Of course, this project cost $2.1 billion, including $815 million to build the toll lanes in the freeway’s center.
And it could be made ineffective as regional expansion continues. As soon as enough people who are willing to pay the toll saturates capacity you end up with the same issue (“just one more lane bro”). I see this all the time in the DC metro area’s toll express lanes that often save no significant time.
Another effective way to control highway congestion is to get people off of highways and invest in your transit system, make it better than driving so that people don’t drive as often.
But maybe Houston is too far gone for that.
For comparison, the Chicago red line extension project adds 5 miles of heavy rail for about twice the cost, so 4x more per mile. But the Houston toll lane project doesn’t do anything positive for adjacent property values like new rail stations do. Chicago will get money back from more property taxes and the new stations will relieve traffic on the Dan Ryan.
Transit lines get faster as ridership increases due to the ability to increase schedule frequency, the exact opposite of highways.
I am not saying Houston should magically turn into 1800s-era urban fabric but maybe some decent park and ride commuter transit would be a start? There are cities in Texas with 6 figure populations that have NO public bus system.
> As soon as enough people who are willing to pay the toll saturates capacity you end up with the same issue (“just one more lane bro”).
Increase the toll prices to reduce congestion, increase the number of buses on that route, and use some of the money for either expanding the road or building another more-or-less parallel road.
Sure, the point is, what about 10-20 years from now when there are enough drivers where the cost doesn’t matter?
It’s like Disney World. They can fill the parks with people willing to pay $200 a day for tickets alone. If you can’t afford it then it doesn’t matter that other people get to get in.
Highways just don’t scale well. Two train tracks can move about the same number of people as 15 lanes of highway.
This indeed the “just one more lane bro” solution. What you are missing is how utterly destructive to the urban fabric and disgusting freeways are. Take a stroll next to one sometime.
I live within earshot of one and there's a freight rail even closer. Sure it's loud but the way it causes "the wrong kind of people"[1] to self select to not live here is great for my stress levels.
[1]the kind who have so few problems that freeway proximity makes it high on the list of things that inform where they choose to live
Sure, Chicago’s daily regional transit ridership is 10x higher than Houston though. And they also have skyscraper medical centers. One of them doesn’t even have direct interstate access.
Houston’s red line has similar ridership levels to Chicago’s third busiest L line.
The two metro areas have a very similar population.
In Houston the rail does not actually extend to any suburbs, if they have that in Chicago it would probably make a big difference.
I got the idea when they were building it in Houston that a large bit of the Metro system is geared toward transporting people in lower-income areas who can't afford cars, so they can gain employment downtown and in the med center.
When it comes to toll roads most suburbs have a long-established freeway commute, but directly west from downtown a major suburb is known as the International District containing a large concentration of immigrants. The only traffic solution leading in that direction was built as a tollway instead.
It all started with the Beltway 8 toll bridge with toll that was cheaper than the gas saved by taking alternate routes.
By now the toll road authority has expanded and embraced a growth mindset for so long, and in recent years gotten so expensive, that any upcoming candidate for County Judge may be able to prevail on a single-issue of lowering the tolls alone.
> I got the idea when they were building it in Houston that a large bit of the Metro system is geared toward transporting people in lower-income areas who can't afford cars, so they can gain employment downtown and in the med center.
This is how most US cities view public transit: poor people only.
Only a handful of US cities treat it as something that everyone uses, places like NYC, Chicago, DC, and Boston.
Houston should have an equivalent to the Metra or MBTA commuter rail.
It works in NYC and Chicago because owning a car there is frightfully expensive even if you're middle-class. Parking costs, city fees, higher gas taxes, higher insurance, and massive rush hour congestion all make owning a car unattractive.
And it could be made ineffective as regional expansion continues. As soon as enough people who are willing to pay the toll saturates capacity you end up with the same issue (“just one more lane bro”). I see this all the time in the DC metro area’s toll express lanes that often save no significant time.
Another effective way to control highway congestion is to get people off of highways and invest in your transit system, make it better than driving so that people don’t drive as often.
But maybe Houston is too far gone for that.
For comparison, the Chicago red line extension project adds 5 miles of heavy rail for about twice the cost, so 4x more per mile. But the Houston toll lane project doesn’t do anything positive for adjacent property values like new rail stations do. Chicago will get money back from more property taxes and the new stations will relieve traffic on the Dan Ryan.
Transit lines get faster as ridership increases due to the ability to increase schedule frequency, the exact opposite of highways.
I am not saying Houston should magically turn into 1800s-era urban fabric but maybe some decent park and ride commuter transit would be a start? There are cities in Texas with 6 figure populations that have NO public bus system.