Jump to content

Some one

Full Member
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Excellent

About Some one

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The people who bend over backward for any road projects are the same people who will scream and cry foul if Metro wants to build one mile of light rail.
  2. There's a boost corridor being planned that runs down Broadway. Honestly the good thing about the realignment is that not only is it cheaper, but it also goes through Gulfgate , which could bring in more riders.
  3. Not everyone wants to sit in bumper to bumper traffic for 1 hour just to go 5 miles.
  4. I think they're most likely going to change the alignment of the extensions if they go through with just one. I think they should go with what Ramabhadran said and have the two lines meet up earlier to form one line. Hopefully they use the money from that to fund the other lines. (and judging by the comments they got, I think it's possible, they are considering it after all). (https://ridemetro.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1780&meta_id=41291 if you're interested in seeing the presentation) I think it would be a better idea to extend the red line to Pearland, since it would connect the TMC to Pearland (and Pearland really wants to have transit connection to the TMC). I do agree with you on a potential Green Line though.
  5. I doubt Southwest will fly there, given their record of airports like these. I think smaller airlines, and maybe Allegiant, will fly there instead.
  6. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Richmond-rail-ban-removed-from-federal-spending-13620859.php?utm_campaign=CMS Sharing Tools (Premium)&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=referral
  7. It's privately funded https://www.texascentral.com/facts/
  8. A light rail/commuter rail project is WAAAAAY different from the $77 billion fiasco that was the California high speed rail
  9. Dart is a good example of how NOT to build a rail system. They built it on a bunch of old right of way and now they have to deal with problems like gaps on the north and east side, stops avoiding neighborhoods and major activity centers, and the 4 lines going through downtown together. It’s kinda sad when the metrorail has about 10 million less riders than dart does (and dart is the biggest light rail system in the us by miles).
  10. I think it’s possible. The guy who’s long opposed them is gone and has been replaced by someone who’s willing to help metro. There’s also been a huge increase in support in rail. The only concern is cost, but if the infrastructure bill does pass, metro could take advantage of that. Building rail to the suburbs may be harder, but this is being planned in conjunction with HGAC’s high capacity transit task force (http://www.h-gac.com/taq/transportation-committees/HCT/default.aspx). Take it with a grain of salt though, as barely any transit project included in HGAC’s regional transportation plan has been built.
  11. Trains (and public transportation in general) should NEVER be proposed as a way to solve traffic congestion. No matter what we do, there’ll always be traffic. Even cities with the best public transportation still have terrible traffic. Instead, it should be proposed as an alternative to traffic.
  12. An aging transportaton system that's way different from ours is breaking down due to a lack of fundings? Color me shocked.
  13. I think most of them will be more like the 290 hov lanes. Honestly my preferred vision (which is like yours) would be that you can take the park and ride and commuter rail from the surburbs to the city and from there take the light rail and buses around the city.
  14. Not that I disagree with you, but I think buses (and eventually self-driving buses) work best as feeder for rail.
  15. Sorry to bring this up now, but this has been bothering me for a while. I'm sure Mr. Gattis is a nice guy, but I can't stand his op-eds on public transportation. They all boil down to nothing but "rail bad, highway good, self-driving car future." The notion that we should stop building rail because self-driving cars are the future is kind of laughable in of itself. Sorry, but I can't buy the whole "self-driving cars and ubers will make traffic better" thing. Nevermind the fact that there's been studies that shows that Uber and Lyft have been shown to make traffic worse, but self-driving cars are something that likely won't come in about 15-20 years (maybe even later, considering the malfuctions that have been happening as of late). Why would we abandon rail expansions for something that isn't even a guarentee. Plus, he seems to forget about the fact that self-driving trains are a thing (heck, some transit agencies already have them). Wouldn't it be better to have self-driving trains than cars?
×
×
  • Create New...