BROWN is OUT.

w00t.

In Praise Of: Obsolete Transportation Standards

Walking along Westheimer at about Stanford-ish. Despite almost all new development in the last 20 years taking the form of suburban-style, parking-in-front strip centers, this section of Westheimer (between Montrose and the Spur) is surprisingly walkable. Why?

Westheimer here squeezes four lanes into a 36′ curb-to-curb section. That’s 9-footers. Metro bus drivers must take both lanes, which does not stop the occasional Lexus SUV from edging over the double yellow to pass them anyway. But what a 36-foot pavement section in a standard 60-foot ROW gives you is two 12′ sidewalks. That fact, coupled with the fine-grained nature of development along that street, is what makes the place walkable.

But this situation is more a product of benign neglect than of intent. Westheimer’s 36-foot section reflects the fact that this was once a two-lane street with parallel parking, a situation for which 36 feet is quite adequate. Later conversion to a “variable-lane” (i.e. no parking at rush hours) and then 24-hour four-lane was done on the cheap, hence the 9-foot lanes. Were this road ever rebuild to the same “compromise” as Kirby Drive, the street section would increase to 42 feet, reducing the pedestrian realm on each side to 9 feet. Now 9 feet is acceptable when the street-side is parking. I’ve patronized at least one Mexican restaurant that squeezes sidewalk dining into an 8-footer. But against 40-mph traffic, 9′ doesn’t work.

This portion of Westheimer works because it’s built to obsolete standards.

It’s not the only one. Consider Allen and Memorial. Both are effectively freeways, yet for whatever reason, the average traffic speeds closely match the speed limits. (this is unheard of in most of Houston). Cars on Allen go about 40, cars on Memorial often do less than 50. Both are deprecated; Allen’s 10-foot lanes date to the 1930s; Memorial’s 11-foot lanes (with vertical curb and no shoulders) date to the 50’s. Neither road could be built today to the same geometry. Neither road could be built to the same standards of aesthetics, or with the same self-enforcing speed limit.

If we redesigned Memorial to a 50mph “design speed” using present standards, the 85th percentile speed would probably be about 65. Obsolescence keeps the road pleasant and safe.

But this situation doesn’t just apply to cars and roads.

Across the commuter rail planning documents, from METRO to H-GAC, you’ll find a 25-foot “standard” railroad track spacing that was handed to them from UP. There is no logical reason for this spacing to exist.

Yes, 25-feet allows oversize loads on one track to pass a sided train on another (how often does this happen?). And yes, it allows a maintenence truck to be driven between any two parked trains. But this is overkill. All around Houston, freights operate on track centers of 13 to 15 feet. I’ve personally measured the railhead-to-railhead spacing at over twenty locations around Houston and I haven’t found a single location that exceeds 16 feet. Moreover, a glance at UP’s own practices outside Houston, in rural areas where it owns significant quantities of land, show that new high-speed trackage is constructed on 16 foot centers.

If 16 feet is adequate for 80mph intercity rail in the middle of the Arizona desert, it’s certainly adequate for 60mph rail in Houston, where land is at a much higher premium. And this is not a trivial matter. 16-foot versus 25-foot track spacing lets you fit three tracks in the space of two. It means you can fit two tracks in a 50′ ROW, not one. It means faster, more frequent, and more reliable rail service.

What do these standards – 25′ spacing on railroad tracks, 12′ and 11′ lanes on urban arterials – have in common?

In both instances, the standards-making bodies are autonomous, divorced from the externalities and cost-benefit analyses of individual projects. If you’re studying widening the tracks down Winter Street for service to a future terminal, you can readily see that a 9-foot difference in track spacing has substantial impacts on the number of historic homes you need to tear down. But the people who can see that aren’t the ones making the standards. The guys making the standards are sitting on standards “committees,” meeting with other people tasked with developing “standards” (often in Washington), and passing it on down to various localities, who then implement it for themselves. They may have substantial industry experience, but when they enter the world of standards groupthink, they’re often idealistic and unrealistic.

So let’s have a moment for the obsolete standards; for wide sidewalks, for narrow lanes, for horizontal curves that force drivers to slow down a little, for railroad tracks squeezed as close together as today’s modern rolling stock will allow.

Mayoral Process of Elimination

Who should you vote in as the next mayor? Let’s narrow down the field.

Annise Parker was one of the driving forces behind the Ashby High-Rise hubbub, and helped support the meme that Southampton’s objections were about “traffic.” So, if you support ex post facto regulations and an increased cost of living stemming from an unpredictable and unstable development environment, she’s your (wo)man. This blog doesn’t, so we can check her off the list.

Remaining we have Cupp, Locke, Morales, Ullrich, Ulman, and for the sake of argument, yes, Brown. Christof and friends have compiled an exciting and informative questionnaire quizzing candidates on regional transportation issues. Four mayoral candidates responded – Parker and Brown, Locke, and Ullrich.

Now to read Ullrich’s statement is to wonder why he filled it out at all. It’s full of simple “yes” and “no” answers which add absolutely no illumination to his perspective on any of the issues raised by CTC. Furthermore, there’s a number of logically inconsistent statements, such as support of building a “dual purpose freight/passenger rail network” but only spending public money on stations and trains, but “not for rail right of way.” On the plus side, Ullrich supports expanding METRO’s role as a “central coordinating body” in transit planning. This blog has maintained that METRO’s long-term planning is sound, and that the agency gets an unfair amount of criticism given its actual performance.

Peter Brown plays into this Meme, stating he’s “hesistant to spend more taxpayer money there” (at Metro). Is it possible to throw the bus … under the bus? Have we just created a loop in spacetime that will result in over 600 different Houstons from multiple parallel universes? For the sake of the continuum, don’t vote for Peter Brown.

Taking no side at all in the Metro debate is Gene Locke, who punts the question entirely, answering questions with “that issue will go before the voters.” Which is not the worst position to take. Now, the Locke campaign has been spamming my inbox with campaign literature for several months now. This is annoying, but it also means at least one of their staffers is a fan of this blog, so I suppose that’s a positive.

So what does Locke’s platform say? His transportation plan focuses on road and rail expansion, burying transit-oriented development at the very bottom. Now Keep Houston Houston is an vocal proponent of TOD, but at the same time, in a city where actual zoning requires a vote, “transit oriented development” ordinances are one of the major stalking horses by which additional design and land use regulations can be implemented. For instance, most every TOD ordinance I’ve ever read specifies building massing and articulation requirements to present a “pleasant” streetscape. We all hate the 25-foot major thoroughfare setback, but is it worth it to free ourselves from the setback only to have a bevy of restrictions put on what types of buildings can be constructed? I don’t think so.

The legal and regulatory obstacles to TOD (parking, street widths, setbacks) are administrative and are best handled incrementally, *not* through a sweeping process of reform that will serve to tack a bunch of other crap onto what is otherwise a simple question of repealing a couple of outdated and counterproductive regulations. For that reason I’m with Locke in exalting *actual transportation* to the front of the transportation plan, and burying development issues as a minor component.

Most of the the rest of Locke’s platform is inoffensive. His “business plan” is full of statements like “Houston will remain” and “Houston will continue” – language that acknowledges the city’s continuing greatness. The “7-point plan for keeping Houston safe” is a bit overbearing, but I’m cool with more officers on the street as long as deferred dispositions are still handed out like free condoms at the AIDS walk. Which means that, yes, if you hadn’t already figured it out,

Keep Houston Houston supports Gene Locke for Mayor

And that’s all there is to this one.

KHH socialization and argumentation Meetup, v1.0 Alpha

A couple people had suggested this earlier this year. Now I’m suggesting it.

The plan? Take over Chalputepec, unannounced, for food+drinks+argumentation. Talk about transportation policy, zoning/”smart” codes, private vs. public planning, why “unrestricted reserve” is the greatest zoning designation ever conceived by man, or the sheer awesomeness that is living in a place with so many freaking skylines.

But first, I’m asking you – the readers – what works best for *your* schedules?

Thursday evening, 10/29, start time somewhere around 6-8ish
or
Sunday afternoon, 11/01, start time somewhere around 1-2ish

B&B Donuts Apple Fritters, fresh out of the oven at 7:45am on a Wednesday.

Seriously. *eyes roll into back of head*

Also, some serious FAIL from New York City: see attached link. Really, when the citizens of a city that is known for its skyscrapers are protesting a skyscraper – IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, no less – that’s when you’ve jumped the shark.

Sorry NY. I love your subways (and the 24-hour Baskin Robbins/Dunkin Donuts in the bottom of the Stillwell/Coney Island terminal ain’t bad either), but between this, the Freedom Tower, and Brooklyn’s successful murder of the Atlantic Yards development, I think you better throw in the towel.

A funny thing about transit.

So as I’ve mentioned previously, when I returned to Houston in August I didn’t bring a car. I’ve thus spent the past month enjoying the city almost exclusively by Metro.

Earlier today I was on a bus rolling through Midtown when a young couple in an Altima pulled up alongside us. They were both eating Coldstone. Now, I scratch my head – why in the world would you grab expensive, hand-mixed ice cream, only to eat it in the car (while trying to navigate Midtown stoplights, nonetheless!) like a cheap Jack in the Box taco. Using transit exclusively forces you to do everything slower, which isn’t entirely negative.

But it’s got me wondering now. See, in the past month I’ve had absolutely no problems getting to where I want to go. I can grab groceries, visit friends. The other day I took my primary romantic interest to dinner and a movie. We hopped a few buses to the Marq*E, headed back across town on a 20-Long Point to Ninfa’s/Navigation, then grabbed two buses back to her place. Thing is, it was a 3:30pm movie. You can get anywhere on the bus, but you have to do it *early*, because if you stay out too late the buses stop running. Transit doesn’t alter your mobility, it alters your lifestyle.

I can hop a 40-Telephone and grab some extra-large CFS at the Dot Coffee Shop. But I can’t do it at 3am. I can catch a 25-Richmond to the drum and bass night. But to get home will require an expensive cab ride, unless I jet the party when other people are still showing up. Basically, transit has an incredible power to make you square. Which leads me to the question.

Why are so many anti-transit people socially conservative, while so many pro-transit people are socially liberal?

Why are good, solid, “family values” republicans from the suburbs opposed to more transit spending? Transit is about as “family values” as you can get. A solid bus network makes it easy to go to work, go to church, and shop for groceries and diapers. A light rail system gives you the added ability to work two jobs across town to save for your kids’ college tuition. In short: with transit you can be fruitful, multiply, and live the American dream.

But there isn’t a single bus that leaves downtown after last call. Afterparties are out of the question. And all of the really underground shit is happening in warehouses, ranches, and other out-of-the-way places that you might not even be able to get to. The privacy of the personal automobile shields you from the outside world, so your friends can suit up in whatever outfits they fancy before heading to a house party or other social gathering. But on public transportation, odd leers and curious glances are the order of the day.

Mass Transit is the domain of squares: a vast force promoting temperance, moderation, and going to bed early. So why do all the “yea” votes for things like “Metro Solutions” come from the most socially diverse urban districts?

Life is funny like that.

A few problems with “smart” codes.

Andrew over at neoHouston has an excellent post summarizing many of the pros and cons of the current regulatory environment. But there’s more than a few problems with a “smart code” he proposes as a solution.

The biggest issue is scope creep. Yes, in theory, at the initial planning stages, it is perfectly reasonable to think that most of the city would fall into one of “only” four districts. However, once created, the tendency will be to nitpick and divide until there are an extraordinarily large number of districts, overlays, and various other combinations.

A perfect example comes to us from the lovely town of Tacoma, Washington. Now for a decent chunk of the last decade, Tacoma – unlike its larger neighbors to the north and south – has been simplifying its zoning code. But lately they’ve gotten into the “urban centers” thing, and have been creating new zones for these centers with slightly different regulations than the last one. And as it turns out, the boundary of one of these “urban centers” has some overlap with an existing hospital. Now Tacoma already has a hospital-specific zoning code. But new “urban centers” require new zoning. So Tacoma created a new “urban medical” zone SPECIFICALLY for the portion of the hospital property that falls within the “urban center.” The rest is still zoned in the old hospital zone.

Two SEPERATE zones for hospitals. That’s what happens when you start to slice and dice with multicolored maps. But it gets even better!

Andrew is on point when he summarizes the pros and cons of Ashby, but he unfairly blames speculators for the lack of transit-station development along METRORAIL. The truth is, there’s been plenty of TOD along Metro’s light rail line – only in Midtown do vacant lots predominate. And there are a host of reasons why this is so.

First, as we’re all aware, TOD in Midtown is subject to the same one-size-fits-all parking requirements as the most autocentric portions of outer suburbia. Now in most parts of Houston, developers build freestanding parking garages that are separate from the developments they serve, then connect the two with skybridges or breezeways. But Midtown’s city blocks make this impossible. The Camden developments get around it by having multiple blocks connected by ped bridges, so a central garage can serve multiple apartment blocks. But for most developers, this requires that the parking go underground, below the building.

And underground parking in Houston is tre expensivo. Recall what the soils are like here. Then consider that integrating parking (with oil, and exhaust, and the occasional engine fire) with residential requires a significantly higher standard of construction than either use would independently require. This all conspires to make Midtown development difficult and risky.

Finally, there is the issue of the vagrants. A week or two ago I was waiting for the 81/82, late at night, when a random homeless guy pointed out to me what he said was a bullet hole in the bus bench. Now I don’t know that it’s a bullet hole, but the story seems plausible.

It’s a chicken-and-egg situation; the best way to make Midtown pedestrians feel safe is to build a bunch of street-frontage retail that encourages pedestrian activity. However, as long as that retail doesn’t exist, it’s impossible to walk through Midtown without being accosted. Given the unreasonable parking regulations AND the vagrants, it’s a wonder that Midtown has developed the way it has. And we have the nerve to blame the speculators!

Less stick, more carrot. Instead of downzoning, Midtown should be given a “special exemption” from any and all parking regs. Period. And even with that exemption, the current investment environment suggests it’s unlikely we’ll see much movement in the next few years. But back to the original point of this post: dissing the “smart” code.

As far as I’m concerned, the final nail in the coffin is the fact that in a city like Houston, there are no clearly defined boundaries between uses. PERIOD. Andrew has put a lot of work into a map showing what a “smart code” might look like around Ashby, and it scares the crap out of me. Portland flashbacks all over again.

I mean, look at those districts! Look at how the boundaries are drawn to “allow” (cherry-pick) existing developments, while prohibiting new developments of the same intensity immediately next door. Look at that splotch of “T6″ around Wheeler Station. Why does the guy who owns the lots of Wheeler north of 59 get to build a high-rise, but the guy south of 59 only gets 6 stories? Why is there an “SD” on Montrose that includes the bakery but leaves out the Rothko Chapel? What’s with the weird island of whatever-it-is between Almeda and 288?

It’s just whack. This isn’t an indictment of Andrew – any “official” version would probably be just as bad. Rather, it’s an indictment of the very concept of zones. And that’s what the smart code is, zones. They’re not land use zones, but they’re most definitely zones. And that, my friends, is a zoning map. Plain and simple.

Very Nice.

Got served this article via the MSN redirect that all Hotmail users are subjected to. “Cities where you can buy a house under 150k.” Of course I knew Houston would be on there.

Indeed we are, as is Dallas (grrr). Sort the list by median home price, and you get our closest competitors, which include Fargo and Green Bay.

The distractions of a major metropolis, the prices of a backwater. What’s not to love?

and a follow up: Will we need more than one train station?

Not a frivolous question. Boston has two. Philly has three. Chicago has four. (Count ‘em: one, two, three – four!)

Metro’s design for the NIT is based on the Metro commuter rail vision, in which “CRT” primarily serves as a feeder for the LRT network. Metro’s vision would see continuous FRA-compliant commuter CRT from Hempstead to Galveston, a seperate FRA-compliant line along 90A terminating at Fannin South, and a third line along Westpark – which could be any number of technologies, since the Metro-owned ROW doesn’t interchange with any freight railroads. Of these three lines, only the Hempstead-Galveston serves the NIT, so the draft NIT design only has two platforms devoted to commuter rail.

But H-GAC’s commuter rail study envisions a much denser network; lines every which way, much like L.A. or Chicago. Now some of these lines obviously have more potential than others – I see a Galveston-Houston link quickly growing beyond a rush hour system to resemble something more like Caltrain – 7-day, 18-hour service. On the other hand, a Crosby/Dayton line might never see more than a few rush-hour trains in either direction. But even 30-minute peak hour headways on the H-GAC system would quickly overwhelm METRO’s NIT design, which only has three tracks.

A three-track terminal is sufficient for Metro’s vision, since the NIT wouldn’t be a “terminal” at all, but a through station. But it doesn’t hold even half of the trains envisioned by H-GAC.

For whatever reason, the H-GAC commuter rail study *doesn’t* suggest revising the NIT design to accommodate their expanded commuter rail vision. Instead, the H-GAC study team has developed an ingenious workaround to the NIT’s capacity limitations. Here it is, from pages 29 (C-8) and 30 (C-9) of the appendices to the regional commuter rail study.

“Whoa.”

Give them credit for ingenuity, but there’s beauty in simplicity and the present operating concept has neither. Either the NIT needs to be greatly revised (to maybe 10 tracks/6 platforms instead of 3/2), or we may very well need two stations: the NIT, and the Post Office.

Union Friggin’ Station.

I haven’t made up my mind on this issue for two years, so I’m just going to blog about my indecision.

As it stands today, there’s two operating east-west rail lines downtown. The “passenger main,” which goes through the Amtrak station and behind the post office, and the “freight main,” which runs down the center of Winter Street and then through what we now consider Hardy yards.

These names are sort of a misnomer, though, since UP’s SOP is to route as many trains as possible through the passenger main. Two things prevent them from doing this all the time.
1: Amtrak. Amtrak’s schedules are padded to allow for freight delays, so on a day where there *aren’t* any delays, the Houston layover time can approach two hours. Amtrak stops on the main line, so while Amtrak is laid up there the passenger main is off-limits to all others.
2: Grade Crossings in the vicinity of San Jacinto. Trains crawl through this section, regardless of what track they’re on, and a slow-moving train blocking a primary route into and out of downtown is untenable during work hours. Hence, freight trains on the passenger main are pretty much a no-go during normal business hours.

METRO has long had plans to build a “North Intermodal Terminal” about where the freight main crosses Main Street. It ties nicely into the “red line” light rail and could help spark a wave of urban redevelopment.

Thing is, it’s an insanely expensive project. The funding still hasn’t been identified. The existing freight main can’t handle the traffic, and widening it would probably take out a huge swath of historic first ward victorians – which might happen anyway given market forces and our traditionally laissez-faire attitude towards preservation, but is still a hard pill to swallow when happening all at once. And finally, THE OLD STATION IS STILL THERE.

See, everyone in Houston thinks that our old train station was over by Enron Field (this blog does not recognize Minute Maid’s sponsorship deal) and that it’s been preserved as part of the ballpark. But actually, we had TWO stations – the Southern Pacific had their own, seperate from the Astros station, a mission/art deco fusion with beautiful murals on the walls and great big arched windows. Pictures of the place on are few and far between, but the ones I’ve seen show something that rivals LA Union Terminal or PHL 30th.

That station was torn down to make way for the Barbara Jordan P.O., except that ONLY THE WAITING ROOM WAS TORN DOWN. The whole mess of platforms and switchtracks that goes along with an art deco station building is still there, behind the post office, rusted and overgrown but still in existence as a huge chunk of UP-owned real estate. (We were considering using it as a venue for “art” photography until we realized that the abandoned yard area is used as a shortcut by ex-cons walking to and from the halfway house on the north side of the tracks).

There can be no doubt that a station on that site would be orders of magnitude cheaper than Metro’s North Intermodal Terminal concept. The sitework/grading is already done, there’s no complicated tunnels or overpasses to construct. And what’s even better, it’s within walking distance of downtown. Passengers getting off at a North Intermodal Terminal would have to change to a red line LRT to get anywhere in the downtown core, but passengers getting off at the Post Office site would be within a couple hundred yards of the downtown tunnel system.

Cheaper, closer proximity to offices, and – oh yeah – with a couple bypass tracks and an overpass at San Jacinto rolled into the construction cost, we could actually *eliminate* the freight main completely. Instead of demolishing Winter Street, we could rebuild it with a central esplanade.

And the icing on the cake – at least for the crowd who loves to criticize METRO’s every decision – is that from my reading, the Draft EIS location criteria were stacked in favor of the NIT to begin with. Specifically, so much weighting was given to “redevelopment” that only the NIT could possibly win. But the reason the Post Office site lacks potential for redevelopment is that IT’S ALREADY DEVELOPED, AT SOME OF THE HIGHEST DENSITIES IN THE METRO AREA. Now is there a snowball’s chance in hell that whoever revives the Hardy Yards project is going to put in anything remotely similar in scale to the frigging BANK OF AMERICA CENTER? Any higher, and you run into the FAA! (Hobby’s airspace – the ubiquitous FAA upside-down wedding cake – actually caps portions of the downtown skyline).

So this is where I should come out with a website detailing a comprehensive alternative, a new station on the site of the old station, perhaps even with similar architecture. I talk about saving the First Ward and social justice and I invite commentary from people who really couldn’t care less about the station location, but find in my proposal an additional avenue to criticize METRO.

Except, I’m not actually convinced Metro’s wrong.

Major transportation improvements *do* cost money, and they *do* tend to displace other land uses. Every radial freeway in Houston wiped out acres upon acres of residential – is a mile-long swath of houses in the 1st really so bad? Railroad tracks are probably more aesthetic then whatever 4-story schlock Perry would build there, anyway.

And the North Intermodal Terminal is in a better position to add high-speed rail in the future. Outside the loop, HSR would most likely run along the Hempstead corridor – but inside the loop, along Washington, the rail lines are sandwiched between dense development. Future HSR would have to follow IH-10 (there’s ample room in the existing ROW if we just replace Ellifrit’s original 2:1 earthfill with vertical concrete), and trying to bring a HSR line from IH-10 into the Post Office yard site would require a tightly-curved yard throat that I wouldn’t inflict on my N scale trains, let alone full-size ones.

Finally, while it’d be a relatively simple matter to link the Post Office with an extension of the Harrisburg and Southeast LRT lines along Franklin, it’d still necessitate a dual-transfer ride for people wanting to get from the train station to Midtown or the Med Center. The Red Line really is the spine of the city’s transit network, and putting the commuter/regional rail station directly under/over it (as per Metro’s NIT design) really makes the most sense long-term. HSR is an inevitability – it’s just a question of whether we build it in 10 years or 50 – and HSR suggests NIT.

So I don’t know. And I’ve waffled on this issue for something like two years now.

I’m still waffling.