Jump to content

METRORail Green Line


Guest danax

Recommended Posts

Hiring a contractor is not a fire-and-forget exercise. Somebody has to manage the manager. I speak from experience. You don't think that developers just hire a construction guy and then sit back and relax for 18 months, do you!?

No, I don't. I've said this many times, all large construction projects are going to have inefficiencies, and things to criticize. Look at TxDOT. They are known for going way above budget for their construction projects. But apparently for you this isn't a problem. You never question anything when a new freeway is proposed. You don't hold TxDOT and HCTRA to the same standard as METRO. The big picture is whether or not building rail in general is good for the city. There are things to criticize about every large construction project. It's silly to be against constructing something just because of minor issues with construction.

Sixty years of traffic congestion would seem to indicate that employers tend to move their operations to suburban edge cities when access to the central city is suboptimal. As also evidenced by that period of time, building more roads and better roads is the solution of first resort and is highly effective at sustaining a growth rate.

If you'd rather have a suburban city that's fine. I just think that a sustainable urban core to go along with the sprawl is important and more desirable, and large cities around the world demonstrate that. Houston could be a much better city if we make improvements in our public transportation system. I just don't see how sprawling much beyond this point is sustainable. There is no city that demonstrates that simply sprawl without a good core city makes that city a good place to live.

There is a point beyond which more and better roads cannot keep pace with demand, and there are some corridors along which we are beginning to be challenged by that limitation. This is one reason that at a certain population threshold, the rate of growth of a city begins to stagnate even as it has accrued so many highly-desirable 'big city' amenities. Transit is expensive and cumbersome. It becomes a great place to visit in which you wouldn't want to live.

Cumbersome? A rail or BRT line is more cumbersome than a 20 lane highway? And what evidence do you have that the millions of people that live in cities that fit your description don't want to live there?

I'm not saying that only hipsters ride rail, just that hipsters are the only justification for upgrading bus-based transit to rail-based transit because the proletariat was already riding buses in the first place. The hipsters are what's left over to be induced.

Nah, I think that greater efficiency, the ability to attract and carry more riders, and other positive externalities are enough justification for BRT and rail. If you think that only poor people should ride public transportation then I don't know what to say, other than the fact that there are many great cities in this world where poor people aren't the only ones who ride public transport. Try being a little more open-minded.

No, I need a source to prove your absurd statement that Houston's growth is slowing down.

How about census numbers? Houston's population increased only 7% in the last decade, while it increased almost 20% from 1990 to 2000.

I also need a source to prove that displaced bus routes translate to more buses and increased frequency on other routes. This seems unlikely if operating costs for the light rail have to come out of a budget that would've otherwise allowed for more buses. There's only so much money to go around. I'd expect that sacrifices would have to be made because drivers won't work for free.

Wait, what? Operating cost for light rail is cheaper than buses. The operating cost for operating multiple bus lines with low ridership is more than one rail line with higher ridership. Didn't you see the operating cost numbers I posted awhile back? METRO is saving money by having one light rail line on Main Street rather than many parallel redundant bus routes.

To all of your other comments, I mostly just want for you to acknowledge the effect of an economic opportunity cost. It's great to have options, but it is also good to have less public debt or lower taxes or better roads...or something altogether different, like more parks. There's lots of stuff worth doing, but only so much to do it with.

That's a good point. And that's why I'm advocating for more funding towards public transportation. I am also a strong advocate towards more funding for surface roads.

Huh? What are you trying to say?

I'm trying to say that the reason cost of living is relatively low, even towards the city center, is that Houston does not have amenities like good public transportation, walkability, etc. that other large cities do. Which is why people are willing to pay more to live in another city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't. I've said this many times, all large construction projects are going to have inefficiencies, and things to criticize. Look at TxDOT. They are known for going way above budget for their construction projects. But apparently for you this isn't a problem. You never question anything when a new freeway is proposed. You don't hold TxDOT and HCTRA to the same standard as METRO. The big picture is whether or not building rail in general is good for the city. There are things to criticize about every large construction project. It's silly to be against constructing something just because of minor issues with construction.

Your memory is poor. I don't like TXDoT. I've said this many times.

I support tolling all existing, replacement, and brand new freeways under HCTRA or private ownership regulated under the umbrella of a regional transportation authority whose board members are elected in a manner similar to how school district board members are currently elected.

And I'm pretty much okay with HCTRA. They're well reputed. If things change, then I'll re-examine my support of them in their current form.

If you'd rather have a suburban city that's fine. I just think that a sustainable urban core to go along with the sprawl is important and more desirable, and large cities around the world demonstrate that. Houston could be a much better city if we make improvements in our public transportation system. I just don't see how sprawling much beyond this point is sustainable. There is no city that demonstrates that simply sprawl without a good core city makes that city a good place to live.

We have a suburban city. Unless you've got a time machine in your back pocket that'll put Humpty Dumpty back together again, we're stuck with the city as it exists in courthouse records. It comprises millions of parcels, most of them deed restricted and under fragmented ownership. We could spend $100 billion on inner-city transit, and it wouldn't change what we are...except that we'd be much poorer.

IMO, a sustainable urban core and suburbs go hand-in-hand. The suburbs act as a relief valve on demand and pricing, keeping the urban core affordable to a wide cross-section of society (unlike Paris), basically anybody that desires to live in it. And we accomplish this without constructing gigantic public housing projects or having to enact price ceilings (unlike New York City).

That's what is great about Houston is that anybody that is willing and able to work can live well, and also according to personal choice. And if we aren't expensive or exclusive enough for someone, then they can move somewhere else. I don't want that kind of person voting in my city.

Cumbersome? A rail or BRT line is more cumbersome than a 20 lane highway? And what evidence do you have that the millions of people that live in cities that fit your description don't want to live there?

Yes, the experience of using public transportation is far more cumbersome than simply driving around however one pleases. It's slower, it requires an accounting for routes, schedules, and weather. And even if it doesn't seem expensive on the face of it, that's only because farebox recovery is so abysmal.

And my evidence that people prefer to live in a city like Houston is that they're moving here, away from there.

Nah, I think that greater efficiency, the ability to attract and carry more riders, and other positive externalities are enough justification for BRT and rail. If you think that only poor people should ride public transportation then I don't know what to say, other than the fact that there are many great cities in this world where poor people aren't the only ones who ride public transport. Try being a little more open-minded.

Try engaging in a little more reading comprehension.

How about census numbers? Houston's population increased only 7% in the last decade, while it increased almost 20% from 1990 to 2000.

Yes, how about actual Census numbers?

2010: 5,964,800 (+1,295,229) (+28%)

2000: 4,669,571 (+938,440) (+25%)

1990: 3,731,131

Our rate of population growth is accelerating, both numerically and in percentage terms.

Wait, what? Operating cost for light rail is cheaper than buses. The operating cost for operating multiple bus lines with low ridership is more than one rail line with higher ridership. Didn't you see the operating cost numbers I posted awhile back? METRO is saving money by having one light rail line on Main Street rather than many parallel redundant bus routes.

That's an excellent answer to a question that wasn't asked. Try again.

That's a good point. And that's why I'm advocating for more funding towards public transportation. I am also a strong advocate towards more funding for surface roads.

Doesn't seem like it from where I'm sitting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your memory is poor. I don't like TXDoT. I've said this many times.

I support tolling all existing, replacement, and brand new freeways under HCTRA or private ownership regulated under the umbrella of a regional transportation authority whose board members are elected in a manner similar to how school district board members are currently elected.

And I'm pretty much okay with HCTRA. They're well reputed. If things change, then I'll re-examine my support of them in their current form.

Maybe. But over in that downtown freeway roundabout thread you seem to have no problem with letting TxDOT take on such a huge project.

We have a suburban city. Unless you've got a time machine in your back pocket that'll put Humpty Dumpty back together again, we're stuck with the city as it exists in courthouse records. It comprises millions of parcels, most of them deed restricted and under fragmented ownership. We could spend $100 billion on inner-city transit, and it wouldn't change what we are...except that we'd be much poorer.

IMO, a sustainable urban core and suburbs go hand-in-hand. The suburbs act as a relief valve on demand and pricing, keeping the urban core affordable to a wide cross-section of society (unlike Paris), basically anybody that desires to live in it. And we accomplish this without constructing gigantic public housing projects or having to enact price ceilings (unlike New York City).

That's what is great about Houston is that anybody that is willing and able to work can live well, and also according to personal choice. And if we aren't expensive or exclusive enough for someone, then they can move somewhere else. I don't want that kind of person voting in my city.

I realize that. But things can be done to better manage future growth. Allowing for and promoting denser core city growth will in turn allow for even more suburban growth. Win-win. And considering the fact that many, many more people live in Paris and New York City than Houston says that plenty of people like living in those cities. Both of those cities have large suburban areas just like Houston.

I guess we just have different tastes. We always end up with the same discussion.

Yes, the experience of using public transportation is far more cumbersome than simply driving around however one pleases. It's slower, it requires an accounting for routes, schedules, and weather. And even if it doesn't seem expensive on the face of it, that's only because farebox recovery is so abysmal.

And my evidence that people prefer to live in a city like Houston is that they're moving here, away from there.

Well now that you've clarified, I see your point. Again it boils down to taste. Many like the fact that they can be productive on their commute, and do not like the stress associated with driving. I am one of those people.

And on your second point, I'd say that the majority of people moving down here are doing so due to economical reasons, and work opportunites. Not because they think Houston is a nice city.

Yes, how about actual Census numbers?

2010: 5,964,800 (+1,295,229) (+28%)

2000: 4,669,571 (+938,440) (+25%)

1990: 3,731,131

Our rate of population growth is accelerating, both numerically and in percentage terms.

I was referring to the actual city of Houston's population. The growth you see is suburban growth, not inner city growth. Considering the fact that we are discussing building an inner-city light rail line(s) that would be located completely within the city of Houston, I'd say that the actual city of Houston's growth is more relevant.

That's an excellent answer to a question that wasn't asked. Try again.

It's hard to explain via an internet board. Basically - when a rail line gets built, it replaces bus lines, no? In Houston's case, it replaced numerous bus lines. Now, all of the buses that used to run on those lines now do not anymore. Where do those buses go? Do they just sit there? Get thrown away? No, METRO can now use them on other routes. And considering the fact that the new light rail line is cheaper to operate than the original bus lines, METRO can use the money they save and operate those buses elsewhere in the system.

Doesn't seem like it from where I'm sitting.

I've advocated on this board numerous times for an additional tax to replace the GMP - and returning METRO's full sales tax to go towards operating transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. But over in that downtown freeway roundabout thread you seem to have no problem with letting TxDOT take on such a huge project.

You're imagining things and confusing the issues.

I realize that. But things can be done to better manage future growth. Allowing for and promoting denser core city growth will in turn allow for even more suburban growth. Win-win. And considering the fact that many, many more people live in Paris and New York City than Houston says that plenty of people like living in those cities. Both of those cities have large suburban areas just like Houston.

I guess we just have different tastes. We always end up with the same discussion.

Well yeah...NYC and Paris have a few (hundred) years on us. My point had nothing to do with the size of a city and everything to do with failed policy responses to big city issues, which are issues that ease of access to our suburbs allow us to duck. We won't be able to avoid them forever, but we can right now.

Well now that you've clarified, I see your point. Again it boils down to taste. Many like the fact that they can be productive on their commute, and do not like the stress associated with driving. I am one of those people.

And on your second point, I'd say that the majority of people moving down here are doing so due to economical reasons, and work opportunites. Not because they think Houston is a nice city.

Many people live in River Oaks. Many people work in The Woodlands. It's just that they aren't that many in the grand scheme of things.

I was referring to the actual city of Houston's population. The growth you see is suburban growth, not inner city growth. Considering the fact that we are discussing building an inner-city light rail line(s) that would be located completely within the city of Houston, I'd say that the actual city of Houston's growth is more relevant.

Population growth within the boundaries of the municipality are irrelevant. For one thing, the boundaries change. Houston engaged in a spree of annexations in the early- and mid-90's, adding approximately 100,000 to its population base and culminating in the annexation of Kingwood in 1996. As a consequence of the political outcry that resulted, the City's policies toward annexation have been far less aggressive ever since, concentrating on taking in commercial properties by way of 'Limited Purpose Annexations' to the exclusion of residential areas.

Interestingly, however, LPA's have allowed the City to collect sales taxes from people that live in northwest Harris County that do not receive the benefit of City of Houston services within their neighborhoods. And of course, all those people are within METRO's service area. So yeah, I wouldn't count them out as being irrelevant. ...it's just that you need to recognize the realities of public finance. The money doesn't grow on trees. It comes from people. There's only so much to go around.

It's hard to explain via an internet board. Basically - when a rail line gets built, it replaces bus lines, no? In Houston's case, it replaced numerous bus lines. Now, all of the buses that used to run on those lines now do not anymore. Where do those buses go? Do they just sit there? Get thrown away? No, METRO can now use them on other routes. And considering the fact that the new light rail line is cheaper to operate than the original bus lines, METRO can use the money they save and operate those buses elsewhere in the system.

When METRO issues construction bonds to finance a capital expenditure, it has to pay them down concurrent with operating expenses. Take these into account alongside the time value of money, and light rail's lower operating costs cease to remain a compelling argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. But over in that downtown freeway roundabout thread you seem to have no problem with letting TxDOT take on such a huge project.

Well, to be fair, there's way more people using the freeways than public transport. 40k a year on the red line, Pierce elevated probably sees that in half a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair, there's way more people using the freeways than public transport. 40k a year on the red line, Pierce elevated probably sees that in half a day.

and that's the essence of METRO's LRT controversy. in important ways LRT in a city like Houston is the tail wagging the dog.

it's not that LRT doesn't fit well as a transit option in Houston, it's just that METRO's plans for the lines, esp the Univ & Uptown, promise to decrease mobility along the routes.

and the primary reason for that is METRO's designs are for lines built and operated as cheaply as possible rather than as efficiently as possible. and the reasons for that failure of planning rest entirely on the money available given what was/is politically possible for transit in Houston.

any plan that decreases mobility in a sprawling, automobile-dependent city is foolish, at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not that LRT doesn't fit well as a transit option in Houston, it's just that METRO's plans for the lines, esp the Univ & Uptown, promise to decrease mobility along the routes.

and the primary reason for that is METRO's designs are for lines built and operated as cheaply as possible rather than as efficiently as possible. and the reasons for that failure of planning rest entirely on the money available given what was/is politically possible for transit in Houston.

Metro's biggest problem is itself. It's unable to deliver half-assed in half the time at half the cost. Even if you are the biggest rail fan in the world you'll be gone and buried before Metro moves their train set from grandma's attic to the real world. Mobility has nothing to do with rail routes, it's political influence from competing local special interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to say that the reason cost of living is relatively low, even towards the city center, is that Houston does not have amenities like good public transportation, walkability, etc. that other large cities do. Which is why people are willing to pay more to live in another city.

Our overall low housing prices are because of abundant supply, not a lack of demand. With more than 125,000 people moving to the metro area every year, there is no shortage of demand.

IF the delta between our close-in housing and the far suburb housing is less than that delta, in, e.g., Chicago, there may be a case for what you are positing. Anyone have any idea about the relative premiums for close-in housing in various metropolitan areas?

Edited by Houston19514
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using Goldman Sachs as a moral compass may not be the most appropriate, unless, of course, you're some kind of a criminal.

Having read through many of the arguments and counter arguments concerning light rail in particular and mass transit in general, I would like to make one observation:

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then it has to be paid for. And that costs money. You get taxed. And that means that you have less discretionary income and that your lifestyle will suffer in some other way. If the luxury of choice of transportation modes is foisted upon you by government, then the only choice that you are left with is which other luxury you'll consume less of.

But freeways also cost money. And so do cars.

Texas drops billions and billions of dollars each year on new freeways, and no one ever gives it a second look. But the very second someone mentions rail, everyone is up in arms about it. The amount of spending for public transit that is spent in this state is ABYSMAL compared to the golden calf that is our never-ending freeway budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are not many luxuries - that is to say, other people's priorities -- "foisted upon one by government?" RandomIy: I choose to live without medical care but I see that it's something that other well people very much enjoy, and government spending on "health care" reflects that. Some people enjoy the luxury of bass fishing in a reservoir, and God knows the state of Texas facilitates it. For myself I would enjoy having the bottomland back. When the little guy went to kindergarten, I wished he could come home at noon. But the schoolday went to three, and I understood that this was long-since instituted as an aid to working women, and a school district would be thought backwards if it did not offer full-day kindergarten; still, in this relatively affluent area, it was a luxury, and not one that I sought.

Rail fails for most of you on a number of counts, I realize, but this zero-sum argument eludes me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're imagining things and confusing the issues.

Alright.

Well yeah...NYC and Paris have a few (hundred) years on us. My point had nothing to do with the size of a city and everything to do with failed policy responses to big city issues, which are issues that ease of access to our suburbs allow us to duck. We won't be able to avoid them forever, but we can right now.

I see your point, I just want a head start that's all.

Interestingly, however, LPA's have allowed the City to collect sales taxes from people that live in northwest Harris County that do not receive the benefit of City of Houston services within their neighborhoods. And of course, all those people are within METRO's service area. So yeah, I wouldn't count them out as being irrelevant. ...it's just that you need to recognize the realities of public finance. The money doesn't grow on trees. It comes from people. There's only so much to go around.

I do recognize that. People are in favor of more funding towards transit. Unfortunately the politics of this city are preventing that.

When METRO issues construction bonds to finance a capital expenditure, it has to pay them down concurrent with operating expenses. Take these into account alongside the time value of money, and light rail's lower operating costs cease to remain a compelling argument.

Right, but expenditure of bond payments are temporary.

Niche, you make a great argument against rail. However, nearly every other major city sees rail as an important mode of public transportationn, alongside BRT and local buses. Do you think that all other cities are wrong to be building and expanding rail? I realize that not every other city is like Houston, but I strongly believe that certain corridors in Houston are ready for rail now. You constantly talk of the Red Line being a "low hanging fruit," and suggest that it's success is only due to the fact that some bus lines were truncated and now feed into it. Do you think that the Red Line shouldn't have been built? Would we be better off without rail at all? Do you think that rail can be effective at all in Houston today?

Well, to be fair, there's way more people using the freeways than public transport. 40k a year on the red line, Pierce elevated probably sees that in half a day.

That's true. Although actually the Red Line sees roughly 40k a day, not a year. And I'm sure the Pierce sees more than that in half a day. And I'm completely in favor of highway projects. But remember that highways are so well utilized simply due to the enormous amount of money invested in them. If we invested the same amount of money that we did on our freeways (billions and billions of dollars, who knows) on public transportation, we'd have much more ridership on public transportation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But freeways also cost money. And so do cars.

Texas drops billions and billions of dollars each year on new freeways, and no one ever gives it a second look. But the very second someone mentions rail, everyone is up in arms about it. The amount of spending for public transit that is spent in this state is ABYSMAL compared to the golden calf that is our never-ending freeway budget.

Freeways and cars are money better spent. It only seems as though they are more expensive because individuals that buy new cars tend to have more money and better credit and make purchases that exceed the necessity of personal mobility in order to accommodate personal preferences for luxury and status. Consequently, car manufacturers make new cars to cater to the wants and desires of new car buyers. The purposefully inefficient newer cars eventually become older, and then poor people have to buy them and put up with them.

Take the Tata Nano as an example of what could be. It costs about $3,000 and gets 56 mpg (per U.S. measurement standards). There's a diesel model in the works with fuel efficiency approaching 100 mpg. I would expect that smaller, uncomplicated, inexpensive cars would have lower insurance and maintenance costs, that lighter vehicles would cause less deterioration to pavement and other infrastructure, and that small ultra-compact vehicles could give rise to codes allowing for more efficient parking lot layouts.

It would only cost $189 million to purchase a Tata Nano for each and every one of the 62,951 people that commutes using public transportation anywhere in the ten-county metropolitan area according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That is approximately one half of the cost of the original seven-mile Red Line by itself, allowing people access to tens of thousands of lane miles of road in our region and to work anywhere they please.

The Tata Nano is the best federal program that won't ever be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but expenditure of bond payments are temporary.

Well sure, until the system outlives its economic life expectancy, LRT vehicles have to be replaced, maintenance and repair costs for the fixed assets increase, and the system ultimately becomes so dysfunctional as to merit replacement.

Entropy happens.

Niche, you make a great argument against rail. However, nearly every other major city sees rail as an important mode of public transportationn, alongside BRT and local buses. Do you think that all other cities are wrong to be building and expanding rail? I realize that not every other city is like Houston, but I strongly believe that certain corridors in Houston are ready for rail now. You constantly talk of the Red Line being a "low hanging fruit," and suggest that it's success is only due to the fact that some bus lines were truncated and now feed into it. Do you think that the Red Line shouldn't have been built? Would we be better off without rail at all? Do you think that rail can be effective at all in Houston today?

Nearly every major city underfunded their employee pension funds. Houston was among those, unfortunately. Just because a way of doing things is common does not mean that we should let it slide. If mine is a good argument, then it should be considered on its merits.

The only routes that I see as having been within the realm of consideration are the Red Line and portions of the University Line, and I would've done a lot of things different...probably spending even more money than had been proposed (at some future date, inflation-adjusted) to keep it from being so half-assed. And the story of the Red Line isn't only about bus route truncation. That's part of it. The other part is that it replaced TMC shuttles to outlying parking lots and prompted the elimination of Downtown and Midtown trolleys, and that although the line as a whole is touted as having relatively high-ridership per mile, that it is only because it is so short. If it were compared against high-profile equally-short segments of light rail in other systems, I suspect that it would be a fairly middling route.

If we invested the same amount of money that we did on our freeways (billions and billions of dollars, who knows) on public transportation, we'd have much more ridership on public transportation.

So let's say that we had a sales tax of 10% for public transportation, ten times more than at present and possibly an even higher multiple depending on whether the GM payments remained proportional or not. Does transit ridership increase from only 2.3% of commuters because the transit is better or because people are poorer and less able to afford nice things? Is the increase proportional with transit spending (so that it's now 23% of commuters), or are new homebuyers of 'Forest Glen Valley Brook Canyon' still trapped behind the gates of their master-planned community, miles away from a major thoroughfare, reverse commuting to an employer in a non-METRO jurisdiction, who relocated because the employer didn't want its clients to have to pay insane sales taxes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freeways and cars are money better spent. It only seems as though they are more expensive because individuals that buy new cars tend to have more money and better credit and make purchases that exceed the necessity of personal mobility in order to accommodate personal preferences for luxury and status. Consequently, car manufacturers make new cars to cater to the wants and desires of new car buyers. The purposefully inefficient newer cars eventually become older, and then poor people have to buy them and put up with them.

Take the Tata Nano as an example of what could be. It costs about $3,000 and gets 56 mpg (per U.S. measurement standards). There's a diesel model in the works with fuel efficiency approaching 100 mpg. I would expect that smaller, uncomplicated, inexpensive cars would have lower insurance and maintenance costs, that lighter vehicles would cause less deterioration to pavement and other infrastructure, and that small ultra-compact vehicles could give rise to codes allowing for more efficient parking lot layouts.

It would only cost $189 million to purchase a Tata Nano for each and every one of the 62,951 people that commutes using public transportation anywhere in the ten-county metropolitan area according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That is approximately one half of the cost of the original seven-mile Red Line by itself, allowing people access to tens of thousands of lane miles of road in our region and to work anywhere they please.

The Tata Nano is the best federal program that won't ever be.

It costs $3000 in India. It would cost $7K-$8K here. http://www.egmcartech.com/2011/03/19/tata-chairman-says-u-s-nano-would-cost-around-7000-to-8000/

Granted, that still would make it the cheapest car in America, beating out the Nissan Versa by $3000. But until it actually exists as an option, it's speculative.

But then who is going to pay for the maintenance on all these vehicles, and replacing totaled ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It costs $3000 in India. It would cost $7K-$8K here. http://www.egmcartec...d-7000-to-8000/

Granted, that still would make it the cheapest car in America, beating out the Nissan Versa by $3000. But until it actually exists as an option, it's speculative.

But then who is going to pay for the maintenance on all these vehicles, and replacing totaled ones?

Okay, so it would cost as much as the Red Line. That's still plenty fine by me. Either the user pays or they get a maintenance or insurance voucher to cover a portion of the cost. It shouldn't be totally free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so it would cost as much as the Red Line. That's still plenty fine by me. Either the user pays or they get a maintenance or insurance voucher to cover a portion of the cost. It shouldn't be totally free.

Do you know the names of the 62K transit users, or does Metro? I don't see how you'd keep others from getting the free car. And why should it be limited to them? Shouldn't it be offered to anyone who wants or needs it, even those that aren't currently on Metro's routes?

Edited by kylejack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well sure, until the system outlives its economic life expectancy, LRT vehicles have to be replaced, maintenance and repair costs for the fixed assets increase, and the system ultimately becomes so dysfunctional as to merit replacement.

Entropy happens.

The life expantancy of a LRV is usually pretty long, upwards of 30-40 years. As far as the actual line goes, Boston's Green line has been running for over a century. Sure, tracks need to be replaced every few decades, and every 40-50 years some stations need to be modified. But overall rail lines last pretty long.

Now I would like to see parts of the Red Line submerged in the future (TMC, Downtown segments). But unfortunately I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

Nearly every major city underfunded their employee pension funds. Houston was among those, unfortunately. Just because a way of doing things is common does not mean that we should let it slide. If mine is a good argument, then it should be considered on its merits.

The only routes that I see as having been within the realm of consideration are the Red Line and portions of the University Line, and I would've done a lot of things different...probably spending even more money than had been proposed (at some future date, inflation-adjusted) to keep it from being so half-assed. And the story of the Red Line isn't only about bus route truncation. That's part of it. The other part is that it replaced TMC shuttles to outlying parking lots and prompted the elimination of Downtown and Midtown trolleys, and that although the line as a whole is touted as having relatively high-ridership per mile, that it is only because it is so short. If it were compared against high-profile equally-short segments of light rail in other systems, I suspect that it would be a fairly middling route.

Hopefully in the future modifications to the Red Line will happen. Submerging it, allowing for longer trains, maybe even way off in the future even converting it to heavy rail. Who knows. But I agree that I would do the University Line a bit differently. But the way I see it, it's currently what's on the table, and I'll support it. Now that it will be delayed until I am an old man, it's possible that some changes in the design will happen before it's eventually constructed (which it hopefully will be).

So let's say that we had a sales tax of 10% for public transportation, ten times more than at present and possibly an even higher multiple depending on whether the GM payments remained proportional or not. Does transit ridership increase from only 2.3% of commuters because the transit is better or because people are poorer and less able to afford nice things? Is the increase proportional with transit spending (so that it's now 23% of commuters), or are new homebuyers of 'Forest Glen Valley Brook Canyon' still trapped behind the gates of their master-planned community, miles away from a major thoroughfare, reverse commuting to an employer in a non-METRO jurisdiction, who relocated because the employer didn't want its clients to have to pay insane sales taxes?

There's a middle ground. A full 1% tax (no GMP) going towards transit is sufficient. Remember METRO had plenty of funds to build heavy rail in the 80s. If they get that whole 1% it should be enough. Perhaps an additional 1% or .5% for short periods of times at voter discretion to fund large capital projects, like expansion or rennovation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know the names of the 62K transit users, or does Metro? I don't see how you'd keep others from getting the free car. And why should it be limited to them? Shouldn't it be offered to anyone who wants or needs it, even those that aren't currently on Metro's routes?

It should be a federal program available as an option to anybody below a particular poverty threshold. And then the federal government should remove itself from all but interstate transportation and the breaking up of government-sponsored taxi cab cartels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The life expantancy of a LRV is usually pretty long, upwards of 30-40 years. As far as the actual line goes, Boston's Green line has been running for over a century. Sure, tracks need to be replaced every few decades, and every 40-50 years some stations need to be modified. But overall rail lines last pretty long.

Now I would like to see parts of the Red Line submerged in the future (TMC, Downtown segments). But unfortunately I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

Hopefully in the future modifications to the Red Line will happen. Submerging it, allowing for longer trains, maybe even way off in the future even converting it to heavy rail. Who knows.

Oh, well I'm sorry to see that the concept of an economic life expectancy did not take. Besides which...what is the maturity of the bond issues? Have you bothered to ask that question? No, of course not.

But I agree that I would do the University Line a bit differently. But the way I see it, it's currently what's on the table, and I'll support it. Now that it will be delayed until I am an old man, it's possible that some changes in the design will happen before it's eventually constructed (which it hopefully will be).

There's a middle ground. A full 1% tax (no GMP) going towards transit is sufficient. Remember METRO had plenty of funds to build heavy rail in the 80s. If they get that whole 1% it should be enough. Perhaps an additional 1% or .5% for short periods of times at voter discretion to fund large capital projects, like expansion or rennovation.

What exactly is on the table? From the sound of things, regardless of the outcomes regarding GM payments, the University Line will have to be re-planned from the beginning of the process. Anything could happen at any time...but not now...which is just the way I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a middle ground. A full 1% tax (no GMP) going towards transit is sufficient. Remember METRO had plenty of funds to build heavy rail in the 80s. If they get that whole 1% it should be enough. Perhaps an additional 1% or .5% for short periods of times at voter discretion to fund large capital projects, like expansion or rennovation.

So what's the benefit for the people who live out in the County from the Metro sales tax if the GMP isn't part of it? 20 years of cramped 2 lane roads like 1960 used to be? How do the Memorial Villages fund maintenance to Memorial Drive and other streets that are heavily used by Metro buses and residents of Houston? Road work has to be part of the transit equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is on the table? From the sound of things, regardless of the outcomes regarding GM payments, the University Line will have to be re-planned from the beginning of the process. Anything could happen at any time...but not now...which is just the way I like it.

Glad you're happy.

So what's the benefit for the people who live out in the County from the Metro sales tax if the GMP isn't part of it? 20 years of cramped 2 lane roads like 1960 used to be? How do the Memorial Villages fund maintenance to Memorial Drive and other streets that are heavily used by Metro buses and residents of Houston? Road work has to be part of the transit equation.

The benefit is having better public transportation for the city obviously. Having a better functioning city attracts even more people to the region, even if they aren't necessarily living near downtown.

The villages should fund roads through their own taxes.

And no, road work doesn't need to be part of the transit equation actually. While METRO buses run on streets, the voter approved sales tax towards METRO goes towards operating buses, not building roads. Can you give me an example of another city where a public transportation system is responsible for building roads?

Let me ask you, what's the benefit to people living in Houston to fund highways out to outlying areas? Same concept. Creating a better transit system to take more cars off the roads benefits everyone.

Edited by mfastx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, road work doesn't need to be part of the transit equation actually. While METRO buses run on streets, the voter approved sales tax towards METRO goes towards operating buses, not building roads. Can you give me an example of another city where a public transportation system is responsible for building roads?

in my town, I don't think our transit system has to fund roads, but it is responsible for some portion of sidewalk construction, I guess on the assumption that pedestrians could only ever be en route to a bus stop. Here, the intractable point of contention is the "paratransit" door-to-door van service it must offer various groups, which apparently accounts for 20% of its operating budget. Is this not an issue in Houston because of your much bigger scale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freeways and cars are money better spent...

Take the Tata Nano as an example of what could be. It costs about $3,000 and gets 56 mpg (per U.S. measurement standards)... It would only cost $189 million to purchase a Tata Nano for each and every one of the 62,951 people that commutes using public transportation anywhere in the ten-county metropolitan area according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Tata Nano is the best federal program that won't ever be.

That sounds lovely, if only everyone drove Tata Nanos. As things stand, it seems like asking the poor to accept a very dangerous mission in the service of social engineering. According to P.J. O'Rourke, the Tatas don't do too well versus cows, or other Tatas or even perhaps bicycles, on the Grand Trunk Road (my apologies for the dorky website):

http://casnocha.com/...ourke_on_i.html

I myself recklessly drive a Nissan Versa. (A wrecked rental-fleet Nissan Versa from Carmax! it is definitely not for "Car and Driver"-types, but I love it, and it's not really all that little. It gets about 40 mpg.)

Momentarily moving off to the siding of the train thread -- I don't think it will be Tata Nano Month in Texas any time soon. In India, yes, every month:

In 2005, Indian vehicles released 219 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

By 2035, that number is projected to increase to 1,467 million tons, due largely to the expanding middle-class and the expected rise of low-cost cars, according to the Asian Development Bank.

If only I could convert things into percentages (Barbie: "Math is hard!") I think that would sound like a lot! But I guess it would just reinforce Americans' irrelevance to something that is irrelevant to you, The Niche.

The above was from an outdated 2008 USA Today article linked to here:

http://www.nationalr...greg-pollowitz#

Sorry the figures aren't current, but what you had written about the Tata Nano had a slight post-Buckley National Review tang to it, so that's where I went looking.

Edited by luciaphile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can give two examples of sprawling cities with great rail systems and high ridership: Mexico City and Delhi, and Delhi's is fairly recent. Saying Houston can't use one is an excuse for those with a political agenda. Build a good system, and people will ride. Asking automobiles to be subsidized sounds like a lobbyist scam similar to GM buying up tracks and ripping them out of the ground, or a certain former highway commissioner blocking funding of heavy rail transport but building gargantuan highways and selling land cheap in the suburbs, in order to give people no logical choice but to drive, even if that's not the ideal, or even possible, option, sound familiar?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my town, I don't think our transit system has to fund roads, but it is responsible for some portion of sidewalk construction, I guess on the assumption that pedestrians could only ever be en route to a bus stop. Here, the intractable point of contention is the "paratransit" door-to-door van service it must offer various groups, which apparently accounts for 20% of its operating budget. Is this not an issue in Houston because of your much bigger scale?

Sidewalk construction makes sense, in the same vein as that HCTRA is required to contribute toward non-tolled roads if those roads help to improve access to its tolled facilities.

METRO has to provide paratransit, too, right along with even rural areas of Texas. Where there isn't a transit agency, they get implemented under one of the regional 'Councils of Government'.

That sounds lovely, if only everyone drove Tata Nanos. As things stand, it seems like asking the poor to accept a very dangerous mission in the service of social engineering. According to P.J. O'Rourke, the Tatas don't do too well versus cows, or other Tatas or even perhaps bicycles, on the Grand Trunk Road (my apologies for the dorky website):

http://casnocha.com/...ourke_on_i.html

I myself recklessly drive a Nissan Versa. (A wrecked rental-fleet Nissan Versa from Carmax! it is definitely not for "Car and Driver"-types, but I love it, and it's not really all that little. It gets about 40 mpg.)

Momentarily moving off to the siding of the train thread -- I don't think it will be Tata Nano Month in Texas any time soon. In India, yes, every month:

In 2005, Indian vehicles released 219 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

By 2035, that number is projected to increase to 1,467 million tons, due largely to the expanding middle-class and the expected rise of low-cost cars, according to the Asian Development Bank.

If only I could convert things into percentages (Barbie: "Math is hard!") I think that would sound like a lot! But I guess it would just reinforce Americans' irrelevance to something that is irrelevant to you, The Niche.

The above was from an outdated 2008 USA Today article linked to here:

http://www.nationalr...greg-pollowitz#

Sorry the figures aren't current, but what you had written about the Tata Nano had a slight post-Buckley National Review tang to it, so that's where I went looking.

My understanding is that the Tata Nano actually isn't selling very well in India because its so minimalist. Indian new-car-buyers are as enamored by luxuries as American new-car-buyers, and whereas the low-end of the market is dominated by motorcycles. Where safety is concerned, motorcycles are where I draw the line. I wouldn't want those to be subsidized because their benefits are offset by healthcare costs.

As for pollution issues, the Tata Nano or something like it seems like a good idea for the United States. Our fleet average for light vehicles actually being used on the road is 18 mpg. Anything to improve that is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...