Reader Tom Bazan received the following e-mail, which he forwarded to me. It excerpts a magazine’s discussion of a new metro-area rail line. The kicker at the end was so funny, I just had to post it here, verbatim.

From the present terminus at City Hall Park, express trains are to be dispatched during the rush hours at two minutes’ intervals. They will make stops at Fourteenth, Forty-second, Seventy-second, Ninety-sixth Streets, and the whole run to One Hundred and Fifty-seventh Street will be made in 16.5 minutes. (NOTE: This is 9.5 miles of track.)

The average running speed of the Rapid Transit express trains, including stops, will be 38 miles per hour; and this means that, at times, the speed will rise to 50 miles an hour, and occasionally over that. The local trains will have an average speed of 18 miles per hour…

The express stations will be located at intervals of a little less than 2 miles, while the local stations will average about four to the mile.

That an average speed of 18 miles per hour can be maintained with stations only a quarter of a mile apart is due to the rapid acceleration which is possible by electric traction, and also to the fact that the local stations are placed a few feet above the average grade of the line-an arrangement under which gravity assists the retardation of the train in approaching the station, and increases the acceleration when the train is running down hill at starting.

The kicker was added by the writer who sent the above to Tom. Click to read it:

“I guess I should mention that this was an article in Scientific American, May 25,1901, describing the construction of Manhattan’s first subway line.”

Now couple that with the following excerpt:

Since MetroRail LRT trains will be operating at street level, they won’t travel faster than the posted speed limit, resulting in an average speed, including stops, of about 17 mph.

So, 105 years later, Houston’s quest to be a world-class city has yielded a single rail line, of about 7.5 miles length, that is slower than the one New York originally built. Something about that design seems less than world-class to me. For a real riot, here’s an even better quote from the same source above:

Metro Solutions is much more than simply a rail transit plan. The bus system component of the plan provides for a massive, 50% expansion and upgrade of Metro’s bus services (see map below), with about 44 new bus routes to provide transit access to currently underserved portions of Metro’s service area, 9 additional Transit Centers, 9 additional park & ride (P&R) lots, totally new two-way, all-day P&R service, and introduction of a de facto Quality Bus (“BRT”-like) service. In addition, MetroLift service for the mobility-impaired would be significantly expanded.

What the heck. While we’re at it, why don’t we look at the train line map as well?

Wait….. what’s this? Let’s zoom in and take a closer look, shall we?

Is that (gasp!) a rail line drawn down Westpark? And what’s that funny purple line doing on Richmond? Expanded bus service?

For a good discussion of why Houston’s rail solution is slow and why extending it to the airports and to distant suburbs has severe issues, check out this 2003 article. (In short: at an average speed of 17 miles per hour, you’re not getting to the airport anytime soon.)

The correct way to solve Houston’s traffic problem was to have built heavy rail (also known as commuter rail). Light rail is a high-frequency, low speed, and low volume modality built to serve dense populations over short distances. Heavy rail however is a high speed, high volume, low-frequency solution, designed to serve diffuse populations over long distances. In other words, we need heavy rail from Katy and Sugarland and IAH and Clear Lake, coming straight down the existing I-10, US 59, and I-45 right-of-way, with train stops coinciding with the existing Park and Rides, and feeding straight into a single end terminal downtown.

I recommend reading the articles at both The City of Brass and Light Rail Now. Certainly, they are illuminating.