(07-19-2021 09:01 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-18-2021 10:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2021 09:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-18-2021 09:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Here is my takeaway from that - basically, you get to a point in an area where congestion on the roadway reaches an equilibrium and it will be very difficult to reduce it. That’s because you get to a point where people are willing to sit in said congestion so they do not have to drive a personal vehicle.
So if you are a growing metro and realize you need to increase the number of people moving from A to B, you look to the most effective and efficient expansion option. What moves more people most efficiently. That could be expanding highways, which puts more vehicles on the highway until you reach congestion equilibrium. Or it can be expanding public transport, which puts more people in more effective and efficient transport, while the number of car drivers stay steady.

Or you could do like Houston, and build a light rail system that doesn't cover any existing commuter thoroughfares.

I have always wondered what made Houston decide to build the light rail where they did. Med Center to downtown never screamed “high traffic corridor” to me.

I know there had been plans for a line down Richmond, which would have served that high-traffic work commuter niche, but it was blocked by some local politician - I forget who.

The last I saw, which was a few years ago, Metro had a pretty sizable expansion plan for the light rail system that could actually serve as a main mode of transportation.

Especially in that they tore up rail lines and right-of way on I-10 to build more freeway

That was before my time in Houston, but I've heard about that and thought it was similarly crazy. Prime infrastructure in place and demo'd to make way for more roadways that will get just as clogged as they were then.

I assume there would have had to be some maintenance/retrofitting, but probably at a fraction of laying down any other fixed line.