METRORail Green Line

[TGM]

We are headed for permanent gridlock if something isn't done.

How can we have permanent gridlock when peak oil and polar ice melts will render all transport systems obsolete?

[samagon]

I think nothing short of Haussmann's Renovation of Paris will please the Thomas the train crowd. And why not when they hold the belief that their public transport plans trump private property rights.

This of course, can be said another way..

It's hard to please the fans of hotwheels. And why not when they hold the belief that their need to get somewhere unfettered by traffic on a freeway include plowing right through the middle of someones neighborhood, trumping that individuals rights all to placate their desire to get somewhere a few minutes earlier.

moo. Silly argument is silly, cause I'm sure somewhere along in the middle we can all play with our hotwheels and train sets in the same room, at the same time.

And btw, you'd certainly not ever play on a public golf course, their greens are way too slow, and they don't have complimentary dry cleaning while you're doing your round of 18.

[Slick Vik]

How would heavy rail help Pleasantville? On account of that Pleasantville is close-in (not even outside the loop), that heavy rail stops may not be convenient to it and might require that a bus actually back-track away from the city to reach one, and that a transfer to a mode that doesn't provide as frequent a service, I think that it'd probably be cheaper and more convenient just to bus them directly into town...if that's where they're headed in the first place.

Heavy rail only replaces P&R on managed lanes with something that is less flexible and inappropriate for a polycentric city. And moreover, by servicing the far-out suburbs, it actually provides additional impetus for suburban sprawl and private automobile ownership and use (because most people will drive to P&R lots). I know, I know...you want buses to connect everywhere. But consider the way that subdivisions have been laid out. The streets aren't laid out to accommodate someone's mile-long walk to a bus stop along streets without sidewalks and they aren't ever going to be. What's there is there, and it's still what is getting built.

That's right, as we become a really big city, we have to deal with really big city problems. Gridlock is among them, and there isn't anything we can do to avoid it. A mass transit system shall be as necessary just like sewers are necessary. But for now...we're only a moderately large city. We should build and cross the transit bridge when we get to it.

Moderately large? Another lie. Just stop it niche, really.

[TheNiche]

Where do most of the people who live in pleasantville work? I'm guessing they work as longshoremen, or in a refinery along 225. In an ideal system, they could hop a local bus that would include the ship channel, or overlap another circulator that did get them to the ship channel. For those that work out along 225, they might have to take the rail into town, where they would hop another one back out down 225 and get off close to their refinery.

Nope. According to the Census' LEHD program, there are 908 workers that live in Pleasantville. However, only 31 workers from Pleasantville that are employed east of 610, north of 225, west of SH 330 in Baytown, and south of I-10 (3%). And a fair number of those are right off of I-10 where there's a lot of retail and some office space. By comparison, there were 28 workers from Pleasantville employed downtown (3%).

The fact is, Pleasantvillites work pretty much all over. Their workplaces are concentrated disproportionately on the eastern side of the metro area, but you simply cannot predict where they might should work based on proximity. The real world doesn't work like Sim City.

I know Houston isn't constricted as some places in Europe, but I think if you took a trip out to Munich and partook of their mass transit for getting to and from each brewery, cause that's what you should do when you visit Munich (and maybe take in the BMW museum, it's pretty awesome), you'd get a feel for how a complete system really works (so long as you don't go when they're on strike).

When I was in Munich, I caught a bus to Innsbruck. It was a large, cushy, comfortable bus and it drove on smooth roads. And believe it or not, their bus didn't even smell like pee. That's the sort of luxury and comfort that I would envision for Houston's P&R system as well as an inexpensive and highly effective BRT system; it would be achievable except that we've been so financially bled by a myopic obsession with rail-based transit.

[TheNiche]

I think you are living in an alternate universe. You've obviously never lived somewhere with an efficient transit system. Buses and jitney are not the answer unless you are in la la land on strong hallucigens.

Lay off the crack pipe niche. Light rail is good for a certain corridor but I'm more an advocate for heavy rail. This idea Houston is better than, um, every other major sized city on earth sounds absurd. We are headed for permanent gridlock if something isn't done.

Moderately large? Another lie. Just stop it niche, really.

If you don't want to see what I say, then there's an option to turn me off so that you won't see my comments. If you want to vent and attack me personally, or if you want to lob unfounded accusations of dishonesty at me, then don't waste everyone's time with that garbage. Just PM me instead.

[IHB2]

What percentage of people in the world own an automobile? You sound like a GM plant.

Less than 10% worldwide, but most of that is outside the METRO service area unless Christof becomes emperor of the world.

But Houston estimates are at least 90% of households have 1 or more cars, and over 95% of people drive to go anywhere in the METRO service area.

Within the METRO service area, and especially regarding the East Side Line, it is difficult to see what LRT will accomplish that buses will not - given the difference in capital costs - in either reducing automobile congestion or providing more transit choices for those that rely on public transportation only.

[kylejack]

Less than 10% worldwide, but most of that is outside the METRO service area unless Christof becomes emperor of the world.

But Houston estimates are at least 90% of households have 1 or more cars, and over 95% of people drive to go anywhere in the METRO service area.

Within the METRO service area, and especially regarding the East Side Line, it is difficult to see what LRT will accomplish that buses will not - given the difference in capital costs - in either reducing automobile congestion or providing more transit choices for those that rely on public transportation only.

Well, I was trying to get back from lunch today, and the 44 never came. I walked to the light rail, because I knew I could rely on it to be regular from previous experience.

[IHB2]

Well, I was trying to get back from lunch today, and the 44 never came. I walked to the light rail, because I knew I could rely on it to be regular from previous experience.

but that's a management problem, not something attributable to the specific transit mode.

[kylejack]

but that's a management problem, not something attributable to the specific transit mode.

Seeing as Metro has chronic management problems with buses and will never run the 44 with the same frequency as light rail, I prefer more development of light rail.

You say that the buses would be better than the light rail if only they ran on time, but they don't, and probably never will. If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hops.

[TheNiche]

Seeing as Metro has chronic management problems with buses and will never run the 44 with the same frequency as light rail, I prefer more development of light rail.

You say that the buses would be better than the light rail if only they ran on time, but they don't, and probably never will. If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hops.

Seeing as that you acknowledge that METRO has chronic management problems, I would expect that you would oppose giving them any more public money without first reforming the organization.

After all, you'd expect that METRO as we know it could do something right, but they don't, and probably never will. If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hops. (Why does that saying sound so familiar? Hmmm...I wonder.)

Edited September 7, 2012 by TheNiche

[kylejack]

Seeing as that you acknowledge that METRO has chronic management problems, I would expect that you would oppose giving them any more public money without first reforming the organization.

Well, they seem to run the light rail projects well, aside from the procurement fiasco. But this is New Metro! They don't do such things! *snicker* Seriously though, maybe buses have certain limitations that keep it from running at the same frequency as rail. I'll freely admit that I'm no transit expert, but as a user of transit, I find the rail much much much more reliable. I can count on one hand the number of times rail has left me hanging whereas it is almost every time on the buses.

If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hops. (Why does that saying sound so familiar? Hmmm...I wonder.)

I stole it from Cassandra in Wayne's World.

Edited September 7, 2012 by kylejack

[samagon]

Nope. According to the Census' LEHD program, there are 908 workers that live in Pleasantville. However, only 31 workers from Pleasantville that are employed east of 610, north of 225, west of SH 330 in Baytown, and south of I-10 (3%). And a fair number of those are right off of I-10 where there's a lot of retail and some office space. By comparison, there were 28 workers from Pleasantville employed downtown (3%).

The fact is, Pleasantvillites work pretty much all over. Their workplaces are concentrated disproportionately on the eastern side of the metro area, but you simply cannot predict where they might should work based on proximity. The real world doesn't work like Sim City.

You're right, the real world doesn't work like sim city, if it did, I imagine there'd be random godzilla roaming through parts of the city every so often.

In my Houston like Europe thought, in each smaller community there would be a circulator that could get people to and from a rail system that would get them to central hubs and then they could take that central hub to other locations. Potentially that central hub rail system could have additional rail lines that go around the spokes. so if you were in Katy, you wouldn't have to go into the central hub to then get back out to Sugarland.

If you think about it, a system that mimics our current freeway system would work rather well, it would cost, and isn't going to happen, but it would certainly be the best solution in a rainbows and roses kind of world.

When I was in Munich, I caught a bus to Innsbruck. It was a large, cushy, comfortable bus and it drove on smooth roads. And believe it or not, their bus didn't even smell like pee. That's the sort of luxury and comfort that I would envision for Houston's P&R system as well as an inexpensive and highly effective BRT system; it would be achievable except that we've been so financially bled by a myopic obsession with rail-based transit.

This last time I went, I stayed about 5 blocks east of the the central area and spent a few days there, we parked and walked/rode transit the whole time. The previous time I stayed out by the airport and still rode public transit. Subways, streetcars, rail, buses, they all work together very well to get you to a destination very efficiently.

[IHB2]

Well, they seem to run the light rail projects well, aside from the procurement fiasco...as a user of transit, I find the rail much much much more reliable. I can count on one hand the number of times rail has left me hanging whereas it is almost every time on the buses.

ok then.

the only way to overcome poor METRO bus route management is give METRO huge sums of tax dollars to build more LRT so management will have fewer bus routes to manage badly.

I don't know why I didn't figure this out sooner. I'm blaming Niche for distracting me with the promise of Weed 'n Q restaurants in Hempstead.

[mfastx]

The rest of the world appears to have a debt crisis. I think it was just a fad.

Just out of sheer curiosity, how is this relevant?

[mfastx]

the only way to overcome poor METRO bus route management is give METRO huge sums of tax dollars to build more LRT so management will have fewer bus routes to manage badly.

The hope is that METRO can build these lines now, and management can improve later. If I were a betting man, I'd say that as time goes on, due to political climates and cost, it will most likely be even more difficult to build lines later. I think that's why you see people wanting to get these lines built ASAP. Sure, you could say that we should just build lines when we need it. But we might never need it. Growth could stunt due to poor city infrastructure. Building good public transit infrastructure to go along with our good highway infrastructure will allow the city to grow more and make it a more desirable place to live. I'm not saying that we could end up like Detroit or anything if we don't build public transit, but our growth is already slowing down.

Another pro-rail point is that rail replaces a number of bus routes, therefore freeing up extra buses that METRO can deploy elsewhere in the system. Allowing for higher frequencies on certain routes.

Edited September 8, 2012 by mfastx

[TGM]

Just out of sheer curiosity, how is this relevant?

It's relevant if we're discussing government spending on massive public works projects.

[mfastx]

It's relevant if we're discussing government spending on massive public works projects.

Not when the entire proposed light rail system is ~.04% of the federal budget. But these rail lines are being built over 3 or so years. So that's ~.01% of the federal budget for three years. Idk if I'd call that a "massive public works project."

Edited September 8, 2012 by mfastx

[Slick Vik]

It's relevant if we're discussing government spending on massive public works projects.

But building endless highways is okay right?

[Slick Vik]

Less than 10% worldwide, but most of that is outside the METRO service area unless Christof becomes emperor of the world.

But Houston estimates are at least 90% of households have 1 or more cars, and over 95% of people drive to go anywhere in the METRO service area.

Within the METRO service area, and especially regarding the East Side Line, it is difficult to see what LRT will accomplish that buses will not - given the difference in capital costs - in either reducing automobile congestion or providing more transit choices for those that rely on public transportation only.

If a good system is built, people will ride. I can personally use the recent skytrain extension as an example. The ridership is so above expectations that orders for more cars are needed, 2 years in.

[TheNiche]

You're right, the real world doesn't work like sim city, if it did, I imagine there'd be random godzilla roaming through parts of the city every so often.

In my Houston like Europe thought, in each smaller community there would be a circulator that could get people to and from a rail system that would get them to central hubs and then they could take that central hub to other locations. Potentially that central hub rail system could have additional rail lines that go around the spokes. so if you were in Katy, you wouldn't have to go into the central hub to then get back out to Sugarland.

If you think about it, a system that mimics our current freeway system would work rather well, it would cost, and isn't going to happen, but it would certainly be the best solution in a rainbows and roses kind of world.

In your Houston like Europe thought, does Houston also experience a crippling debt crisis? Oh, but you said that it isn't going to happen. Of course. So what's your point?

This last time I went, I stayed about 5 blocks east of the the central area and spent a few days there, we parked and walked/rode transit the whole time. The previous time I stayed out by the airport and still rode public transit. Subways, streetcars, rail, buses, they all work together very well to get you to a destination very efficiently.

Transit, and particularly fixed-guideway transit, is fantastic for affluent tourists that fly into town and don't rent cars because they aren't licensed to drive on the 'wrong' side of the road. And yes, I love it when the cities that I pay practically no taxes in pay for me to enjoy myself. It's as though they are taking money away from the people that live there to give to the people that don't live there. Nothing wrong with that, no sir. Nothing at all. But Houston has a different set of comparative advantages from a Bavarian city. F*** our tourists.

[TheNiche]

The hope is that METRO can build these lines now, and management can improve later.

Construction requires proper management. If you're in the real estate biz and you haven't figured that out, then I would advise that you keep a fat savings account in an industry that is as unrelated to real estate and construction as possible.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that as time goes on, due to political climates and cost, it will most likely be even more difficult to build lines later. I think that's why you see people wanting to get these lines built ASAP.

Another pro-rail point is that rail replaces a number of bus routes, therefore freeing up extra buses that METRO can deploy elsewhere in the system. Allowing for higher frequencies on certain routes.

In the long term, the most rapidly growing cost items will have to do with land price appreciation. That is an issue that can be addressed at present by identifying routes, establishing easements, and paying for those easements sooner than later, then never again.

Hard costs should be expected to stay the same over the long term or perhaps even decrease in real terms because the productivity of labor in our economy tends to increase.

Sure, you could say that we should just build lines when we need it. But we might never need it. Growth could stunt due to poor city infrastructure.

There are plenty of instances where growth outpaces Houston's infrastructure, yet continues unabated nevertheless. My favorite example is Telephone Road prior to the existence of the Gulf Freeway, Houston's first freeway. It was extraordinarily congested, but people kept on buying cars, buying suburban housing, and commuting along Telephone Road.

Do you realize that even today, there are parts of Bear Creek that require 30 to 45 minutes of commuting just to reach the Katy Freeway? Astoundingly, it didn't keep people from moving there. Nothing has changed.

If there is a population that is at risk for being alienated by a lack of fixed-guideway rail-based transit, they are affluent hipsters. And that's fine by me. They weren't especially likely to appreciate Houston in the first place. They can suck it. We have poor comparative advantage for hipsters and should focus on luring nerdy engineers and the like.

Building good public transit infrastructure to go along with our good highway infrastructure will allow the city to grow more and make it a more desirable place to live. I'm not saying that we could end up like Detroit or anything if we don't build public transit, but our growth is already slowing down.

I doubt it. Show me how. Show me why. Quantify your analysis and cite sources, the way I do.

Another pro-rail point is that rail replaces a number of bus routes, therefore freeing up extra buses that METRO can deploy elsewhere in the system. Allowing for higher frequencies on certain routes.

I sincerely doubt this, as well. Show me how. Show me why. Quantify your analysis and cite sources, the way I do.

Edited September 8, 2012 by TheNiche

[Slick Vik]

In your Houston like Europe thought, does Houston also experience a crippling debt crisis? Oh, but you said that it isn't going to happen. Of course. So what's your point?

Transit, and particularly fixed-guideway transit, is fantastic for affluent tourists that fly into town and don't rent cars because they aren't licensed to drive on the 'wrong' side of the road. And yes, I love it when the cities that I pay practically no taxes in pay for me to enjoy myself. It's as though they are taking money away from the people that live there to give to the people that don't live there. Nothing wrong with that, no sir. Nothing at all. But Houston has a different set of comparative advantages from a Bavarian city. F*** our tourists.

It's also fantastic for people that LIVE THERE. This independent f the world attitude is mind boggling and bizarre. Reminds me of Obama haters.

[luciaphile]

moo. Silly argument is silly, cause I'm sure somewhere along in the middle we can all play with our hotwheels and train sets in the same room, at the same time.

I agree. Our Tonka trucks are ready to go to work. (Lifting little front-end loader up and down.) And being children, so inherently pragmatic, we aren't waiting for some government entity to reform itself first, or for funding to be secured.

It seemed entirely worthwhile to risk people's displeasure and slip out of bed on weekdays pre-dawn (no clock - just those amazing circadian rhythms!) and move through a cold, dark house to turn on the TV -- and bleary-eyed watch "Speed Racer" with your face about a foot from the screen because you couldn't turn the volume up.

But then, years later, those Thomas videos, skillfully deployed, earned you another blessed 39 minutes of sleep, and the fact that they were narrated by your second-favorite Beat-le and then by George Carlin gives them a slight edge.

Team Trains!

[samagon]

Transit, and particularly fixed-guideway transit, is fantastic for affluent tourists that fly into town and don't rent cars because they aren't licensed to drive on the 'wrong' side of the road. And yes, I love it when the cities that I pay practically no taxes in pay for me to enjoy myself. It's as though they are taking money away from the people that live there to give to the people that don't live there. Nothing wrong with that, no sir. Nothing at all. But Houston has a different set of comparative advantages from a Bavarian city. F*** our tourists.

Lol, problem is, when I rode on their system, it was an absolute majority of people who lived in munich going about their business. The bmw museum is right next to one of the bmw manufacturing facilities. When we got to the bmw museum we got there at shift change, and the people streaming out of the plant and straight to the subway was staggering.

And fyi, I'm sure you're aware, but most of Europe is insolvent, but Germany isn't.

Not to get too political, but if our government (national) saw fit to only need half as many aircraft carriers, they could use the money saved to give the whole country one hell of a good infrastructure, but no, we _need_ 11 aircraft carriers, and all the support ships that go along with them. Hell, we could probably afford butlers on each train.

[TGM]

But building endless highways is okay right?

As long as they're private tollways that rely upon drivers to fund them not taxpayers.

[Slick Vik]

Lol, problem is, when I rode on their system, it was an absolute majority of people who lived in munich going about their business. The bmw museum is right next to one of the bmw manufacturing facilities. When we got to the bmw museum we got there at shift change, and the people streaming out of the plant and straight to the subway was staggering.

And fyi, I'm sure you're aware, but most of Europe is insolvent, but Germany isn't.

Not to get too political, but if our government (national) saw fit to only need half as many aircraft carriers, they could use the money saved to give the whole country one hell of a good infrastructure, but no, we _need_ 11 aircraft carriers, and all the support ships that go along with them. Hell, we could probably afford butlers on each train.

To add to that, I don't think public transit is the leading cause of debt there. Also, Houston doesn't have tourists, just business people who come for meetings. Nothing to see here. The trains would help people that live here more than anyone.

[Slick Vik]

As long as they're private tollways that rely upon drivers to fund them not taxpayers.

That's a recent phenomenon for the most part. Also, notice how TXDOT and HCTRA and city of Houston money goes towards highways and raids and bridges, but not towards transit. But then people still want to raid METRO for more road money. This is the oil dominated area we live in.

[TheNiche]

Lol, problem is, when I rode on their system, it was an absolute majority of people who lived in munich going about their business. The bmw museum is right next to one of the bmw manufacturing facilities. When we got to the bmw museum we got there at shift change, and the people streaming out of the plant and straight to the subway was staggering.

I suspect that if I rode light rail in the TMC area during a shift change, the "absolute majority" of the people that I would see riding it would be people that live in Houston that are going about their business...and most of them probably going to get their cars from a parking lot so that they can drive home, even though I won't watch them doing that. Sample bias in the context of an anecdote proves nothing and is unimpressive. Quantify.

Not to get too political, but if our government (national) saw fit to only need half as many aircraft carriers, they could use the money saved to give the whole country one hell of a good infrastructure, but no, we _need_ 11 aircraft carriers, and all the support ships that go along with them. Hell, we could probably afford butlers on each train.

But why would we want transit butlers? Why should the federal government even want commuter transit that doesn't cross any state lines? I'd like to rejigger our carrier fleet so that it is smaller and so that it launches only remotely-operated drones, sell the existing fleet to Saudi Arabia or China, and then pay down the national debt and reduce the tax burden, returning money to individuals so that individuals (or those individuals' local governments, if that provides room for local tax increases) have greater flexibility to use money in a manner that is best suited to the particulars of their own lives in their own towns.

[mfastx]

Construction requires proper management. If you're in the real estate biz and you haven't figured that out, then I would advise that you keep a fat savings account in an industry that is as unrelated to real estate and construction as possible.

We'll see. Construction management for the most part falls under the construction company METRO has hired. You could say bad things about any transit agency. I just don't think that that's a good enough reason to not construct something.

Hard costs should be expected to stay the same over the long term or perhaps even decrease in real terms because the productivity of labor in our economy tends to increase.

Well in the last decade that hasn't been the case. I read an interesting article about how construction costs are so much higher here than anywhere else in the developed world. They get more for their money in other countries.

There are plenty of instances where growth outpaces Houston's infrastructure, yet continues unabated nevertheless. My favorite example is Telephone Road prior to the existence of the Gulf Freeway, Houston's first freeway. It was extraordinarily congested, but people kept on buying cars, buying suburban housing, and commuting along Telephone Road.

That type of growth isn't sustainable though. If no freeway had been built growth most likely would not have continue, at least at the pace it is today.

If there is a population that is at risk for being alienated by a lack of fixed-guideway rail-based transit, they are affluent hipsters. And that's fine by me. They weren't especially likely to appreciate Houston in the first place. They can suck it. We have poor comparative advantage for hipsters and should focus on luring nerdy engineers and the like.

How many times have you rode METRORail? And how many rail systems have you been on worldwide? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard you say, lol.

I doubt it. Show me how. Show me why. Quantify your analysis and cite sources, the way I do.

You need a source to prove that good public transportation makes a city a better place to live? You do know that there is a reason that housing costs are so low in Houston, right?

And my last point was common sense. If a rail line replaces numerous bus routes, do those buses magically disappear? No, of course not. They are free to bolster other routes or replace older buses.

[TheNiche]

We'll see. Construction management for the most part falls under the construction company METRO has hired. You could say bad things about any transit agency. I just don't think that that's a good enough reason to not construct something.

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!?

Well in the last decade that hasn't been the case. I read an interesting article about how construction costs are so much higher here than anywhere else in the developed world. They get more for their money in other countries.

That's because we had been running up a trade deficit under a weak dollar policy. We bought consumer goods in exchange for raw materials (and financially services) so that net exporting nations could go through a resource-intensive process of building up their economy. And yes, it really is just that simple. Not to worry, there's a reason that they call it a balance of trade. In the long run, the current accounts balance averages to zero.

That type of growth isn't sustainable though. If no freeway had been built growth most likely would not have continue, at least at the pace it is today.

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.

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.

How many times have you rode METRORail? And how many rail systems have you been on worldwide? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard you say, lol.

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.

You need a source to prove that good public transportation makes a city a better place to live? You do know that there is a reason that housing costs are so low in Houston, right?

And my last point was common sense. If a rail line replaces numerous bus routes, do those buses magically disappear? No, of course not. They are free to bolster other routes or replace older buses.

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

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.

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.