Metro approves $1.46 Billion for 20 miles of light rail

[ihop]

I agree.. rising costs suck. But citykid wasn't complaining about costs. He was complaining about grade separation, and aesthetics of rail in a suburban neighborhood, etc, etc.

The things he was complaining about yet again have been constants of our rail plan for years... so while i expect it of him, i expect more of others than to all of a sudden agree with him.

lack of grade separation has been a constant since the beginning, and it's been a mistake since the beginning. I never really understood the support behind rail, it's mostly form and not much function. Maybe that's why so many people here liked the idea of it?

Fact of the matter is you could put buses that ran 2x as often on the routes they want rail for, for a fraction of the cost, without losing a lane of traffic and having all the accidents related to mixing rail & car traffic. I'm not sure why it took so long for people to realize this, it was apparent well before the first rail line was approved.

[RedScare]

lack of grade separation has been a constant since the beginning, and it's been a mistake since the beginning. I never really understood the support behind rail, it's mostly form and not much function. Maybe that's why so many people here liked the idea of it?

Fact of the matter is you could put buses that ran 2x as often on the routes they want rail for, for a fraction of the cost, without losing a lane of traffic and having all the accidents related to mixing rail & car traffic. I'm not sure why it took so long for people to realize this, it was apparent well before the first rail line was approved.

Actually, Main Street was already running buses SIX TIMES as often as the rail runs now. Prior to laying the tracks, there were roughly 1400 buses running up and down Main Street, with all of the noise and diesel exhaust that goes with it. The difference between that and the current rail is like night and day. There is less noise, less exhaust fumes and soot, and less congestion. Some of us consider that an IMPROVEMENT. Perhaps you do not. That is your opinion.

[ihop]

Actually, Main Street was already running buses SIX TIMES as often as the rail runs now. Prior to laying the tracks, there were roughly 1400 buses running up and down Main Street, with all of the noise and diesel exhaust that goes with it. The difference between that and the current rail is like night and day. There is less noise, less exhaust fumes and soot, and less congestion. Some of us consider that an IMPROVEMENT. Perhaps you do not. That is your opinion.

I wish I could find the numbers on that, I distinctly remember reading differently at the time, but it's been so long that the information is a bit more difficult to track down. Maybe I'm wrong on the frequency, but not the cost. Either way, the improvement is marginal in my view. If that sort of investment is going to be made, I'd be for a more significant investment of elevated rail, rather than something on the same grade with traffic.

[RedScare]

Either way, the improvement is marginal in my view.

The improvement is significant in my view.

[lockmat]

Are the busses they can make these days cleaner and quieter?

[roadrunner]

It just seems like a lot of money to implement a system that will be useful up until a point. I think there has to be some break-even point in Houston's future growth to where this becomes more of a burden than a benefit. If we have to continue to wait on funding delays as costs continue to rise, why not just ride it out until everyone agrees on a heavy rail system that will be sustainable over a century.

[wernicke]

I think construction costs have decreased since last summer.

I am curious about how adaptable this light rail system would be in the future... would it be possible, as the city becomes more dense, to transition segments of light rail underground?

[Ringo3Khan]

I think construction costs have decreased since last summer.

I am curious about how adaptable this light rail system would be in the future... would it be possible, as the city becomes more dense, to transition segments of light rail underground?

First I'd be surprised if the city becomes much more dense anytime soon. The economy isn't projected to skyrocket and my most recent analysis indicates that occupany downtown/midtown is actually dropping even as new units come on line. We're just one more round of layoffs from another '80's style real estate bust in Houston and as we've seen in the past, since most people are here only because their jobs are here, there will be a huge exodus out of the city to other places offering employment opportunities.

Underground in Houston is virtually impossibly costly because the water table is only 5 to 6 feet below the surface. The result would be that one would have to literaly encase the line in a huge steel pipe to stop the tunnel from being flooded.

[MetroMogul]

Actually, Main Street was already running buses SIX TIMES as often as the rail runs now. Prior to laying the tracks, there were roughly 1400 buses running up and down Main Street, with all of the noise and diesel exhaust that goes with it. The difference between that and the current rail is like night and day. There is less noise, less exhaust fumes and soot, and less congestion. Some of us consider that an IMPROVEMENT. Perhaps you do not. That is your opinion.

I find that hard to believe as Metro has never had a fleet of 1400 buses to begin with.

[RedScare]

I find that hard to believe as Metro has never had a fleet of 1400 buses to begin with.

I never realized that each bus only ran its route one time per day. I need to research these things, rather than believe what I read.

[Trae]

First I'd be surprised if the city becomes much more dense anytime soon. The economy isn't projected to skyrocket and my most recent analysis indicates that occupany downtown/midtown is actually dropping even as new units come on line. We're just one more round of layoffs from another '80's style real estate bust in Houston and as we've seen in the past, since most people are here only because their jobs are here, there will be a huge exodus out of the city to other places offering employment opportunities.

Underground in Houston is virtually impossibly costly because the water table is only 5 to 6 feet below the surface. The result would be that one would have to literaly encase the line in a huge steel pipe to stop the tunnel from being flooded.

You sure?

[TheNiche]

Nothing in the plans or expectations of what these rail lines are going to be have changed in the past few years - Why some of you are now "seeing the light" and siding with the official Haif Urban-Elevated-and-Atlanta spokesman, I don't know.

I've been saying (most of) this for years. It's not that the whole system needs to be grade-separated, just that we're diverting funds to light rail that serves relatively less dense and uncongested areas (East, Southeast, North) where less expensive BRT would be more appropriate, instead of beefing up the system in highly-dense highly-congested areas where the existence of grade-level light rail is frequently disruptive to and disrupted by congestion.

The things he was complaining about yet again have been constants of our rail plan for years... so while i expect it of him, i expect more of others than to all of a sudden agree with him.

Actually, no. At one point, BRT was proposed along many lower-ridership lines as a measure to promote cost savings. Those lines are now going to be light rail built by METRO without any federal assistance. It's out of pocket for us, but there are better uses we could put those funds to. Also, at that time, the route alignments for many routes were still up in the air. There was at least the sense that people could provide input, and they were. I was.

I like our Euro style train system better than urban thuggage subways. Street level stations are safer than subway stations and are easier for pedestrians to get to. Since METRO is more concerned with people with JOBS riding the train, as opposed to unemployed thugs hanging out in subway stations, it makes sense that they would build it at street level. I'm glad they did.

I would much rather that they have grade-separated lines in high-density areas with scarce land and just enforce anti-loitering laws than that they waste precious rights of way. I'm not saying that the whole project be 100% subways, either, but clearly there are places such as the TMC where the potential to ease congestion is well worth it.

The Red Line is surprisingly close to its design capacity at peak hours. If they had the vehicles, they would be running all two-car trains every six minutes at rush hours. The line is ultimately designed for two-car trains every four minutes. With other lines feeding in, I think that kind of frequency will be necessary in not too long. At that point it will be worth considering real rapid transit, perhaps heavy rail underground.

Better to build it right the first time than twice in rapid succession. And I'll remind you that we didn't build the Red Line with any federal assistance and that many of the new lines will be similarly locally-funded. Given the cost and the FTA's really crappy method of project evaluation, it is doubtful that we'll get money for an upgrade, even as it becomes painfully obvious that one is necessary.

I may or may not represent the majority, but at least I am a resident of METRO's service area. So, if METRO is trying to decide who to listen to, the guy who pays taxes to support the service, and lives on METRO's routes, and rides their buses will probably get more weight than a kid who lives in Brazos County, and who bases his opinions on whether it is 'cool' or 'urban'.

I'm a resident of METRO's service area and my opinions are based upon a goal of total transportation optimality, not image. And even if I weren't a resident in the service area, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be shopping in a place that is. It is a sales tax, after all, not a property tax.

Actually, Main Street was already running buses SIX TIMES as often as the rail runs now. Prior to laying the tracks, there were roughly 1400 buses running up and down Main Street, with all of the noise and diesel exhaust that goes with it. The difference between that and the current rail is like night and day. There is less noise, less exhaust fumes and soot, and less congestion. Some of us consider that an IMPROVEMENT. Perhaps you do not. That is your opinion.

Before light rail, I never heard any roaring buses where I lived; after light rail, the LRT vehicle signal its horn any time that freeway traffic dies down and was audible over a half mile away. I consider that a loss...and I especially consider the backup of southbound vehicular traffic on Fannin in the afternoons to be a loss.

Are the busses they can make these days cleaner and quieter?

I have cited data from federal government sources on HAIF before that indicated that the operating cost per passenger mile and also the net output of pollutants per passenger mile were actually on par with or greater than buses. But none of the urbanistas cared because the pollution source points aren't in their back yard.

First I'd be surprised if the city becomes much more dense anytime soon. The economy isn't projected to skyrocket and my most recent analysis indicates that occupany downtown/midtown is actually dropping even as new units come on line. We're just one more round of layoffs from another '80's style real estate bust in Houston and as we've seen in the past, since most people are here only because their jobs are here, there will be a huge exodus out of the city to other places offering employment opportunities.

I would be surprised if it didn't. Don't forget that none of these lines will be operational before 2012. It is entirely plausible (and I'm going to go so far as to say probable) that global demand for energy and healthcare will be very strong by that point in time and that capital markets will have returned to normalcy.

Light rail infrastructure has a projected operational life span of many decades, not of only a few years.

Underground in Houston is virtually impossibly costly because the water table is only 5 to 6 feet below the surface. The result would be that one would have to literaly encase the line in a huge steel pipe to stop the tunnel from being flooded.

That is categorically false. If the water table were only 5 to 6 feet below the surface, we'd have artesian wells all up and down our bayous, wherever the banks even began to slope downwards towards the channels.

And the cure that you suggest, that a subway would have to be encased in a steel pipe, is ridiculous. Water permeates the rock in New York City and leaks constantly into the NYC transit system. They use sumps. They aren't that expensive, nor are they an exotic technology. TXDOT uses them to drain underpasses all over town.

[Gooch]

It just seems like a lot of money

Fun with numbers...

$1.46 Billion dollars / 20 miles = $73,000,000 per mile; or $13,826 per linear foot.

If we assume a $1 bill is 6" long, and 0.0043-inches thick*, and we stacked the $13,836 dollars required for each foot, it would be two piles end-to-end, 29.73 inches tall each.

The cost could stack a pile of dollars just short 30-inches tall for the entire 20-mile length of the line.

If we spread the $13,836 dollars, side by side, and in two columns we'd get a width of (13,836/2)(2-5/8")(1'/12")=1,513 feet wide. About the width of the Katy freeway corridor IIRC. Roughly, it could pave (poorly!) the Katy freeway in singles from 610 past Highway 6.

*source for $1 dimensions here...

[RedScare]

Before light rail, I never heard any roaring buses where I lived; after light rail, the LRT vehicle signal its horn any time that freeway traffic dies down and was audible over a half mile away. I consider that a loss...and I especially consider the backup of southbound vehicular traffic on Fannin in the afternoons to be a loss.

Like this means anything. Are you suggesting that there were no buses on Main Street? If so, say it. If not, tell us how many there were.

I'm a resident of METRO's service area and my opinions are based upon a goal of total transportation optimality, not image. And even if I weren't a resident in the service area, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't be shopping in a place that is. It is a sales tax, after all, not a property tax.

Then, your opinions count as well, even if we occasionally disagree. And at least you back up your smack with statistics or findings, as opposed to observations that Atlanta didn't do it this way.

[TheNiche]

Like this means anything. Are you suggesting that there were no buses on Main Street? If so, say it. If not, tell us how many there were.

Ummm...no, and if you'll read my post, I wasn't even referring to Main Street because the light rail in that neighborhood is on Fannin. And I'm sure that there were busses on Fannin, however, I never heard them at night, nor did they hold up traffic the way that crossing arms for a railroad crossing do.

[Highway6]

Actually, no. At one point, BRT was proposed along many lower-ridership lines as a measure to promote cost savings. Those lines are now going to be light rail built by METRO without any federal assistance. It's out of pocket for us, but there are better uses we could put those funds to. Also, at that time, the route alignments for many routes were still up in the air. There was at least the sense that people could provide input, and they were. I was.

I didn't say nothing has changed, Niche... I said the things he was arguing for ( that all of a sudden merited bandwagoners ) had not changed. He was not arguing the financial merits of BRT vs LRT.

He was arguing for full grade-separation as a means to justify his urban utopia ends. An at grade solution, whether BRT or LRT, has been as enduring a constant as his complaints as far as Metrorail is concerned.

[RedScare]

Ummm...no, and if you'll read my post, I wasn't even referring to Main Street because the light rail in that neighborhood is on Fannin. And I'm sure that there were busses on Fannin, however, I never heard them at night, nor did they hold up traffic the way that crossing arms for a railroad crossing do.

Oh. Then I repeat.

LIKE THAT MEANS ANYTHING!

[MetroMogul]

I never realized that each bus only ran its route one time per day. I need to research these things, rather than believe what I read.

Sarcasm aside, you have to realize that when you throw out numbers like "1400 buses" removed from Main Street, the average person is going to think 1400 literal buses removed from Main street instead of perhaps 1400 bus trips. Now, I have to ask you Red, where did you get those numbers from? Metro perhaps? Metro is quick to point out the number of buses removed from Main Street as that's where the Red Line was built, but the number of buses running down Travis/Milam/Louisiana/Smith remains the same (adjusting of course for "service improvements" read: cuts). Those four streets are home to a number of Park and Ride routes, express, and local bus routes with some routes running buses 2 minutes apart. So, while Main Street has "benefited" from the light rail in that regard, improvements in the most bus dense corridor are yet to be realized. Also, removing those "1400 buses" also removes easy transfer opportunities for those on the of us who live on the Southwest side as nearly all of our bus routes were truncated at transit centers to force feed the rail line.

So, while you can take solace in less buses running down Main Street, every other street except Fannin/San Jacinto (the buses moved off Main used these two streets while LRT construction took place) is still congested with buses. The same result could have been acheived through (Don't say BUS!) Rapid Transit running down Main Street and for hundreds of millions of dollars less.

Also, Red, to put your 1400 buses number into perspective, I'd have to see the total number of bus trips into the downtown area before and after LRT construction and things like "service improvements" could not tally into that total reduction.

[TheNiche]

Oh. Then I repeat.

LIKE THAT MEANS ANYTHING!

It means something to me.

[samagon]

Honestly, the other two photos I see are the only ones that make since for rail in Houston (they are off the streets). The one in The Galleria area I think is a stupid Idea. You don't put rail on a crowded street like that. It will be difficult to turn, uturn, etc. I think that they should at least consider above ground or below ground stations for this area.

They are being so Cheap with METRO Rail that I hear that it will have the first ever (world or nation???) rail line crossing that is not separated. Meaning that trains going east and west will have to stop and wait for trains going north and south to pass by and the other way around. You guys can criticize me if you want, but I think Houston is getting the crappiest passenger rail system ever built. When rail was first approved for Houston, I expected a World-Class rail system on par with other major cities, not a 2 car street train scooting along streets and not in its own right of way. I just watched a video of one of the new lines going right down the middle of a street in a suburban style neighborhood with ranch style housing, WTF! That doesn't even look right. I don't blame the people for the NIMBY stuff. It seems as if the people that work for METRO have never been outside of Houston and have never seen an actual passenger rail system work. With all hope completely lost of Houston being a true urban city (You can't be truly urban without the proper rail infrastructure), I can still have hope for other Texas cities like Austin and San Antonio to build world class rail systems in the future. Dallas' has done in right. The only thing I can say about DART Rail is that it is light rail and not a Heavy Rail System, but other than that, its perfect.

I think all construction that has started on the new lines should stop and there should be a complete redesign of the entire system. If I had it my way, the Main street line would be completely removed and moved underground, where a rail system should be in a city the size of Houston.

Okay, where are my critics?

I'm a critic.

Amsterdam is a great example of the system we are creating, there are no grade separations for different rail (tram) lines to different locations, they do have to wait for another train. There are no elevated or underground sections, it is all street level. It is all shared with the road traffic (and bicycle traffic, who incidentally have their own signals at intersections, meaning cars have to wait for the tram, and bikes).

Until such a time as ridership increases and car traffic through those areas decrease as a result of that ridership increase, car traffic is going to go up.

[TheNiche]

Amsterdam is a great example of the system we are creating, there are no grade separations for different rail (tram) lines to different locations, they do have to wait for another train. There are no elevated or underground sections, it is all street level. It is all shared with the road traffic (and bicycle traffic, who incidentally have their own signals at intersections, meaning cars have to wait for the tram, and bikes).

Amsterdam is stagnant. It is so difficult to create increased density there on account of that they view their City as a kind of museum piece, that there will never be a need to anticipate new growth or an increasing demand on their system. Moreover, the legacy issues that are predominant in a comparison of land use patterns or density gradients in either Houston or Amsterdam make them incomparable cities.

From a planning perspective, it is the antithesis of Houston in just about every way.

[samagon]

Amsterdam is stagnant. It is so difficult to create increased density there on account of that they view their City as a kind of museum piece, that there will never be a need to anticipate new growth or an increasing demand on their system. Moreover, the legacy issues that are predominant in a comparison of land use patterns or density gradients in either Houston or Amsterdam make them incomparable cities.

From a planning perspective, it is the antithesis of Houston in just about every way.

You're right.

I deleted half my comments before I posted, I hate making long winded replies (oops)

Anyway, yeah, Houston and Amsterdam (the old centrum area) grew up in different periods with different ideas on transportation, and how far relative distances are.

Houston should continue growing, while the centrum of Amsterdam (where the trams are used heavily) cannot grow any larger, however, that also means that the car traffic that they have (which is a lot, and continues to grow) will be constrained to what is already there, and it has to be shared by the tram system and bikes. The population of both cities will continue to grow and become more dense.

I don't know, I'm certainly not anything more than a citizen on a forum, I didn't do any studies, I only have empirical evidence from at least 10 trips to Holland that centered around Amsterdam over the course of my 30 year life that has a system not unlike our own, and I have watched that city grow to enjoy car transportation more and more, and seen the congestion that comes with it.

I think a solid tram system (light rail) is the right solution, I think a subway is too costly in both safety and money, and an elevated, while intriguing would be costly as well.

And personally, as far as the noise goes, I don't live next to the line, but when I am biking on main, or around the area, the horn is a very soft tone that notifies me of its presense but isn't over powering. Then again, I live in broadmoor and have 2 RR lines that are heavily used very close to my house. Niether the RR, or the LR are any less anoying than a bus idling at a stoplight, or accelerating from a stop, or even at a cruise speed.

[citykid09]

You're right.

I deleted half my comments before I posted, I hate making long winded replies (oops)

Anyway, yeah, Houston and Amsterdam (the old centrum area) grew up in different periods with different ideas on transportation, and how far relative distances are.

Houston should continue growing, while the centrum of Amsterdam (where the trams are used heavily) cannot grow any larger, however, that also means that the car traffic that they have (which is a lot, and continues to grow) will be constrained to what is already there, and it has to be shared by the tram system and bikes. The population of both cities will continue to grow and become more dense.

I don't know, I'm certainly not anything more than a citizen on a forum, I didn't do any studies, I only have empirical evidence from at least 10 trips to Holland that centered around Amsterdam over the course of my 30 year life that has a system not unlike our own, and I have watched that city grow to enjoy car transportation more and more, and seen the congestion that comes with it.

I think a solid tram system (light rail) is the right solution, I think a subway is too costly in both safety and money, and an elevated, while intriguing would be costly as well.

And personally, as far as the noise goes, I don't live next to the line, but when I am biking on main, or around the area, the horn is a very soft tone that notifies me of its presense but isn't over powering. Then again, I live in broadmoor and have 2 RR lines that are heavily used very close to my house. Niether the RR, or the LR are any less anoying than a bus idling at a stoplight, or accelerating from a stop, or even at a cruise speed.

So Houston is not worth of a subway because its too costly? So lets see New York, LA and Chicago build on street light rail because subways are to expensive.

[Ethanra]

So Houston is not worth of a subway because its too costly? So lets see New York, LA and Chicago build on street light rail because subways are to expensive.

I think metro need to hire you, right away. Your once a month rant about metro shows that you are so far advanced then they are in the ability to engineer a line that would fit with-in the given budget. I wish we could get the billions that DART has so we can build 40 miles of rail so it can get 60,000 boarding a day while our little 7.5 mile "toy-train" gets over 40,00 boardings a day. Dallas mockingbird station is "cool" and so "urban". I wish we could be just like them.

Our park n ride service just sucks.... It takes 300,000 people from the burbs a day to the galleria, greenway plaza, and DT. We should cancel this service so we can build cool stations that are underground for our rail....

Let just build 10's billions of dollars of subway so we can look more urban and be just like NY!!!

Our rail lines are probably going to be as efficient as our allotted money will allow. They will work well with the park n' ride service.

Seriously, go apply for metro. You can help us be "cool" just like Dallas and Atlanta. Oh yeah, Charlotte is cooler now...

[scarface]

Sorry but i agree with citykid09. The plans to build rail on street level near the Galleria is equivalent to walking inside of a burning building. What makes no sense to me is that Houston can build millions of overpasses and such for a regular freeway but can't have a dedicated lane for a lightrail train off street level?

I've always been a supporter of a subway line in Houston. There was a study done several years ago that stated it was feasible. The thing is, if they're not looking into subway, at least they could consider monorail a little further. The idea of lightrail should be to improve mobility for motorist and pedestrians, not add to the already existing problem.

[samagon]

So Houston is not worth of a subway because its too costly? So lets see New York, LA and Chicago build on street light rail because subways are to expensive.

Well, there are 3 things that bother me about a subway (and these are my own personal issues, not saying they are issues for everyone)..

Safety, safety is an issue, I understand that there would likely be security cameras everywhere, but people get robbed in front of those all the time, there is a lot less desire to do something out in the open at a rail station, than there would be in a small box of a subway station.

Out of sight, out of mind, seeing a train roll by a location that you drive often is something that hits me continuously, but seeing a set of stairs going down doesn't inspire me to park my car and walk to the station.

Accessibility, being one of the fattest cities in the country (if not the world) I don't see many fat people (sorry, overweight) walking down stairs to get to a subway, then walking back up. escalators? sure, but then there are people in wheelchairs, they need elevators. While the question could be asked, would they use it? Who knows, but the ADA would be all up in METRO if they didn't have the access.

I don't know, but I do feel that people will eventually park more and ride on the lines, which will reduce cars in those areas.

Obviously someone did the feasibility studies, and found that this was the best way, I agree with it, so I'm not going to do a lot of thinking about it

[totheskies]

Well, there are 3 things that bother me about a subway (and these are my own personal issues, not saying they are issues for everyone)..

Safety, safety is an issue, I understand that there would likely be security cameras everywhere, but people get robbed in front of those all the time, there is a lot less desire to do something out in the open at a rail station, than there would be in a small box of a subway station.

Out of sight, out of mind, seeing a train roll by a location that you drive often is something that hits me continuously, but seeing a set of stairs going down doesn't inspire me to park my car and walk to the station.

Accessibility, being one of the fattest cities in the country (if not the world) I don't see many fat people (sorry, overweight) walking down stairs to get to a subway, then walking back up. escalators? sure, but then there are people in wheelchairs, they need elevators. While the question could be asked, would they use it? Who knows, but the ADA would be all up in METRO if they didn't have the access.

I don't know, but I do feel that people will eventually park more and ride on the lines, which will reduce cars in those areas.

Obviously someone did the feasibility studies, and found that this was the best way, I agree with it, so I'm not going to do a lot of thinking about it

Ludicrous... you've obviously a) not been to a subway station or b ) have a ridiculous prejudice against fat people. Either way, the number of overweight people in Houston has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER to whether the city goes with Lightrail, BRT, or subway. The only thing that matters in this discussion is density of the city, predicted ridership for the lines, and COST.

[TheNiche]

You're right.

I deleted half my comments before I posted, I hate making long winded replies (oops)

Anyway, yeah, Houston and Amsterdam (the old centrum area) grew up in different periods with different ideas on transportation, and how far relative distances are.

Houston should continue growing, while the centrum of Amsterdam (where the trams are used heavily) cannot grow any larger, however, that also means that the car traffic that they have (which is a lot, and continues to grow) will be constrained to what is already there, and it has to be shared by the tram system and bikes. The population of both cities will continue to grow and become more dense.

I don't know, I'm certainly not anything more than a citizen on a forum, I didn't do any studies, I only have empirical evidence from at least 10 trips to Holland that centered around Amsterdam over the course of my 30 year life that has a system not unlike our own, and I have watched that city grow to enjoy car transportation more and more, and seen the congestion that comes with it.

Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Why would car traffic in the center of Amsterdam be projected to increase even though density is fixed...unless the traffic is increasingly being generated from origin or destination points beyond the center of Amsterdam, which isn't as well served by the tram system. That would mean that the percentages of people who live or work in the center of Amsterdam are increasingly preferring to live or work in the suburbs. And if that is the case, and the tram doesn't connect to the suburbs but is actually impeding traffic flow among an increasing number of people who prefer a commute that involves autos, then isn't the auto congestion that the tram is inducing just a self-inflicted malady? It wouldn't surprise me. If you'd ever worked a room where Dutch real estate investors outnumber non-Dutch by 6:1, it probably wouldn't surprise you either. They love their country and its history and legacy, but they admire us for being so efficient and adaptable.

[citykid09]

I think metro need to hire you, right away. Your once a month rant about metro shows that you are so far advanced then they are in the ability to engineer a line that would fit with-in the given budget. I wish we could get the billions that DART has so we can build 40 miles of rail so it can get 60,000 boarding a day while our little 7.5 mile "toy-train" gets over 40,00 boardings a day. Dallas mockingbird station is "cool" and so "urban". I wish we could be just like them.

Our park n ride service just sucks.... It takes 300,000 people from the burbs a day to the galleria, greenway plaza, and DT. We should cancel this service so we can build cool stations that are underground for our rail....

Let just build 10's billions of dollars of subway so we can look more urban and be just like NY!!!

Our rail lines are probably going to be as efficient as our allotted money will allow. They will work well with the park n' ride service.

Seriously, go apply for metro. You can help us be "cool" just like Dallas and Atlanta. Oh yeah, Charlotte is cooler now...

LOL, Cool is not the reasoning behind my "rant." Houston's citizens always brag about Houston being the 4th largest city in America. They also brag about being one of the fastest growing cities in America, Okay. They also talk about wanting to host the Olympics and other big name events. But at the end of the day its all laughable to the people who make those decisions. Do you honestly think Houston can hold an Olympics with its current infrastructure? Houston is a city with big dreams, but does very little to make those dreams come true. Do you think Atlanta would have gotten the Olympics if they didn't have their world class transit system? Name me one city that has gotten the Olympics without one (not the winter Olympics, the main Olympics). No world class Alpha city has on street light rail as its leading form of transit. If Houston has aspirations to be an Alpha city, it must think bigger!

Light rail on the streets is okay (not very good) on the streets as they are planned, if you are a city that plans to stay the same in population and not defensify. But if you are a city that plans to grow and defensify as Houston is I don't think the street light rail will cut it.

Ideally, Houston should have a combination of subways in the really dense areas such as downtown and uptown, and above ground right of ways where they are passable. Now if areas such as downtown want a street car set up (similar to San Fransisco) that would be fine also. There should be rail lines going to all of the major areas. In less dense areas and in the far out suburbs BRT will work best until they feel the need to upgrade to rail. Commuter rail should run from the Woodlands, Katy, Cypress (preferably from the park and ride station if possible) and possibly a line to the Bryan/College Station area.

And those of you who say I always want to copy another city, well its okay to copy another city, all ideas had to have come from somewhere. If all cities thought that way Boston would be the only city in the U.S. with a subway, and New York would have never developed into the city it is today. Or take that a little further and London would be the only city in the world with a subway.

Get mad at my comments if you want, but I bring interesting conversation to this forum.

[Highway6]

Get mad at my comments if you want, but I bring interesting conversation to this forum.

whatever Demosthenes..