Jump to content

Can we just start a new Transportation Agency?


Jrnavid

Recommended Posts

I'm starting to think jrnavid is related to citykid somehow. A cousin, perhaps?

So, jrnavid, what if I were to tell you that we already have a mass transit system that covers ALL of the city, and most of the county, too?

Seriously? My comments are not here to be ridiculed at. Im not going to insult anyone either. Instead of making jokes at me, why dont you tell me why we wont have this up by the time I indicated?

A bus system is mass transit, but what I meant was that buses are not the sole solution, and giving the square miles of this city, and the population, you compare that to other cities our size, and they all have more developed transit systems than ours is. Why cant our city have a better transit system? Because there are always those 2 out of 15 bad apples in the bunch that slam the new proposals down with their personal intrests. Like the man from El Paso trying to stomp the University Line on the chron the other day http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6444278.html "]El Paso man. Its people like him that don't and have not allowed a city like this to have a better, more diverse transit system, and by diverse I mean more than buses. And RedScare, if your just going to be ridiculing at me, then please don't post anything on this thread anymore. Im trying to have a decent conversation here, and im in no way related to that citykid09 person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? My comments are not here to be ridiculed at. Im not going to insult anyone either. Instead of making jokes at me, why dont you tell me why we wont have this up by the time I indicated?

Red and I were merely pointing out that we already have a "mass transit system". That's what you asked for and that's what we have. It's not ridicule. It's fact.

A bus system is mass transit, but what I meant was that buses are not the sole solution, and giving the square miles of this city, and the population, you compare that to other cities our size, and they all have more developed transit systems than ours is.

OK, let's make comparisons. And since the vast majority of funds in cities like Dallas or Atlanta are also dedicated to buses, let us dedicate the vast majority of our efforts comparing the bus systems.

Why cant our city have a better transit system? Because there are always those 2 out of 15 bad apples in the bunch that slam the new proposals down with their personal intrests. Like the man from El Paso trying to stomp the University Line on the chron the other day. Its people like him that don't and have not allowed a city like this to have a better, more diverse transit system, and by diverse I mean more than buses.

The guy from El Paso failed miserably. If it's people like him that are responsible for Houston not having a better mass transit system, and such people are also easy to thwart and are so uncommon, then the 13 out of 15 other people must be terribly incompetent if they've historically done such a poor job at corralling such a slim minority of easily-thwarted persons.

But wait, if the 13 out of 15 people are even more incompetent than the 2 out of 15...is it possible that the majority of apples have exercised poor policy judgment as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wait, if the 13 out of 15 people are even more incompetent than the 2 out of 15...is it possible that the majority of apples have exercised poor policy judgment as well?

I think we need better people then on the board of Metro, because something is wrong that has not allowed us to expand until now, like the completely destroyed subway system we had planned in the 70's. You should go on the board. I would rather have people like you and RedScare who actually are smart and make correct decisions, like you have proven here, to manage this city's transit than some people who dont understand what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need better people then on the board of Metro, because something is wrong that has not allowed us to expand until now, like the completely destroyed subway system we had planned in the 70's. You should go on the board. I would rather have people like you and RedScare who actually are smart and make correct decisions, like you have proven here, to manage this city's transit than some people who dont understand what they're doing.

I'm not sure if you were around in the 70s, but if you were, you have a faulty memory. METRO was created in 1979 through a county-wide referendum that authorized the 1 cent sales tax and folded the very poorly run Houston Bus system into the new agency. In 1983, a vote was held for a 18.5 mile heavy rail line that would cost $2.5 Billion. Think about that. $2.5 BILLION in 1983 DOLLARS. There was no subway. It was terrible and was voted down. Several years later, a vote was held for another poorly planned line and it was also defeated. Then Bob Lanier gutted METRO by taking its money for cops and roads. The fact that we have rail now is a testament to the perseverance of METRO when politicians were ripping it to shreds.

Not only do we have 7.5 miles of rail and 30 miles on the way, METRO runs the 11th largest mass transit system in the country. 100 million people per year ride METRO. How many is that? 344,400 people ride METRO every day. That is 32% more than ride DART, the Fort Worth T and the Trinity commuter rail COMBINED. And just ask any Dallasite which metro is bigger. For you to come on here and make foolish comments like Houston not having mass transit, well, I can't help but ridicule those statements. You ignore a 270,000 passenger per day bus system, the most successful park&ride system in the country, and most of all, you ignore the politicians and others who have tried to disband METRO and kill off its rail system. And yet it is still here and expanding. When you ignore all of that, you get ridiculed. Sorry if that offends you, but it sounds like another poster on this board who doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground.

Edited to correct date of rail vote and cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ignore a 270,000 passenger per day bus system, the most successful park&ride system in the country, and most of all, you ignore the politicians and others who have tried to disband METRO and kill off its rail system. And yet it is still here and expanding. When you ignore all of that, you get ridiculed. Sorry if that offends you, but it sounds like another poster on this board who doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground.

Ok, I might have been wrong before, but it just seems baffling to be that some band of rich, greedy people could do these things without thinking about others and the rest of the city. I didnt ignore, however, the park & rides, which you are right are very successful, and I do appreciate what Metro has done since the new board began. What about this, would you be in favor of a subway heavy rail system if it was privately funded? No gimmicks, no fooling. Privately funded, would you still agree with a heavy rail system?

but it sounds like another poster on this board who doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground.

Please dont insult me at the end of your comments, I understand what you needed to say without the insult -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I might have been wrong before, but it just seems baffling to be that some band of rich, greedy people could do these things without thinking about others and the rest of the city. I didnt ignore, however, the park & rides, which you are right are very successful, and I do appreciate what Metro has done since the new board began. What about this, would you be in favor of a subway heavy rail system if it was privately funded? No gimmicks, no fooling. Privately funded, would you still agree with a heavy rail system?

Well, if it is privately funded, they can do with their money whatever they want. If the question is "all things being equal in regard to cost, would you favor subway over light rail?", that would be a tossup. I've posted here before that I used to have an office on Main Street directly in front of the Preston Station. It is hard to beat walking across the street to a station without taking stairs or escalators up or down to it. I used to think that subways were better. However, having ridden subways, els and now light rail, nothing beats the light rail for ease of use. And, isn't that what it is all about? Some may like the cool factor of a subway, but once you hit your 30s, you become more interested in making it easy to get to and easy to use. Perhaps a subway through downtown would allow longer trains, but even then, a longer train means it doesn't show up as often. So, if everything were equal, in my mind light rail and subways are a tossup. Of course, we know subways cost a fortune, so light rail for Houston wins hands down.

It is important to note that I said light rail FOR HOUSTON. Even though the City is growing and becoming more dense, the density is still less than 4,000 people per square mile. In a much denser city, subways, and perhaps even heavy rail makes sense. Houston is not a very dense city, and likely never will be. Light rail has the capacity to serve Houston's needs well. The only place where overcrowding could become a concern is downtown, and there are numerous ways to increase the current capacity. In 20 years, if overcrowding has become such a problem on the Red Line, they could tunnel Main Street. They have already relocated the utilities, so it would not be as expensive. I think a better idea, however, would be to run another line up another downtown street to get better coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I might have been wrong before, but it just seems baffling to be that some band of rich, greedy people could do these things without thinking about others and the rest of the city. I didnt ignore, however, the park & rides, which you are right are very successful, and I do appreciate what Metro has done since the new board began. What about this, would you be in favor of a subway heavy rail system if it was privately funded? No gimmicks, no fooling. Privately funded, would you still agree with a heavy rail system?

It cannot be done. It is too expensive. Here's an example:

METRO's contract for light rail along the North Line corridor is $677,000,000 for 5.28 miles according to the FTA. Subway is between four and eight times as expensive as light rail per mile; let's assume that the magic multiple is six. They'd be looking at a $4,062,000,000 price tag in order to serve a projected ridership of 29,000 per day (or 10,585,000 per year). I have my doubts that they can achieve those projections on this corridor with light rail, but let's say that the appeal and rapid speed of a subway induces that level of ridership.

Looking at capital costs alone, a $4.062 billion price tag on an infrastructure with a 45-year economic life assuming a 5% inflation-adjusted discount rate is the equivalent of a stream of outlays of $228.5 million each year. So that's a capital cost of 228,500,000 / 10,585,000 = $21.59 per trip. Bear in mind, we aren't considering the operating costs associated with maintenance, electricity/fuel, drivers' salaries, administrative overhead, or the burden of debt. Also bear in mind that ridership does not adjust for round trips. So for someone riding a subway the full distance from Northline Mall to downtown Houston and back each day would cost them more than $43.17 per day (or $8.18 per mile, as compared to the IRS Standard Mileage Rate of $0.55 per mile for passenger vehicles). Of course, most riders of light rail will take trips much shorter than the full length of the line, even though the ticket price is fixed, so the average cost per passenger mile would no doubt be much higher than that.

Ah, but there's still another wrinkle to the story. Light rail ridership was based on the fare price being set below-cost, already subsidized by METRO. It won't make money on fares, nor is it required or even expected to. What do you imagine would happen to ridership projections on the North Line in subway form if the average one-way ticket price were even doubled or tripled, much less sextupled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if it is privately funded, they can do with their money whatever they want. If the question is "all things being equal in regard to cost, would you favor subway over light rail?", that would be a tossup. I've posted here before that I used to have an office on Main Street directly in front of the Preston Station. It is hard to beat walking across the street to a station without taking stairs or escalators up or down to it. I used to think that subways were better. However, having ridden subways, els and now light rail, nothing beats the light rail for ease of use. And, isn't that what it is all about? Some may like the cool factor of a subway, but once you hit your 30s, you become more interested in making it easy to get to and easy to use. Perhaps a subway through downtown would allow longer trains, but even then, a longer train means it doesn't show up as often. So, if everything were equal, in my mind light rail and subways are a tossup. Of course, we know subways cost a fortune, so light rail for Houston wins hands down.

It is important to note that I said light rail FOR HOUSTON. Even though the City is growing and becoming more dense, the density is still less than 4,000 people per square mile. In a much denser city, subways, and perhaps even heavy rail makes sense. Houston is not a very dense city, and likely never will be. Light rail has the capacity to serve Houston's needs well. The only place where overcrowding could become a concern is downtown, and there are numerous ways to increase the current capacity. In 20 years, if overcrowding has become such a problem on the Red Line, they could tunnel Main Street. They have already relocated the utilities, so it would not be as expensive. I think a better idea, however, would be to run another line up another downtown street to get better coverage.

Not necessarily. There are places in the system where at-grade light rail severely impedes the flow of traffic. It isn't so bad north of Hermann Park because the urban street grid kicks in and does its job efficiently. In fact, if it weren't for the capacity constraint, I wouldn't consider downtown a candidate at all for a subway system because the grid is so efficient. But along Fannin, it is truly a pain in the arse. True, it is more convenient for pedestrians (in temperate months or when it isn't raining). However, it is so disruptive that the lack of a grade separation is just plain irresponsible. METRO's effects on traffic congestion are never considered in the context of light rail, largely because FTA funding requirements myopically focus on only two variables: ridership and cost.

Also, I would point out that the success of retail in the downtown tunnel system relative to the success of retail at street level is proof positive that pedestrians are not only willing to go underground, but that they prefer it on balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. There are places in the system where at-grade light rail severely impedes the flow of traffic. It isn't so bad north of Hermann Park because the urban street grid kicks in and does its job efficiently. In fact, if it weren't for the capacity constraint, I wouldn't consider downtown a candidate at all for a subway system because the grid is so efficient. But along Fannin, it is truly a pain in the arse. True, it is more convenient for pedestrians (in temperate months or when it isn't raining). However, it is so disruptive that the lack of a grade separation is just plain irresponsible. METRO's effects on traffic congestion are never considered in the context of light rail, largely because FTA funding requirements myopically focus on only two variables: ridership and cost.

Also, I would point out that the success of retail in the downtown tunnel system relative to the success of retail at street level is proof positive that pedestrians are not only willing to go underground, but that they prefer it on balance.

I just know one thing, if we're talking about the easiness of using a certain type of system, then I would prefer subways because of the active weather we have here. I know the cost is ridiculous, but when its freezing or very hot and humid outside, I would like to be underground in the AC while waiting for my next train, rather than being on the street under a platform, in a suit, or whatever it is one wears, in the hot and humidity. A subway system, also, travels faster through the city than would a light rail. Lastly, the whole "coolness" of the system would actually attract people to ride, therefore increasing ridership. But I have been receiving different answers for my following question, why is it so costly to construct a subway system here? Is it the water-table, or the soil type? Or what is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just know one thing, if we're talking about the easiness of using a certain type of system, then I would prefer subways because of the active weather we have here. I know the cost is ridiculous, but when its freezing or very hot and humid outside, I would like to be underground in the AC while waiting for my next train, rather than being on the street under a platform, in a suit, or whatever it is one wears, in the hot and humidity. A subway system, also, travels faster through the city than would a light rail. Lastly, the whole "coolness" of the system would actually attract people to ride, therefore increasing ridership. But I have been receiving different answers for my following question, why is it so costly to construct a subway system here? Is it the water-table, or the soil type? Or what is it?

There's no doubt (in my mind) that subways would be superior to light rail, and that ridership would reflect that.

The costliness is a consequence of the excavation that is required. Bear in mind that anything that is underground and in the path of a subway has to be relocated. Obstructions can include water mains, gas lines, underground electrical lines, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, tunnel systems (downtown and TMC), and all kinds of other strange relics from previous eras which oftentimes aren't even known to engineers. In the downtown area, when they were building the Red Line, the contractors stumbled upon a massive underground block of concrete that probably held an early form of traffic signal. Removing it would've been very expensive. In addition to simply removing material, underground structures have to be built to support the weight of the earth above them as well as to pump water out of the system.

It's not an issue with the water table or the soil type. Everybody says that, and they're all very wrong. The water table varies, sometimes being very deep, sometimes being very shallow. It doesn't matter what city we're talking about--a subway system has to have sumps. And ours would have to have some form of floodgates similar to what the TMC and the downtown tunnel system uses. It's nothing that makes a subway physically infeasible, but these systems are just part of the cost. ...but to emphasize, subways are extremely expensive regardless of what city you're talking about. They're economically feasible only in a highly limited range of circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Metro not helping i meant that they should have at least added an extra 10 miles to each line theyre building. What good does an 8 mile line do? Its not commuting anywhere. But I know about voters not allowing anything to happen. This transit agency is at least 20 years behind and this city is growing at a phenomenal rate. I dont agree with the East End and the other Green line that run almost into the exact same area of town. I really dont understand the reasoning behind the Brown and Green lines' planning.

I'm assuming you don't live in one of the corridors that will be affected? As someone who lives in the East End, I'm glad that they are building that 4 miles of rail that you deem "useless"... it's not useless to me, in fact I'll probably be using it a whole lot.

LOL I also have to assume that you don't understand the difference between light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail. Houston is not building commuter rail right now... we're doing light rail. Take the red line for example. Somehow it seems to finds millions of paying passengers each year, but it is LESS than 8 miles long. It's not "commuting" anywhere either, but that's not stopping people from riding it.

Dallas DART has a commuter rail system that literally BEHAVES as lightrail in the downtown area. I would call it a hybrid for that reason, but you can't really define it as light rail. I would have loved to see something similar for Houston, but our suburban areas shot down the idea. You can thank Tom Delay.

Now in the aughts, at least we are trying to set some rail precedents for the city. If this "starter system" is successful, who knows what could happen... Houston may be able to build subway eventually. But it's not going to happen without light rail first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's try to tone down the level of sarcasm in this thread. If you have nothing to contribute other than snarky comments and smily faces, then feel free not to post.

Also, bring the thread back on topic or it will be closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the idea of hiking down into a subway station that most likely wont be air conditioned doesn't thrill me. I've ridden the subway in Boston when it was only 85 and about half as humid as it is here and those stations can get really uncomfortable. In NYC, it's even worse. On a hot August day with typical Manhattan mugginess, it's downright rank in the tunnels. I can't even begin to imagine what a Houston station would feel/smell like...

Additionally, I'd wager that most people would feel safer at a street level station at night than having to deal with stairs/escalators/elevators in the dark.

Of course, all of this is moot since we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the idea of hiking down into a subway station that most likely wont be air conditioned doesn't thrill me. I've ridden the subway in Boston when it was only 85 and about half as humid as it is here and those stations can get really uncomfortable. In NYC, it's even worse. On a hot August day with typical Manhattan mugginess, it's downright rank in the tunnels. I can't even begin to imagine what a Houston station would feel/smell like...

Additionally, I'd wager that most people would feel safer at a street level station at night than having to deal with stairs/escalators/elevators in the dark.

We air condition the downtown tunnels. Is there any reason to believe that we wouldn't air condition a subway station?

Of course, all of this is moot since we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!!!

We've made frivolous investments before. It's not that we can't afford it, it's that we aren't willing to afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the idea of hiking down into a subway station that most likely wont be air conditioned doesn't thrill me. I've ridden the subway in Boston when it was only 85 and about half as humid as it is here and those stations can get really uncomfortable. In NYC, it's even worse. On a hot August day with typical Manhattan mugginess, it's downright rank in the tunnels. I can't even begin to imagine what a Houston station would feel/smell like...

Additionally, I'd wager that most people would feel safer at a street level station at night than having to deal with stairs/escalators/elevators in the dark.

Of course, all of this is moot since we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY!!!

If I remember correctly, the subway stations in Atlanta were air conditioned. I'm sure the newer subway systems across America are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We air condition the downtown tunnels. Is there any reason to believe that we wouldn't air condition a subway station?

We've made frivolous investments before. It's not that we can't afford it, it's that we aren't willing to afford it.

No, it really is that we can't afford it. But, as you say, we've made frivolous investments before and spent money we "can't afford" to spend (and continue to do so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it really is that we can't afford it. But, as you say, we've made frivolous investments before and spent money we "can't afford" to spend (and continue to do so).

Nope. This is the difference between "may I" versus "can I". It's not that we couldn't, it's that our spending priorities are that we shouldn't (except perhaps in a very few limited circumstances).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. This is the difference between "may I" versus "can I". It's not that we couldn't, it's that our spending priorities are that we shouldn't (except perhaps in a very few limited circumstances).

I don't think we really have a disagreement. I am just coming at it from the point of view that "given the current spending and revenue of the federal government..." Yes, absolutely, if we chose to re-direct the priorities, we could certainly "afford" subway construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, the downtown tunnels were private. I can only imagine what Joe Q. Afton Oaks would do if he heard his tax dollars were going to be wasted on air conditioned stations for poor people!

Are you kidding me? Since subways are WAAAAAAAY cool, Joe Q. will be riding that bad boy in style!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me? Since subways are WAAAAAAAY cool, Joe Q. will be riding that bad boy in style!

LOL... no fuh-reaking way man. Why the heck would Joe Q. ride a damp, dark subway when he can just climb into his car and it'll take him ANYWHERE he wants to go?? That's dumb.

One "quick" change that METRO could make that is relatively inexpensive... retrofit all of the busses with GPS and put e.t.a. signs at all of the bus stops. It would make our transit system very efficient with or without rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One "quick" change that METRO could make that is relatively inexpensive... retrofit all of the busses with GPS and put e.t.a. signs at all of the bus stops. It would make our transit system very efficient with or without rail.

how would that improve efficiency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how would that improve efficiency?

In addition to ETA postings at bus stations, METRO could develop an app for cell phones allowing anyone on the go to tap into the system and check on whether they've got enough time to drop into a convenience store for coffee or just to catch a few more minutes of the morning news.

The benefit would be that it improves functionality, and thereby increases ridership. Increased ridership generates fares and reduces operating costs per passenger mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to ETA postings at bus stations, METRO could develop an app for cell phones allowing anyone on the go to tap into the system and check on whether they've got enough time to drop into a convenience store for coffee or just to catch a few more minutes of the morning news.

The benefit would be that it improves functionality, and thereby increases ridership. Increased ridership generates fares and reduces operating costs per passenger mile.

adhering to a schedule could do the same thing at no cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We both know that'll never happen.

Yeah you're right. You know, I actually drove on Main St today and a Metro train passed, better yet, zoomed past me. I could see it from afar for a while, it crossed downtown in like 10 mins. So if were not wiling to spend on a subway, then we could just install water sprayers on the corners of each stations LOL :lol: . Or more realistically, we can enclose the stations completely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...