The Boulevard Project

[Dakota79]

No. He has a rider added to the budget every year that says federal money cannot be used on light rail in his district unless very specific conditions are met, which are fairly unattainable.

There is nothing stopping metro from building it, so long as it is funded locally.

It's so frustrating that Texas turns down so many federal $$$.

[cspwal]

More of the same opposition to the dedicated bus lanes http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Levine-McIngvale-and-Masraff-Bus-lane-plan-will-6128492.php

What I don't get is if no one rides the light rail, why is it always packed?

[sdotwill84]

Opposition to the uptown bus lane. Opposition to more inner city light rail. Opposition to commuter rail. Opposition to memorial park enhancements. Opposition to the Dallas/Houston Train.  I know I’m forgetting some…  

 

Is Houston really this uptight? Geesh.

Edited March 12, 2015 by sdotwill84

[Slick Vik]

Opposition to the uptown bus lane. Opposition to more inner city light rail. Opposition to commuter rail. Opposition to memorial park enhancements. Opposition to the Dallas/Houston Train. I know I’m forgetting some…

Is Houston really this uptight? Geesh.

Backwards

[Dakota79]

Backwards

A bunch of knuckleheads to think we don't need to have mass transit. And a lot of it.

[cspwal]

Who knows maybe they will be releasing their plans for a post oak subway next week?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not holding my breath

[cloud713]

ugh. they need to just trench Post Oak Blvd.

[ArchFan]

I think we would be better served by (some form of) rail along Post Oak, rather than buses.  In the Uptown/Galleria area, at least, that rail should be underground.

 

However ... to me, that is starting to seem less likely to happen in my lifetime.  And if it doesn't happen during that time, it may never, Houston will wither economically.   If we don't build the infrastructure needed to support continued population growth, it will come to a stop.   Businesses will no longer see Houston as a place to which to attract talent and create jobs.

 

In my childhood, civic leaders here touted Houston as the "can do" city.  Nowadays, a "can't do" attitude seems to have taken root in many peoples' minds.  So often, that attitude seems to be motivated by people's fear of losing what they've got (e.g., the Afton Oaks folks).  What those folks don't realize is that by doing nothing, they will still lose eventually.  (Unless perhaps they take their profits now and leave.)   Conversely, by preparing for the future, we are all more likely to have happier futures here.

 

 

 

 

[cloud713]

im not sure its so much that the "can't do" mind set has taken over, but more so "oil money" lines the pockets of our politicians. unfortunately they only see these electric trains and CNG busses as taking away potential profits from the oil companies, and don't factor in all the positive benefits they would bring.

[cspwal]

If they wanted to go futuristic they could make it a monorail - and make a deal with Exxon or Chevron or someone to have it powered by natural gas or gasoline.

Have there been many elevated rail projects in the past couple of years?  I feel like its been all light rail all the time 

[cloud713]

Elevated rail is pretty much all but phased out with the exception of high speed rail afaik. I've heard even Chicago doesn't build elevated rail anymore..?

[cloud713]

I still say trench the post oak main lanes like an underground blvd, from 59 to 610. Put a 4 lane surface street above for local traffic between the intersections, and put mass transit along side that. There would be enough room left over to have very wide bike paths/sidewalks along side all of that. Expensive, but how else are you going to add capacity to post oak without trenching (or elevating) some lanes?

[Naviguessor]

Cut and cap Post Oak sounds like the best idea I've heard in a while. Whether it's for bus, rail, express, all three...whatever.

[cloud713]

if only the city had unlimited funding for roads and the political power to pull that kind of project off... heh.

[IronTiger]

Cut and cap Post Oak sounds like the best idea I've heard in a while. Whether it's for bus, rail, express, all three...whatever.

Several years ago I saw a rendering for a "subway" style light rail station (below ground). Sigh...if only.

[ArchFan]

One would think that putting a Post Oak line underground would satisfy a lot of people, including many who oppose the current bus proposal.  However, we all assume that that option would cost more ... but an important aspect to consider is the cost/benefit ratio both in the short and long terms.  

 

IronT, I seem to recall that awhile back, you posted an interesting article that analyzed the relative costs of burying transit lines vs. elevating them.  I recall being a bit surprised by some of the conclusions drawn.  In any case, I'm not ideologically opposed to either choice, as long as they were fair and cost-effective in the long term.

 

To me, it seems like we in Houston to often tend to go with options that are cheaper this year, but that don't work well and wind up costing more in the long run.

[IronTiger]

One would think that putting a Post Oak line underground would satisfy a lot of people, including many who oppose the current bus proposal.  However, we all assume that that option would cost more ... but an important aspect to consider is the cost/benefit ratio both in the short and long terms.  

 

IronT, I seem to recall that awhile back, you posted an interesting article that analyzed the relative costs of burying transit lines vs. elevating them.  I recall being a bit surprised by some of the conclusions drawn.  In any case, I'm not ideologically opposed to either choice, as long as they were fair and cost-effective in the long term.

 

To me, it seems like we in Houston to often tend to go with options that are cheaper this year, but that don't work well and wind up costing more in the long run.

I don't remember posting such an article, it might've been someone else. In either case, I think a huge part of Houston resistance to light rail is placing them along streets, which not only really screws up traffic patterns and creates business resistance ("customers can't turn left into my business", etc.) but that the more it extends outside the core Main Street corridor, it starts getting into diminishing returns because it tends to have many stops and stops at lights just like cars do (making it, in effect, a really expensive BRT). Look at the "master plan" and tell me what a pain it would be to go from Uptown to Downtown.

On the other hand, we have resistance to any other kind because (usually) it's even more expensive, which threatens the whole "Houston being a relatively affordable place to live" status quo.

This is all complicated by a variety of other factors, including METRO's incompetence, the whole "tunnels will flood" fear (disproved for the most part, at least under normal circumstances), the "ridership is everything, therefore we must place it on road corridors like METRO thinks", and the lack of straight, continuous utility ROW/railroad ROW to place it along a la Dallas (Westpark notwithstanding).

[ArchFan]

The article I mentioned -- insofar as my bad memory permits -- presented the idea that putting rail underground, while expensive, was not so much more costly than putting it above ground.  

 

In any case, I think that we are able to build infrastructure here below ground that can deal with the occasional flooding events we have.  Whether we do that is more a matter of whether we have the will to invest a sufficient amount of taxpayer money today in order to reap benefits in the future.  I am not arguing that we should just do that because I think so ... rather, I think that as a community we should consider where we are, where we are heading (or want to head) and how we should prepare for whatever future we want Houston to have.  In other words, it is better if our community thinks about this and achieves some sort of consensus -- rather than having the majority be an apathetic one that lets one or the other motivated group hold sway in elections.

 

In that regard, I don't think its sufficient to just go with the current flow, which is:  we can't build freeways anymore, so let's fill the hinterlands with toll-roads until we cover the continent.  

Edited March 15, 2015 by ArchFan

[Slick Vik]

The article I mentioned -- insofar as my bad memory permits -- presented the idea that putting rail underground, while expensive, was not so much more costly than putting it above ground.

In any case, I think that we are able to build infrastructure here below ground that can deal with the occasional flooding events we have. Whether we do that is more a matter of whether we have the will to invest a sufficient amount of taxpayer money today in order to reap benefits in the future. I am not arguing that we should just do that because I think so ... rather, I think that as a community we should consider where we are, where we are heading (or want to head) and how we should prepare for whatever future we want Houston to have. In other words, it is better if our community thinks about this and achieves some sort of consensus -- rather than having the majority be an apathetic one that lets one or the other motivated group hold sway in elections.

In that regard, I don't think its sufficient to just go with the current flow, which is: we can't build freeways anymore, so let's fill the hinterlands with toll-roads until we cover the continent.

Underground is about triple of elevated cost

[BigFootsSocks]

I believe there's also the issue of soil, which in Houston, is pretty much a swamp.

[IronTiger]

I believe there's also the issue of soil, which in Houston, is pretty much a swamp.

I think I've read that the soil isn't an issue. Besides, if the soil was that much of a problem, we shouldn't have supertalls downtown because of foundation issues.

As for elevated, besides the "ADA compliant stations" problem, I have a running theory that nobody really likes elevated structures for their aesthetic value. I'm pretty sure there's a great number of people who still think that, say, the Pierce Elevated is ugly and an eyesore but has a real purpose, and that same principle is used for why GO/OF was so against the HSR, or why Harrisburg wasn't fond of the original overpass idea. You could argue over how wide or how tall those structures are, but I think the core principle is still there.

[BigFootsSocks]

I think I've read that the soil isn't an issue. Besides, if the soil was that much of a problem, we shouldn't have supertalls downtown because of foundation issues.

As for elevated, besides the "ADA compliant stations" problem, I have a running theory that nobody really likes elevated structures for their aesthetic value. I'm pretty sure there's a great number of people who still think that, say, the Pierce Elevated is ugly and an eyesore but has a real purpose, and that same principle is used for why GO/OF was so against the HSR, or why Harrisburg wasn't fond of the original overpass idea. You could argue over how wide or how tall those structures are, but I think the core principle is still there.

Yeah I guess that all makes sense and you babe a very valid point.

I heard the "soil" issue from my father who has been practicing civil engineering here for over 30 years. But he's old so maybe one of us young whippersnappers can cook something up

[Trae]

im not sure its so much that the "can't do" mind set has taken over, but more so "oil money" lines the pockets of our politicians. unfortunately they only see these electric trains and CNG busses as taking away potential profits from the oil companies, and don't factor in all the positive benefits they would bring.

Which is just crazy. You look at the Canadian versions of Houston (Calgary and Edmonton), and they have no problems getting rail and the citizens there vote for expansions. I will never understand why the politicians are so anti rail in Houston. It is really frustrating and holding the city back. Nevermind that early 1980s plan (which would be great for Houston currently), if the 2000 light rail plan that was approved by voters did not reach so much opposition, the inner loop lines would all be complete right now. Instead, we get the half assed version and nothing better for the next decade at least.

And lets not forget either, part of the reason the rail runs in the streets without many grade separations is because Metro did not receive help from politicians who blocked funding. Could have been much better without so much corruption and delays.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Trae

[DNAguy]

Which is just crazy. You look at the Canadian versions of Houston (Calgary and Edmonton), and they have no problems getting rail and the citizens there vote for expansions. I will never understand why the politicians are so anti rail in Houston. It is really frustrating and holding the city back. Nevermind that early 1980s plan (which would be great for Houston currently), if the 2000 light rail plan that was approved by voters did not reach so much opposition, the inner loop lines would all be complete right now. Instead, we get the half assed version and nothing better for the next decade at least.

And lets not forget either, part of the reason the rail runs in the streets without many grade separations is because Metro did not receive help from politicians who blocked funding. Could have been much better without so much corruption and delays.

 

Don't let Metro off the hook for their responsibility in this. They shouldn't have let it get to this point. 

 

They are a poorly run, corrupt institution that until the recent bus plan sat idly by while public transportation in Houston went to pot. Then the rail took over their focus and they fulfilled the prophecy of their detractors. 

 

What did they do from 1980 to 2000? I understand their hands were tied w/ the whole % of sales tax revenue going back to roads but seriously guys.... WTF?

 

If they could have pointed to successful bus lines that needed to be converted to rail and showed a track record of innovation and competence, then maybe we have a better and more robust system now.

 

They have been a sick man who refuses to die for a long time. It's to all our detriment but its true. They need to be scrapped. The leader of a new METRO needs to be elected and accountable. The status quo doesn't work. 

[mollusk]

METRO is a textbook example of how political officials do away with an agency by starving it of funds and turning its leadership into a clown show, and then saying "looky looky - this is a clown show!!!  Let's kill it!!!"  Another example, FEMA... a very effective agency before 2000, and which had been chaired for a few years by a guy who did horse shows when Katrina showed up.  More recently, it's back to being something that just isn't heard of much, because it's back to doing its job rather than being a parking place for gormless campaign donors.

 

METRO still has some powerful folks who have an investment in it not working (***cough cough Culberson cough***).  Plus, it's way easier to break something than to put it back together.

[samagon]

I believe there's also the issue of soil, which in Houston, is pretty much a swamp.

 

 

Yeah I guess that all makes sense and you babe a very valid point.

I heard the "soil" issue from my father who has been practicing civil engineering here for over 30 years. But he's old so maybe one of us young whippersnappers can cook something up

 

the soil quality is not really valid. there are subway systems in soil much worse than our own. Amsterdam is but one example, and probably the best example.

 

METRO is a textbook example of how political officials do away with an agency by starving it of funds and turning its leadership into a clown show, and then saying "looky looky - this is a clown show!!!  Let's kill it!!!"  Another example, FEMA... a very effective agency before 2000, and which had been chaired for a few years by a guy who did horse shows when Katrina showed up.  More recently, it's back to being something that just isn't heard of much, because it's back to doing its job rather than being a parking place for gormless campaign donors.

 

METRO still has some powerful folks who have an investment in it not working (***cough cough Culberson cough***).  Plus, it's way easier to break something than to put it back together.

 

Not to get too far afield, but just because the attention of the media is focused on other things doesn't mean fema is working.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/16/392795828/fema-plans-to-reopen-all-sandy-claims-regain-trust-in-overhaul

 

if another katrina were to barrel through this year, it would be much the same comedy of errors we were able to witness last time.

[mfastx]

Don't let Metro off the hook for their responsibility in this. They shouldn't have let it get to this point. 

 

They are a poorly run, corrupt institution that until the recent bus plan sat idly by while public transportation in Houston went to pot. Then the rail took over their focus and they fulfilled the prophecy of their detractors. 

 

What did they do from 1980 to 2000? I understand their hands were tied w/ the whole % of sales tax revenue going back to roads but seriously guys.... WTF?

 

If they could have pointed to successful bus lines that needed to be converted to rail and showed a track record of innovation and competence, then maybe we have a better and more robust system now.

 

They have been a sick man who refuses to die for a long time. It's to all our detriment but its true. They need to be scrapped. The leader of a new METRO needs to be elected and accountable. The status quo doesn't work. 

 

Idk how you expect METRO to deal with the general mobility payments thing.  Those are absolutely essential dollars and no other major city in this country has anything like general mobility payments. 

 

METRO has proposed numerous comprehensive transit plans over the decades, METRO was extremely well run back in the 1980s with Alan Kiepper at the helm.  Of course when he tried to complete the system with a state of the art heavy rail system classic Houston politics/uninformed voters got in the way. 

 

When many powerful politicians are against you and you are starved of funding, it's very difficult to be successful. 

[mollusk]

Idk how you expect METRO to deal with the general mobility payments thing.  Those are absolutely essential dollars and no other major city in this country has anything like general mobility payments. 

 

METRO has proposed numerous comprehensive transit plans over the decades, METRO was extremely well run back in the 1980s with Alan Kiepper at the helm.  Of course when he tried to complete the system with a state of the art heavy rail system classic Houston politics/uninformed voters got in the way. 

 

When many powerful politicians are against you and you are starved of funding, it's very difficult to be successful. 

 

Precisely.  

 

The "general mobility payments" are nothing more than a ruse with a nifty sounding name that has zilch to do with its actual effect, that was put in place to break a program that a certain now sainted mayor didn't like - a page right out of the playbook of another now sainted politician whose actual record barely resembles the hagiography.  I wouldn't have as big a problem with it if there were an actual, functioning program of repairing and upgrading roads that the busses currently beat the living daylights out of.  (as just one of many examples, Westheimer, anyone?)

 

The bigger problem is that the "general mobility payments" really function as an increase in the City of Houston tax rate without all the messiness that an acknowledged tax rate increase would have incurred at the time - and the city is now pretty accustomed to having that pool o' money.

[Luminare]

I've officially lost all hope for humanity!

 

I just.....I can't even....

 

http://saveuptown.com/

[cloud713]

Oh.My.God. The "Uptown is a masterpiece" one really got me.. If you want uptown to continue to be the "jewel" of Houston then we've got to do something about the traffic problems..