BIKE: Re: Rail Issues (2)

[Patrick Goetz]

Nawdry wrote:
> 
> Far-right, anti-transit charlatans are clearly making a top priority of 
> taking advantage of occasional glitches (and the ongoing outrages of 
> Houston's traffic-law-flouting motor vehicle Demolition Derby) to attack 
> Metro's amazingly attractive and cost-effective new rail service, and to 
> expunge rail transit from the surface of Houston and cede the urban 
> surface exclusively to motor vehicles.  Obviously, to tweak LRT 
> performance, design modifications or major crowd-control measures are 
> needed for some special events in downtown Houston, but by and large the 
> system is achieving urban development and mobility goals beyond the 
> wildest dreams of planners.  I append below another recent posting from 
> the PTP list.
> 

Most of what Lyndon says here is true.  The Siemens LRT trains are very 
sleek and elegant, the track design is as unobtrusive and aesthetically 
appealing as is possible with such things, and on a recent trip to 
Houston I noticed that the trains were mostly packed, hence the 
excellent ridership numbers recorded by Houston Metro.

Nevertheless, the accident rate (roughly one every 4 days) is 
unacceptably high, and blaming it all on drivers and pedestrians is a 
bit specious, Lyndon.  The electric train is relatively quiet, so 
motorists "left hook" themselves while trying to turn left across the 
tracks.  And it's not just cars.  I have a video serendipitously and 
accidentally shot by monorail advocate David Ice which shows 3 
pedestrians narrowly avoiding getting tagged by a Houston LRT train. 
They were crossing the street in front of stopped traffic and simply 
didn't see the train coming.  The video shows them lunging out of the 
way at the last instant before being obliterated thanks to a chance 
glance in the direction of the oncoming train.  Just one more second of 
distraction and the driver would have been able to stamp 3 more stick 
figures on the side of his elegant but nonetheless deadly train.  This 
is not, in my most humble opinion, what I'd call "pedestrian friendly".

Further, the train would be far too slow for longer trips across a 
larger section of Houston, and the tracks do create some inconvenience. 
  Someone trying to get from the Zoo area to Rice Village, for example, 
can no longer make a left turn at the appropriate intersection but must 
go a good mile beyond and then backtrack.  This is particularly onerous 
for bicyclists.  I have another video showing what happens at 
intersection crossings:  how long traffic (this includes bicyclists and 
pedestrians, by the way) is held up and how noisy the clanging horns of 
the LRT trains and crossing arms are as they go through the 
intersection.  Certainly not ideal, urban environments already suffer 
from noise pollution without the insertion of loudly clanging bells 
every 15 minutes.

Finally, the Houston LRT is clearly in a "cherry picked" location.  It's 
ironic that Lyndon would describe monorail and subway systems as 
"suitable for the role of short, glitzy, expensive urban showpieces 
rather than extensive systems which would start offering real 
alternatives to the pervasive highway system", for this quote PRECISELY 
describes the Houston LRT system!  Houstonians will not start getting 
out of their cars until mass transit gets them to a considerably broader 
range of locations.  This is why Houston Metro wisely held a conference 
to study transit alternatives.  The extensive systems which offer real 
alternatives to highway systems in most other cities are fully 
grade-separated; most certainly not LRT.

The Houston LRT clearly indicates just how meaningless all these numbers 
that get bandied are.  Just go and check the situation out for yourself. 
  The train clearly hasn't had much impact on traffic nor has it 
resulted in much TOD.  Sure, it's better than a bus, but is it the best 
possible solution, particularly given the pain and expense involved in 
building the thing?  (And I have the construction pictures to prove it.) 
  Most certainly not.

I simply can't fathom why Lyndon can't bring himself to admit that a 
fully grade-separated solution would be better:  safer and faster, 
consequently encouraging additional ridership across greater distances 
which in turn would result in more TOD and even greater ridership while 
getting people out of their cars because it's actually faster and more 
convenient than driving.  Not to mention much quieter and much less 
disruption and danger for other transit modes: cars, pedestrians and 
bicyclists.  Robert Eckels might or might not be a rail foe, but he 
sounds like a sensible rail proponent in the quote Lyndon posted to the 
list.  His comment that "They [trains] need to get out of the lanes of 
the roadway and into grade-separated corridors" not only makes a lot of 
sense, but simply points to what is done in every larger city with a 
well established and viable rail transit system.  Eckels is simply 
saying "hey, let's do what we already know is working in 
mass-transit-focused communities around the world"  -- this makes him a 
rail foe?

As I've mentioned many, many times, Lyndon and his 19th century rail 
Future Society (we'll call it that in honor of the other famous Lyndon 
and his loyal followers), consistently confuse "rail foes" with "LRT 
foes".  They are not the same thing.  What Lyndon doesn't seem to 
understand or refuses to accept is that there a LOT of rail PROPONENTS 
who are LRT foes (in the same way that Mike Dahmus is a rail proponent 
but crappy commuter rail foe).  LRT is stupid technology (although not 
as stupid as BRT).  It's unnecessarily slow and dangerous, and it takes 
up space on the street in a car culture where there is already not 
enough real estate on the ground for pedestrians and bicyclists.  If 
Lyndon and other members of the 19cRFS were to throw their efforts 
behind a technology that we can all agree on (hint: anything 
grade-separated), then he might find that we would be building a real 
system sooner rather than later and instead of bickering all the time. 
Unfortunately, it's fairly clear that this is not going happen.  People 
like myself trying to bring a real mass transit solution to Austin have 
no choice but to classify Lyndon, David Dobbs, and other 19cRFS's in the 
same category as unrepentant road warriors like Jim Skaggs and Mike 
Levy; i.e. as people who are part of the problem, in the way of a 
solution, and in need of a good swift boot in the rear.