Jump to content


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mfastx last won the day on July 25 2012

mfastx had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

480 Excellent

1 Follower

About mfastx

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New York, NY
  • Interests
    Building construction.

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That is unlikely, they will run a schedule similar to LRT. Sure there are plenty of successful BRT lines and it's a fine transit solution. I'm in favor of it as I said. But BRT was better served on the east side lines with lower density and ridership potential. The west side corridors can absolutely support LRT, and it's a shame it won't get built that way because transit ridership would be greater had it been. Yup I'm aware, but was disappointed in Metro not being able to figure out a solution. Also wouldn't that law that Culberson passed still apply to BRT? I thought he prohibited "fixed guide way transit" being constructed on Richmond. Anyway, now that he is out of the picture Metro has no excuse to not try and go for the rail solution as originally intended. Instead they are expanding two lines to Hobby and further north.
  2. I'm largely in agreement with most of your points but there's one thing I need to correct here: BRT is NOT as efficient or as good as LRT. It is significantly cheaper, sure. But on an operational basis, it generates less ridership, has less capacity and costs more per passenger to operate on top of all of that. It's an absolute failure of Metro to never have built the original University Line as LRT. It was promised to us in 2003 and was never built. It is by far the second best corridor for rail in Houston after the original Red Line. Just the University Line itself would have more ridership than the Red Line extension, Green and Purple Lines COMBINED. That was the one important line coming out of the 2003 referendum and they screwed it up. The original plan was to have the University and Uptown lines as rail and the east side lines as BRT. Now, all of that out of the way, despite my disappointment in the above, I would still vote yes on this plan. Reason being is that after 2003 it took nearly 20 years for Metro to develop another expansion plan. These projects won't all be completed until 2040 (assuming all projects get built which is quite doubtful). If this fails, who knows how long it will be until there is another opportunity to improve transit in Houston. While BRT for the west side lines is a disappointment, it is still a significant upgrade over what we have now. Rail to one of the airports is a win as well.
  3. mfastx

    United New Livery

    Eh, I think it looks good.
  4. Direct result of Culberson being voted out lol. Too little, too late though, too bad this didn't happen 10 years earlier. Richmond is one of the few corridors in Houston that absolutely warrants rail.
  5. Strange to spend all LRT money on the east and north sides of town, when the much denser areas that actually support rail transit are all on the west side. Still, would be a nice improvement. Still waiting on that University rail line promised with the 2003 referendum...
  6. For Westheimer, a subway would be optimal which is what I had in mind. Yes it'd be a lot of money but well worth it in the long run, next 100 years or so. The ridership numbers in the plan are just backwards, putting LRT (or optimally, HRT but I understand that is not realistic at this point) in those higher ridership corridors would bring even more ridership than BRT. The orignal plan on Richmond would work well too, that's wide enough for a surface line.
  7. I'll always support transit improvements of any kind so on principal I do support this plan, but it's truly baffling the decisions they're making on where to put rail vs. BRT corridors. They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, which is focusing rail on more dense corridors with higher ridership potential and BRT on less dense areas. It's truly mystifying and would be a massive misuse of money. What is the use of having TWO lines going to Hobby, take one of those lines and the north line extension and make it an east-west route along Westheimer or Richmond. Just makes too much sense I suppose.
  8. I agree that it looks like it will end up being BRT, but if there's any corridor in Houston that's more appropriate for rail than BRT, it's the western corridors such as Richmond and Westheimer connecting Downtown and Uptown. Not at least trying for rail on these corridors would be a mistake as opting for BRT vs rail would limit transit ridership potential in the area.
  9. Great news for Metro, but I have my doubts that they are in a position to begin construction on the old University line anytime soon. Seems like they've given up on the line entirely. Plus, the law that Culberson got passed prohibiting federal funds for any rail down Richmond presumably still needs to be overturned.
  10. Such a shame this never got built. There are highrises all over Houston right next to single family homes. Beautiful building.
  11. Don't think that link is working, I'd be very intrigued if this is legit.
  12. Agreed. I'm very dubious of that project btw. If it were rail, that projection would be much more easily attainable.
  13. I like the idea of connecting the airports by rail, but I am a little disappointed at how much light rail they're proposing in what they call "dense" areas. The actual "dense" areas have no rail going to them at all (basically the entire west side of Houston). For the one rail line going towards the west side, having it in the middle of I-10 will also limit ridership. But BRT can work as well so hopefully something gets done on the west side. I just think it's backwards, BRT is better served on the east side areas with fewer population.
  • Create New...