Grand Parkway Expansion

[Pleak]

Totally unrelated question, but not really.

I have always wondered as I am not in the transportation engineering field. What makes light rail so expensive to build compared to streets. The right of way costs are the same as they are using existing roads for the most part. And it seems like the road/rail line base prep costs would be But isn't rail something like $100 million per mile to build? I know there is additonal electrical work needed, and the actual rails - but is it really that much more expensive than paving?

[mfastx]

Totally unrelated question, but not really.

I have always wondered as I am not in the transportation engineering field. What makes light rail so expensive to build compared to streets. The right of way costs are the same as they are using existing roads for the most part. And it seems like the road/rail line base prep costs would be But isn't rail something like $100 million per mile to build? I know there is additonal electrical work needed, and the actual rails - but is it really that much more expensive than paving?

That's a great question, as I wonder that myself. The Main Street Line actually cost about $50 million a mile. To compare, the Katy Freeway cost about $180 million per mile to reconstruct, which is a similar figure. But one would think simply redoing a street and creating concrete slabs (stations) wouldn't cost nearly as much as a 20 lane highway.

On the plus side, maintanence costs for light rail are far lower than freeway maintanence costs, as light rail doesn't need to be re-done (at a much higher cost than original construction) like freeways do. The maintanence for light rail is on a much smaller scale.

Edited May 23, 2012 by mfastx

[samagon]

OK, fair point. However I disagree that raising the gasoline tax is more affordable than METRO's $0.75 sales tax. Gasoline taxes is a flawed approach to subsidizing highways. Not everyone drives on highways, yet everyone that pays for gasoline subsidizes them. Not to mention that since gas taxes only cover about 50% of the cost of highway construction (don't forget about maintanence and reconstruction costs) gas taxes would have to be doubled, which would be more than the rate of inflation.

state or federal?

federal tax on gasoline is only 18 cents. it's been 18 cents since it was last raised in 93, it needs to be doubled. the 18 extra cents it would be less than a swing gasoline already does from one month to the next.

state tax on gasoline is 20 cents. it's been 20 cents since it was last raised in 91, it needs to be doubled as well.

so you say the price change wouldn't be in line with inflation, how about inflation since they were last changed? I'd think it would easily cover that. in the early 90s gasoline prices were about 1.50, 38 cents of that was tax. 25% of what we paid was tax. today, the percentage that's tax is just under 11%. if the gasoline tax had been changed to keep the 25% it would be about 80 cents today. doubling would get us close, but not quite there.

[mfastx]

state or federal?

federal tax on gasoline is only 18 cents. it's been 18 cents since it was last raised in 93, it needs to be doubled. the 18 extra cents it would be less than a swing gasoline already does from one month to the next.

state tax on gasoline is 20 cents. it's been 20 cents since it was last raised in 91, it needs to be doubled as well.

so you say the price change wouldn't be in line with inflation, how about inflation since they were last changed? I'd think it would easily cover that. in the early 90s gasoline prices were about 1.50, 38 cents of that was tax. 25% of what we paid was tax. today, the percentage that's tax is just under 11%. if the gasoline tax had been changed to keep the 25% it would be about 80 cents today. doubling would get us close, but not quite there.

Correct, I was mistaken. However are you talking about inflation of gas prices or inflation of our currency? I think the reluctance to raise the gas tax comes from the fact that gas prices would become MUCH higher.

Funding all of our highways and streets is going to come partially from taxpayer subsidies, just like funding for mass transit, buses, and airports. NO form of transportation "makes" money, and in big cities, building a core rail system in addition to highways is definitely a good option.

I'm not sure why people seem to believe that buses are more efficient at anything. The FACT is that they carry less people, and they do so less efficiently than rail.

Edited May 23, 2012 by mfastx

[Pleak]

Correct, I was mistaken. However are you talking about inflation of gas prices or inflation of our currency? I think the reluctance to raise the gas tax comes from the fact that gas prices would become MUCH higher.

Funding all of our highways and streets is going to come partially from taxpayer subsidies, just like funding for mass transit, buses, and airports. NO form of transportation "makes" money, and in big cities, building a core rail system in addition to highways is definitely a good option.

I'm not sure why people seem to believe that buses are more efficient at anything. The FACT is that they carry less people, and they do so less efficiently than rail.

Only in very specific sitiuations. In other situations - they would be grossly ineffecient.

Take the Park n Ride lots. At West Belfort route 265, there is approximately a two-hour surge in the morning. The buses - I think they seat 48, but I'm not positive, are scheduled to leave every 3-5 minutes, but in reality they leave as soon as they are full. Then another instantly pulls up, the people in line file in and it leaves. The continues uniterrupted for close to the full two hour surge time. And it works beautifully.

They then take the HOV lane downtown. In the PM, they can take the same lane back and reverse the cycle - although the surge is actually more comressed about 4:45 - 6 pm.

If this were rail - you would need double lines out there first off (empty buses just take the freeway, plus the rail lines would only be used for this route (Metro stops at the County line) as opposed to the HOV lane which can be used by any vehicle with multiple riders and is soon to be a money-generating HOT lane. The price for a double rail line out the Southwest Freeway to West Belfort would be astronomical for what you would get out of it.

Plus on the late evening runs, with very light traffic, this route combines with the 262 route and uses only one bus. That would not be possible with a train without yet another substantial outlay in rail.

This is just one anecdote of which there are many more where buses are much more efficient -both in cost and in flexibility. I would love to ride heavy rail thundering down the middle of the Southwest Freeway past all the parked commuters. I just don't want to pay for it and I don't think the improvement over the buses already there anywhere remotely justifies it.

[mfastx]

Only in very specific sitiuations. In other situations - they would be grossly ineffecient.

Take the Park n Ride lots. At West Belfort route 265, there is approximately a two-hour surge in the morning. The buses - I think they seat 48, but I'm not positive, are scheduled to leave every 3-5 minutes, but in reality they leave as soon as they are full. Then another instantly pulls up, the people in line file in and it leaves. The continues uniterrupted for close to the full two hour surge time. And it works beautifully.

They then take the HOV lane downtown. In the PM, they can take the same lane back and reverse the cycle - although the surge is actually more comressed about 4:45 - 6 pm.

If this were rail - you would need double lines out there first off (empty buses just take the freeway, plus the rail lines would only be used for this route (Metro stops at the County line) as opposed to the HOV lane which can be used by any vehicle with multiple riders and is soon to be a money-generating HOT lane. The price for a double rail line out the Southwest Freeway to West Belfort would be astronomical for what you would get out of it.

Plus on the late evening runs, with very light traffic, this route combines with the 262 route and uses only one bus. That would not be possible with a train without yet another substantial outlay in rail.

This is just one anecdote of which there are many more where buses are much more efficient -both in cost and in flexibility. I would love to ride heavy rail thundering down the middle of the Southwest Freeway past all the parked commuters. I just don't want to pay for it and I don't think the improvement over the buses already there anywhere remotely justifies it.

Good points, but if you take a look at the thread I started (entitled "light rail cheaper operating cost than buses" or something like that) and look at the link I provided, you'll see for yourself that even commuter rail clearly is more efficient both in subsidy per rider AND in cost per passenger mile. While capital cost for commuter rail is rather high, so is the capital cost for freeways and HOV lanes. After the system is in place, commuter rail is more cost efficient in terms of operating cost than buses.

For example, even Austin's half assed attempt at commuter rail (the joke of a system called Capital Metrorail) is more efficient than buses in the region.

Los Angeles' commuter rail system is more efficient in terms of operating cost than our P&R bus system.

However I do support the idea of HOT lanes.

[samagon]

Correct, I was mistaken. However are you talking about inflation of gas prices or inflation of our currency? I think the reluctance to raise the gas tax comes from the fact that gas prices would become MUCH higher.

Funding all of our highways and streets is going to come partially from taxpayer subsidies, just like funding for mass transit, buses, and airports. NO form of transportation "makes" money, and in big cities, building a core rail system in addition to highways is definitely a good option.

I'm not sure why people seem to believe that buses are more efficient at anything. The FACT is that they carry less people, and they do so less efficiently than rail.

inflation of gas prices is what I was referring to. I have no idea what it would be against general inflation, but I'd assume it's still due for a substantial increase.

I'm all for a system that uses both buses and rail. there isn't a system that could be put in place that would use just one or the other. I like to look to Europe as a good example of transit. Most countries have a combination of commuter rail, bus, and tram/light rail system. all of it works together very well. one part of that system on it's own is not a complete solution. 2 parts is better, and we're getting there slowly, but all 3 is really the best answer. add commuter rail along all freeways and we're set.

Edited May 23, 2012 by samagon

[mfastx]

I'm all for a system that uses both buses and rail. there isn't a system that could be put in place that would use just one or the other. I like to look to Europe as a good example of transit. Most countries have a combination of commuter rail, bus, and tram/light rail system. all of it works together very well. one part of that system on it's own is not a complete solution. 2 parts is better, and we're getting there slowly, but all 3 is really the best answer. add commuter rail along all freeways and we're set.

Completely agree. Europe is a great model to follow. However, they have an advantage in building projects because they have higher taxes and can invest more in their infrastructure. Hopefully Houston can recieve some funding to improve our public transportation.

[samagon]

Completely agree. Europe is a great model to follow. However, they have an advantage in building projects because they have higher taxes and can invest more in their infrastructure. Hopefully Houston can recieve some funding to improve our public transportation.

they've also got a really high population density, which is always something that is brought up when considering rail, of course, they go off of numbers for the entire state, or country. But just considering Harris County? We've got some very equatable density to other cities and regions that have a full transit solution in place. It's only going to get more dense as time goes by, as referenced in this thread...

[Trae]

Only in very specific sitiuations. In other situations - they would be grossly ineffecient.

Take the Park n Ride lots. At West Belfort route 265, there is approximately a two-hour surge in the morning. The buses - I think they seat 48, but I'm not positive, are schediuled to leave every 3-5 minutes, but in reality they leave as soon as they are full. Then another instantly pulls up, the people in line file in and it leaves. The continues uniterrupted for close to the full two hour surge time. And it works beautifully.

They then take the HOV lane downtown. In the PM, they can take the same lane back and reverse the cycle - although the surge is actually more comressed about 4:45 - 6 pm.

If this were rail - you would need double lines out there first off (empty buses just take the freeway, plus the rail lines would only be used for this route (Metro stops at the County line) as opposed to the HOV lane which can be used by any vehicle with multiple riders and is soon to be a money-generating HOT lane. The price for a double rail line out the Southwest Freeway to West Belfort would be astronomical for what you would get out of it.

Plus on the late evening runs, with very light traffic, this route combines with the 262 route and uses only one bus. That would not be possible with a train without yet another substantial outlay in rail.

This is just one anecdote of which there are many more where buses are much more efficient -both in cost and in flexibility. I would love to ride heavy rail thundering down the middle of the Southwest Freeway past all the parked commuters. I just don't want to pay for it and I don't think the improvement over the buses already there anywhere remotely justifies it.

Can you use the Park and Ride lots on the weekends and how is the schedule during off peak hours? And lets not pretend that the HOV lanes dont gey backed up, or slow down either. What you described is so different than three or so heavy rail cars out together. Each car with the capacity of two buses. The trains would just wait longer.

[Pleak]

Can you use the Park and Ride lots on the weekends and how is the schedule during off peak hours? And lets not pretend that the HOV lanes dont gey backed up, or slow down either. What you described is so different than three or so heavy rail cars out together. Each car with the capacity of two buses. The trains would just wait longer.

The difference is cost. And no, the park and ride lots are closed on weekends and off peak is slow. But that purely a function of scheduling. Since the demand is not there now for buses - why would they be running empty trains?

The park and ride lots are a very good example. Peak demand that falls off a cliff. The people in Sugar Land don't come into Houston except for work. Running an empty train into downtown on Saturday won't bring them rushing in either. They have their lives out in the burbs. A train would be a very expensive capital outlay with a lot of downtime. Funny thing is - I love trains - just see them as massively expensive in most situations in Houston when something cheaper would work just as well.

[mfastx]

The difference is cost. And no, the park and ride lots are closed on weekends and off peak is slow. But that purely a function of scheduling. Since the demand is not there now for buses - why would they be running empty trains?

The park and ride lots are a very good example. Peak demand that falls off a cliff. The people in Sugar Land don't come into Houston except for work. Running an empty train into downtown on Saturday won't bring them rushing in either. They have their lives out in the burbs. A train would be a very expensive capital outlay with a lot of downtime. Funny thing is - I love trains - just see them as massively expensive in most situations in Houston when something cheaper would work just as well.

Park and Ride buses work well in Houston for the most part, but I think that demand could be higher if there were a train. In other words, more people might be inclined to take public transportation to work if they had the option of riding a train rather than a bus.

One place where there might be a lot of off peak demand is Galvestion, I'm heavily in favor of running a commuter rail out there.

[Pleak]

Why on earth would the demand be higher by switching to a train? Is there that many rail-fetishists lurking in the suburbs who are presently driving in that would be swayed by a different form of mass transit that what exists already? As I have already stated - you cannot get any more convenient that what exists at the existing Park-n -Ride. There is no waiting during peak hours - you park your car, stand in line, file on the bus, it fills and goes. To get any more convenient - they would have to offer personal service to the home. The Park n Ride system works well in Houston for all the reasons that rail wouldn't. It's flexible and you don't have a massive capital outlay of empty tracks sitting idle on weekends and off-peaks hours.

What would help garner more riders for the Park-n-Ride locations (at least the 265) is more parking. The lot is packed every day - there is no room for ridership growth.

[mfastx]

Why on earth would the demand be higher by switching to a train? Is there that many rail-fetishists lurking in the suburbs who are presently driving in that would be swayed by a different form of mass transit that what exists already? As I have already stated - you cannot get any more convenient that what exists at the existing Park-n -Ride. There is no waiting during peak hours - you park your car, stand in line, file on the bus, it fills and goes. To get any more convenient - they would have to offer personal service to the home. The Park n Ride system works well in Houston for all the reasons that rail wouldn't. It's flexible and you don't have a massive capital outlay of empty tracks sitting idle on weekends and off-peaks hours.

Demand may not get higher, but it's certainly possible that there would be marginally more riders if we built commuter rail on at least a couple of corridors (such as 290 and Galveston). Trains are larger, more comfortable, and the facilities are nicer. It's possible that it would attract more riders.

Oh, and saying that P&R buses are more flexible is just bogus. HOV lanes are not movable and can't go anywhere, the freeways aren't gonna go anywhere. HOV lanes might as well be fixed guideway transit. Flexibility is not an issue in terms of P&R buses or commuter rail.

Not only that, but commuter rail transports passengers more efficiently than buses.

However P&R buses do have an advantage in that it can take you closer to your final destination, most commuter trains drop people off at a main station and then people have to transfer. So until we can get more reliable inner city transit, commuter rail will probably not be viable.

Edited May 24, 2012 by mfastx

[samagon]

However P&R buses do have an advantage in that it can take you closer to your final destination, most commuter trains drop people off at a main station and then people have to transfer. So until we can get more reliable inner city transit, commuter rail will probably not be viable.

I think that this is the problem, talking about parking, it wouldn't matter if there was a bus that had a route from an arterial road near your house to the station (were it too far to walk) that was reliable, as in, I walk out my door at 7:05, get to the bus stop at 7:12 and the bus is always there at 7:15, stops at the transit hub at 7:20-25 and I make my train which departs at 7:30 for downtown, I get off the train at 7:50 and since the bus and rail are synced there is a downtown circulator bus waiting for me to get on.

that reliability just wouldn't be there there, the commuter rail would probably be 5-10 minute window of reliability and the bus from your arterial road would be 15-30 minute window of suckage, you'd miss the train cause the bus was late, and the train was early, the next train would be late, and the bus downtown wouldn't be there if the train were on time.

transit in europe, asia, basically everywhere but USA works with clockwork like efficiency (unless someone is on strike, if your ticket says 3:07 departure, if you arrive on the platform at 3:07 you get to watch the train pull out of the station), why would we accept, or assume less?

Edited May 24, 2012 by samagon

[Trae]

I think that this is the problem, talking about parking, it wouldn't matter if there was a bus that had a route from an arterial road near your house to the station (were it too far to walk) that was reliable, as in, I walk out my door at 7:05, get to the bus stop at 7:12 and the bus is always there at 7:15, stops at the transit hub at 7:20-25 and I make my train which departs at 7:30 for downtown, I get off the train at 7:50 and since the bus and rail are synced there is a downtown circulator bus waiting for me to get on.

that reliability just wouldn't be there there, the commuter rail would probably be 5-10 minute window of reliability and the bus from your arterial road would be 15-30 minute window of suckage, you'd miss the train cause the bus was late, and the train was early, the next train would be late, and the bus downtown wouldn't be there if the train were on time.

transit in europe, asia, basically everywhere but USA works with clockwork like efficiency (unless someone is on strike, if your ticket says 3:07

departure, if you arrive on the platform at 3:07 you get to watch the train pull out of the station), why would we accept, or assume less?

I don't know if it is a US problem. More of a sunbelt problem. There are many cities in America with reliable mass transit.

And Pleak, rail is definitely more attractive to potential transit users than buses. That's not even a debate.

[Pleak]

Demand may not get higher, but it's certainly possible that there would be marginally more riders if we built commuter rail on at least a couple of corridors (such as 290 and Galveston). Trains are larger, more comfortable, and the facilities are nicer. It's possible that it would attract more riders.

Way to completely hedge your argument. Not sure which way this statement is going. And rail facilities being nicer is a straw argument. If the same amount of $ was spent on bus facilites - you would have just as nice.

Oh, and saying that P&R buses are more flexible is just bogus. HOV lanes are not movable and can't go anywhere, the freeways aren't gonna go anywhere. HOV lanes might as well be fixed guideway transit. Flexibility is not an issue in terms of P&R buses or commuter rail.

But what other vehicle besides the commuter trains could use the rail lines when not in use? As it stands now, the HOV lanes are utilized by plenty other vehicles and that is going to increase when the conversion to HOT lanes is finished. Then they will become nice little revenue generators (by the way - who gets the money - Metro or HCTRA?) And when the rodeo is in town, the P&R buses become rodeo shuttles - you catch the bus there, travel part of the way on the HOV lane and then exit for the rest of the way via the loop to Reliant Stadium. Don't think a train could do that very easily.

Not only that, but commuter rail transports passengers more efficiently than buses.

You keep saying that. But you haven't shown how. Repeating something does not make it true.

However P&R buses do have an advantage in that it can take you closer to your final destination, most commuter trains drop people off at a main station and then people have to transfer. So until we can get more reliable inner city transit, commuter rail will probably not be viable.

[Pleak]

I don't know if it is a US problem. More of a sunbelt problem. There are many cities in America with reliable mass transit.

And Pleak, rail is definitely more attractive to potential transit users than buses. That's not even a debate.

I never said it was not more attractive. What I am arguing is there is no need to replace the P&R system with commuter rail. It would be a massive expense and have only a marginal increase in ridership if any. I am saying why replace a extremely well-run system for something just because it is "cooler"? The people that are pre-disposed to mass transit already use the P&R - it's convenient and easy. There are thousands of people that will not use mass transit for any reason - and a shiny new train would not sway them.

I think they need to expand the P&R system if anything. The lots at West Belfort need garages as there isn't any more room to expand surface parking. Also expand the hours. If you have ever been at the P&R lot in the morning after the last bus leaves - there are probably 30 more people that come up and then drive away when the realize they missed the bus.

[mfastx]

Way to completely hedge your argument. Not sure which way this statement is going. And rail facilities being nicer is a straw argument. If the same amount of $ was spent on bus facilites - you would have just as nice.

I am saying that if we built commuter rail now, ridership wouldn't jump to ridiculous levels overnight. But we would have a more reliable, higher capacity system in place that we can build around which would improve commutes in the future.

You said yourself that the P&R lots are full - which means the buses are full. Perhaps that is an indication that more people would ride public transportation if capacity were increased?

But what other vehicle besides the commuter trains could use the rail lines when not in use? As it stands now, the HOV lanes are utilized by plenty other vehicles and that is going to increase when the conversion to HOT lanes is finished. Then they will become nice little revenue generators (by the way - who gets the money - Metro or HCTRA?) And when the rodeo is in town, the P&R buses become rodeo shuttles - you catch the bus there, travel part of the way on the HOV lane and then exit for the rest of the way via the loop to Reliant Stadium. Don't think a train could do that very easily.

Freight trains is the obvious answer. A commuter rail line would run along existing tracks when possible, and building more trackage would increase freight capacity.

Not sure who gets the money, METRO should IMHO. A train could carry much more riders into downtown and then all you need is a transfer to the light rail and there you go. The commuter rail along highway 90 wouldn't even require a transfer to go to Reliant Park.

You keep saying that. But you haven't shown how. Repeating something does not make it true.

Trust me, it's a fact. I even started a thread on it, so you can see the numbers for yourself.

I want to end by repeating what I said earlier: P&R works great for now, commuter rail won't be much better until we get a more reliable and higher capacity transit system connecting our employment centers. Until that happens, P&R buses do a better job of getting people closer to their final destination without having to transfer to an unreliable local bus.

[Trae]

I never said it was not more attractive. What I am arguing is there is no need to replace the P&R system with commuter rail. It would be a massive expense and have only a marginal increase in ridership if any. I am saying why replace a extremely well-run system for something just because it is "cooler"? The people that are pre-disposed to mass transit already use the P&R - it's convenient and easy. There are thousands of people that will not use mass transit for any reason - and a shiny new train would not sway them.

I think they need to expand the P&R system if anything. The lots at West Belfort need garages as there isn't any more room to expand surface parking. Also expand the hours. If you have ever been at the P&R lot in the morning after the last bus leaves - there are probably 30 more people that come up and then drive away when the realize they missed the bus.

So, expand the Park and Ride service from 4:30 AM until 12AM then. And I do believe having it as rail would keep the riders who currently use it, plus add more. People are more comfortable with riding rails than buses. Commuter rail is just more reliable (less maintenance). I know they are Greyhound type buses, but maybe those buses could be used on express routes in the city or something. Commuter rail along the other half of the Westpark Tollway ROW, 290, etc., would be good for the city. Maybe if Washington decides to spend more on infrastructure, Metro won't be incompetent this time and use funds wisely.

[TheNiche]

What I am arguing is there is no need to replace the P&R system with commuter rail. It would be a massive expense and have only a marginal increase in ridership if any.

Welcome to hell, Pleak. Arguing with mfastx is a time suck. If you bother to try, you should fully expect that he'll coax hours of original research from you, will apply every conceivable logical fallacy to advance an apologistic stance on light rail, and will be intellectually disingenuous in general. It's like arguing with a politician's hired lobbyist. (Yes, he's really that good at wasting your time.) Just say no and walk away.

[SkylineView]

/Walked into the middle of something... turns and exits through the side-door.

[mfastx]

Welcome to hell, Pleak. Arguing with mfastx is a time suck. If you bother to try, you should fully expect that he'll coax hours of original research from you, will apply every conceivable logical fallacy to advance an apologistic stance on light rail, and will be intellectually disingenuous in general. It's like arguing with a politician's hired lobbyist. (Yes, he's really that good at wasting your time.) Just say no and walk away.

Ha! That's funny, cause we aren't even talking about light rail.

If you care to read my posts, I stated that at this point in time I believe that the P&R buses work better than commuter rail would in most areas (yes, I said a bus would work better than rail), at least until we get a more reliable inner-city transit system going.

Edited May 30, 2012 by mfastx

[Blade Runner]

[Triton]

I drove down the Katy area all the way from I-10 to Brazos Bend Park yesterday and I'm amazed how far they've come already. Anyone happen to have anymore aerials or other photos of the progress?

[LTAWACS]

I drove down the Katy area all the way from I-10 to Brazos Bend Park yesterday and I'm amazed how far they've come already. Anyone happen to have anymore aerials or other photos of the progress?

The sprawl? Yes. I'll see if I can post them up.

[SkylineView]

Segments F1, F2, and G (290 - "69") coming by 2015. Construction starts next year.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/ranch/news/developer-selected-for-grand-parkway-expansion/article_e890b41e-b4b5-5ab8-ada9-63036d7aaddc.html

[livincinco]

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that 8 out of 10 home purchases occur outside of the Beltway.

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Homes-outside-Loop-610-draw-8-out-of-10-buyers-4432802.php

[TowerSpotter]

So here is a 3D video of the interchange from highway 45 to the Grand Parkway. (Springwoods village is not added on to it)

 

http://vimeo.com/72909569

 

Also another heres another video

 

http://vimeo.com/71435869

Edited August 23, 2013 by TowerSpotter

[ig2ba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-gzNi6MRwI

http://blog.chron.com/carsandtrucks/2013/12/corvette-hits-200-mph-on-texas-tollway/

 

What a way to christen this new highway! Since Segment E and the North Line extension are opening on or around the same day, it almost seems like a competition. Some people might even see it as a rail vs. road competition of sorts. I wonder what Metro could do to match the publicity and the cool factor of this.