond Avenue will also soon be nearly impassable during rush hours.

Remind me again how many people those LRVs carry versus cars? So who should have priority, a train full of people, or a single occupancy vehicle? Increasing the capacity of Main Street seems to be rather beneficial. The line does get 40,000 riders a day.

Step 2: Transit should be a private enterprise, since cars always pay for themselves.

The New York Times, which so often whiffs at attempts to explain Houston to the nation, highlighted the downtown tunnel system recently in a feature story that illustrates how the city works best.

"(The tunnel system) was not centrally planned; it just grew," wrote Houston-based reporter Ralph Blumenthal. "And, befitting Texans' distrust of government, most of it is private."

Rule 3: Cite Joel Kotkin or Wendell Cox or RandalL O'Toole as Experts

Light rail and bike paths are but two examples of the current push to shape Houston in the vision of urban planners and civic leaders who hate Houston's now 171-year tradition of organic growth. A debate on such matters has been carried out in this newspaper since urban expert Joel Kotkin told the Greater Houston Partnership early this summer that Houston's embrace of free-market planning was a great example for other cities.

Outsiders like Kotkin seem to have a pretty good view of Houston's workings these days, perhaps even better than its residents.

It always cracks me up that there is no mention of where these guys come from or their motives, just that they are experts. But most people know who these guys are by now.

Rule 4: Houston's Lack of Planning Make it the Greatest City in the USA

Indeed, like the tunnels, Houston wasn't planned so much as it just grew into the nation's fourth-largest city. Now, many would like to see Houston turn its back on the very strategy — that is, nonstrategy — that made the city great.

Rule 5: The Public Process is Flawed Because We the Minority Aren't Getting Our Way

Alas resistance, as they say, is futile. Metro recently held public hearings that allowed opponents of the Richmond rail route to voice their dissent. But surely all those attending the meeting know any words of discord fell on deaf ears.

Seemingly nothing can be said that will convince Metro's leaders of anything other than the plan they're forcing on Houston. Those who live and operate businesses along Richmond are told to sacrifice for the "greater good."

I believe over 50% voted for the Metro Solutions light rail plan and most people on Richmond want the rail line. The stats that come from Culbertson's head are just that, in his head.

Rule 6: If It Doesn't Serve Suburban Commuters, It Doesn't Serve Anyone Worth Serving

Never mind that the light rail can't get commuters from the suburbs to their jobs. Or that Houston's decentralized population and wide geographic reach vastly reduce the utility of a static mass transit structure.

Of course they are probably fine with the HOV lane road warrior bus system they created. People in Houston working along the major freeways have an option with those HOV lanes built with federal funding. Very few people realize that Houston has already spent at least a billion dollars on those spokes. Yet even with those improvements, there was still a need for a crazy expansion of the Katy Freeway, which no one complains about going over budget.

Rule 7: Call the Rail Line a Name

I know the guy in this article wanted to call the Houston light rail by a name, perhaps danger train or something silly like that, but he had to look credible right?

So take a look at all of these elements of a rail attack piece, does it look like every other attack piece ever done? Of course it does because deep down they just do not like rail and can not just come out and say it. All they have to do is say "I don't like rail". This is not a war of ideas but one of ideology. It's like a virus that has spread from Karl Rove's brain to every aspect of life.

If you have another step, feel free to post it in the comments.

The Internets & MKT

I haven't been posting as much due to a down internet at my house but check out Intermodality for some info on the MKT (Missouri Kansas & Texas)'Eureka' Corridor in Houston. It's interesting that these ROWs are still around.

UPDATE: There are plans for a bike trail on this ROW. Metro admits it jumped the gun, but personally I think they should figure out a way to share.

Katy Freeway and Wasted Opportunities

This is amazing. While Rep. John Culbertson got funding for massively expanding I-10 to 23 lanes while knocking out businesses and homeowners against their will, nobody planned ahead for rapid transit on I-10. They instead planned four toll lanes in the median while building over a rail right of way. Genius! Now Metro doesn't know how they are going to get rail along the right of way but I guess they won't be figuring it out anytime soon.

It's might be better in the long run. Because we really don't want to have rail in the median of a freeway. It might be cheaper but I'm not sure its so great for urbanism given that the high speeds and winds generated from the freeway. It scares away pedestrians. Denver's line seems to be doing well. But I think if there was a subway through Orinda and Lafayette on BART, they would be much different places.