Jump to content

METRORail Construction Resumes


scarface

Recommended Posts

I'll chime in on this one...the CAF cars are better in some ways because they hold slightly more people, is 100% low-floor and have 2 extra ingress/egress points. However, their top speed is 45 mph, compared to Siemens' 66 mph top speed. They also have much fewer seats inside than the Siemens car (even the trial versions now in use with bike/carriage spaces). It should also be noted that the CAF cars are quite a bit longer than Siemens' cars too. They are also NOT interchangeable at all with Siemens (as others have mentioned).

http://www.caf.net/ingles/productos/proyecto.php?cod=4&id=630&sec=datos

http://www.transportation.siemens.com/shared/data/pdf/sts_usa_internet/houston_s70.pdf

That being said, this http://www.chron.com...an/7197426.html says that the saga is not over in CAF's mind. I expect that is indeed over though. They will likely sue METRO, which will increase the amount of taxpayer money spent on this deal, and due to the new procurement, the process will likely delay the project 2 more years.

No matter what CAF says, I have a hard time believing that any damages that they sue METRO for will even sniff the $900 million that METRO would lose from FTA. Furthermore, CAF can huff and puff all they want, but they should keep in mind that Houston is not the only city with an LRT FTA project...essentially telling FTA that they got it wrong because of some previously held-but-not-shared information is not a good way to get them to sign of on any future deals.

This is yet another chapter in the legacy of Frank Wilson, unfortunately. http://www.state.nj..../pdf/ezpass.pdf And like the mess in New Jersey, Houston is left holding the bag with a yet-to-be-fully-seen amount of damage. mad.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well maybe the CAF cars are better than Siemans cars, but are they the best overall? I believe I read something in the newspaper about how the CAF cars flood easily? And Houston is prone to flooding.

Yeah, that bit about operating in high water was news to me. It came from here: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7196479.html

The Alstom Citadis is another beautiful vehicle. We could do worse than to end up with some of those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tram_Barcelona.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that bit about operating in high water was news to me. It came from here: http://www.chron.com...al/7196479.html

The Alstom Citadis is another beautiful vehicle. We could do worse than to end up with some of those.

http://en.wikipedia....m_Barcelona.JPG

That surprises me considering that Metro shuts down the current rolling stock when there is 3 inches of water on the track (or rain, I forget). The reasoning being is that they would be prone to damage or have to be inspected if it continued going through 'high water."

So, does this mean that the OTHER cars are able to run in 4 inches of water or higher? What is the "safety" cut off when it is NOT allowable to go in "high water?"

Additionally, wouldn't the various rail lines be on roads that would have major improvements in drainage anyway? To my knowledge, the only portion of the mainline that has problems with high water is the Holcombe underpass in the Medical Center.

My feeling is that the concern should be in the highest capacity with the lowest cost in maintenance, the rest I believe is nothing more than a red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That surprises me considering that Metro shuts down the current rolling stock when there is 3 inches of water on the track (or rain, I forget). The reasoning being is that they would be prone to damage or have to be inspected if it continued going through 'high water."

So, does this mean that the OTHER cars are able to run in 4 inches of water or higher? What is the "safety" cut off when it is NOT allowable to go in "high water?"

Additionally, wouldn't the various rail lines be on roads that would have major improvements in drainage anyway? To my knowledge, the only portion of the mainline that has problems with high water is the Holcombe underpass in the Medical Center.

My feeling is that the concern should be in the highest capacity with the lowest cost in maintenance, the rest I believe is nothing more than a red herring.

Assuming the the high-water limitation is within reason (not just half an inch, or something pathetic like that) I tend to agree that this is a non-issue. The Red Line has been shut down as a precaution on several occasions that were attributed to flooding. It's not a vehicle problem so much as it is a light rail problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll chime in on this one...the CAF cars are better in some ways because they hold slightly more people, is 100% low-floor and have 2 extra ingress/egress points. However, their top speed is 45 mph, compared to Siemens' 66 mph top speed. They also have much fewer seats inside than the Siemens car (even the trial versions now in use with bike/carriage spaces). It should also be noted that the CAF cars are quite a bit longer than Siemens' cars too. They are also NOT interchangeable at all with Siemens (as others have mentioned).

You point out the longer length as if that is a drawback. It most definitely is not. The longer CAF cars allow more capacity while remaining within the confines of short downtown blocks. The top speed, like the high water issue, is not a problem for a train that never exceeds 35 mph. This would only become an issue on a suburban route, which we obviously do not have, and likely won't for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps I'm alone in thinking that the relative +/- of CAF cars vs. competitors won't outweigh the political considerations for "New" METRO in the revised procurement process?

are Greanias, Garcia, and Parker tone-deaf enough to contract w/CAF for anything, especially after CAF publicly threatens Houston taxpayers for not making good on the illegal agreements created and signed off on by METRO execs and board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to be the idiot to ask this, but I tried reading through these last two pages, is this setback only affecting the cars being delivered, or is it for work on the actual tracks as well?

I imagine it will suck to have these pretty tracks all laid out, with no trains running on them, but I think it would suck more to be halfway through digging up scott street only to halt construction while money is being asked for again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You point out the longer length as if that is a drawback. It most definitely is not. The longer CAF cars allow more capacity while remaining within the confines of short downtown blocks. The top speed, like the high water issue, is not a problem for a train that never exceeds 35 mph. This would only become an issue on a suburban route, which we obviously do not have, and likely won't for years.

True, the length is in and of itself not a problem at all, just a noted difference. The platforms are long enough to handle the cars in 2-car consists. Additionally, the longer car length has less of an impact on capacity than the reduction in number of seats and their placement. The CAF cars' seats are placed more alongside the walls of the car as opposed to the Siemens cars' placement facing forward and backward a la traditional trains.

As far as the speed goes, that's also not a huge deal presently but it does there are long segments of the Uptown and University lines that could make good use of the higher speed. Keep in mind that these $3.5 million cars have a 25-year usable lifespan on them, thus if they appear on the streets in 2015, we're talking 2040 as a retirement year. While things look bad now financially, it's not unreasonable to think that the IAH, Hobby, and 90A extensions will be in place by 2030, let alone 2040, and these lines could be much more suburban (similar to Dallas). Thus for the sake of cost-effective system interoperability, I think that getting a vehicle that can realize higher speeds will prove to be prudent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, the length is in and of itself not a problem at all, just a noted difference. The platforms are long enough to handle the cars in 2-car consists. Additionally, the longer car length has less of an impact on capacity than the reduction in number of seats and their placement. The CAF cars' seats are placed more alongside the walls of the car as opposed to the Siemens cars' placement facing forward and backward a la traditional trains.

As far as the speed goes, that's also not a huge deal presently but it does there are long segments of the Uptown and University lines that could make good use of the higher speed. Keep in mind that these $3.5 million cars have a 25-year usable lifespan on them, thus if they appear on the streets in 2015, we're talking 2040 as a retirement year. While things look bad now financially, it's not unreasonable to think that the IAH, Hobby, and 90A extensions will be in place by 2030, let alone 2040, and these lines could be much more suburban (similar to Dallas). Thus for the sake of cost-effective system interoperability, I think that getting a vehicle that can realize higher speeds will prove to be prudent.

I tend to think that any sane person would recognize that light rail is not a suitable substitute for either commuter rail or park & ride service. ...but I also acknowledge that however sane the current leadership may be, that is no predictor of future leadership. For that reason, I share your concerns and feel that a better approach may be to try to anticipate and accommodate insanity rather than just hope that it can be warded off with reasonable deterrents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to be the idiot to ask this, but I tried reading through these last two pages, is this setback only affecting the cars being delivered, or is it for work on the actual tracks as well?

I imagine it will suck to have these pretty tracks all laid out, with no trains running on them, but I think it would suck more to be halfway through digging up scott street only to halt construction while money is being asked for again.

From what I understand the delay in funding affects everything... the funding was going towards the entire rail project not just the cars. The good news, it seems, is that while this will cause a delay, the rail lines will still get built b/c the federal government still stands behind the project... METRO just has to redo the bidding process for the rail cars. METRO will still get the funding they just can't get their hands on it until they fix their mistake.

That's what I understand if I am wrong anyone can correct me... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The contract to purchase 103 LRVs was executed by Frank Wilson, former Metro president and CEO, on April 22, 2009, following board approval. This occurred a week after the FTA sent Wilson a letter saying Metro was not eligible for a waiver from Buy America guidelines, an Examiner open records request showed.

“CAF is ineligible for a waiver (from Buy America guidelines) in this instance,” because it has already signed a certificate of compliance, the letter from acting-FTA Chief Counsel Scott A. Biehl said.

So let me get this straight... in 2009 METRO gets a letter from the FTA saying that, in a nutshell, to get the federal funding for the rail lines they must abide to the Buy America guidelines. They also tell Metro that basically, in a nutshell, buying rail cars through the Spanish Company CAF would be in violation of the Buy America guidelines. Knowing all of this, METRO still executed a contract with CAF for rail cars.

So am I to understand METRO knew the contract w/ CAF was not within the guidelines to get federal funding and they still did it? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so let me get this straight... in 2009 METRO gets a letter from the FTA saying that, in a nutshell, to get the federal funding for the rail lines they must abide to the Buy America guidelines. They also tell Metro that basically, in a nutshell, buying rail cars through the Spanish Company CAF would be in violation of the Buy America guidelines. Knowing all of this, METRO still executed a contract with CAF for rail cars.

So am I to understand METRO knew the contract w/ CAF was not within the guidelines to get federal funding and they still did it? :huh:

you underestimate the arrogance of METRO management.

if you read the 38 page FTA report, and make sure to read all the footnotes, you will see that METRO CEO, upper management, the Board, and the consultants hired to direct the railcar procurement process, were aware of everything since 2007, not 2009. And they proceeded anyway.

the rot runs deep at METRO and needs to be cut out. Greanias and the new board are merely a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting blog post from Tory Gattis re: METRO'S financial woes and his suggestions for improving public transit even with declining revenue

http://houstonstrate...-for-metro.html

LOL what this guy doesn't realize is that you cannot have a high transit ridership with a bus only system. They don't hold enough people, dont run on time, and are too slow. I just wish this guy would name one city that has done this sucessfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently there's going to be another vote...

This is very dissapointing. You know people are just going to vote it down for no other reason than all of the recent controversy. Will Houston voters knock out yet another rail plan? Houstonians won't reailze how valuable good public transit is until we build a few lines.

It just frustrates me how people in Houston say that we shouldn't get a rail system, we just need more buses. I guarantee most, if not all, of those people do not ride public transit. They do not give a damn, they just want the cheapest transit system built, since they belive that they will never use it. They talk about how the light rail will be so-and-so million dollars per mile, and that we could by every rider a car, etc. Do they not realize how much we spend widening freeways? 2.8 billion!? To add 40,000 cars!? Why is it that there is no vote to build/expand freeways? Why is it that is not common knowledge that we spend billions and billions on freeways, and EVERYONE knows how much light rail cost? Why is it that the cost of all the freeway expansion is not released? The only cost that was released was the Katy Freeway. Why not 610 @ 59? How much did that interchange renovation project cost? And why is it so hard to find out?

Sorry for the rant it just frustrates me how behind this country is on rail infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently there's going to be another vote...

This is very dissapointing. You know people are just going to vote it down for no other reason than all of the recent controversy. Will Houston voters knock out yet another rail plan? Houstonians won't reailze how valuable good public transit is until we build a few lines.

It just frustrates me how people in Houston say that we shouldn't get a rail system, we just need more buses. I guarantee most, if not all, of those people do not ride public transit. They do not give a damn, they just want the cheapest transit system built, since they belive that they will never use it. They talk about how the light rail will be so-and-so million dollars per mile, and that we could by every rider a car, etc. Do they not realize how much we spend widening freeways? 2.8 billion!? To add 40,000 cars!? Why is it that there is no vote to build/expand freeways? Why is it that is not common knowledge that we spend billions and billions on freeways, and EVERYONE knows how much light rail cost? Why is it that the cost of all the freeway expansion is not released? The only cost that was released was the Katy Freeway. Why not 610 @ 59? How much did that interchange renovation project cost? And why is it so hard to find out?

Sorry for the rant it just frustrates me how behind this country is on rail infrastructure.

I hope this isn't so. However, since this is breaking news, let's hope for the best - it's not a done deal yet.

Also, METRO's problems are affecting more than the people of Houston. From the Elmira Star-Gazette:

"Should the project be canceled, the question is whose money got wasted -- residents of Houston, Texas, or residents of the United States?" said George Miner, president of Southern Tier Economic Growth, which played a role in CAF USA's purchase of its local facility.

"Ironically, the goal of the federal stimulus program is to create American jobs now, which could be lost as a result of the (federal agency's) action, or at best case delayed an additional 20 months," he said.

FTA nixes contract between Elmira Heights, Houston companies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the report by M Reed at the Examiner comes straight from the streaming METRO board mtg currently underway, but you're right it's not a done deal yet.

BUT...METRO has to go back to the voters. the original 2003 vote limited to $640mil the issuing of bonds w/sales tax collateral. that amount turned out to be insufficient to qualify for the amount of matching fed $ METRO needs.

Wilson, Wolff and "Old" METRO were trying to work around the voters intent by issuing another ~$400mil in bonds w/revenue collateral, but with declining fares a reality, projected the revenue #s based on guaranteed permanent fare increases on buses and trains. these increases would be veto-proof by future boards.

the Tx AG said no.

mfastx - there isn't enough $ to build the 5 lines Houstonians voted for. that's not hysteria or anti-rail, just fact. and it's gone well beyond "controversy" toward full-blown scandal. 7 yrs after the vote and tens of $millions later we're back to square 1 on 2 of the proposed lines, including the Univ Line "backbone" of the whole system, and have halted construction on the other 3. the entire blame for this lies squarely with the former METRO board and CEO, and with some of the still-there METRO Board and execs.

if METRO doesn't come back to the voters with a plan that we can afford, you can bet it will be voted down. hopefully, between now and the next vote Parker and Greanias will do some more housecleaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mfastx - there isn't enough $ to build the 5 lines Houstonians voted for. that's not hysteria or anti-rail, just fact. and it's gone well beyond "controversy" toward full-blown scandal. 7 yrs after the vote and tens of $millions later we're back to square 1 on 2 of the proposed lines, including the Univ Line "backbone" of the whole system, and have halted construction on the other 3. the entire blame for this lies squarely with the former METRO board and CEO, and with some of the still-there METRO Board and execs.

if METRO doesn't come back to the voters with a plan that we can afford, you can bet it will be voted down. hopefully, between now and the next vote Parker and Greanias will do some more housecleaning.

That's not the point of my post. Of course there's not enough money now, it would have been a lot cheaper if we had started/finished on time. The longer we wait, the more money it will cost to get a respectable transit system. But what I don't understand is why every rail project is scrutinized so much. When TxDOT builds highways, they get however much federal funds they want (which is usually about 50% of the cost), no questions asked. Money shouldn't be a problem. I don't like the argument that "since it costs more now, there should be another vote." They just have to come back with the same plan, we can afford it, we will get the federal funds. There shouldn't even be another vote. That's just like how some people think that since California high speed rail costs more than originally planned, they need another vote.

If METRO could only get their whole sales tax, we might actaully have a decent transit system by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the point of my post. Of course there's not enough money now, it would have been a lot cheaper if we had started/finished on time.

There was never enough money. That's why METRO sought to get around the 2003 $640mil limit on sales tax bonds by issuing revenue bonds that voters did not approve. In order to do that METRO was prepared to put in place permanent fare increases systemwide, with future boards prohibited from stopping them. The only approval METRO neede for revenue bonds was from the Tx AG, and he refused b/c METRO's spent so much of its cash, and is so over-leveraged in short-term loans it can't meet the law's minimum financial health requirement.

But what I don't understand is why every rail project is scrutinized so much.

I'd say we have a pretty good reason right in front of us. METRO violated federal law.

Money shouldn't be a problem. I don't like the argument that "since it costs more now, there should be another vote." They just have to come back with the same plan, we can afford it, we will get the federal funds. There shouldn't even be another vote.

METRO is bound by the 2003 referendum to hold another vote before Jan 2013 in order to get voter approval for continued support of the Solutions plan after 2014. That's the law. You may be right that getting voter approval to spend more millions on a 2nd decade of construction when there won't be any cars running by the end of 2013 on the 3 lines currently started, and with no known completion date for the other 2 lines.

But that problem has less to do with anti-rail bias, and more to do with METRO arrogance and incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was never enough money. That's why METRO sought to get around the 2003 $640mil limit on sales tax bonds by issuing revenue bonds that voters did not approve. In order to do that METRO was prepared to put in place permanent fare increases systemwide, with future boards prohibited from stopping them. The only approval METRO neede for revenue bonds was from the Tx AG, and he refused b/c METRO's spent so much of its cash, and is so over-leveraged in short-term loans it can't meet the law's minimum financial health requirement.

I'd say we have a pretty good reason right in front of us. METRO violated federal law.

METRO is bound by the 2003 referendum to hold another vote before Jan 2013 in order to get voter approval for continued support of the Solutions plan after 2014. That's the law. You may be right that getting voter approval to spend more millions on a 2nd decade of construction when there won't be any cars running by the end of 2013 on the 3 lines currently started, and with no known completion date for the other 2 lines.

But that problem has less to do with anti-rail bias, and more to do with METRO arrogance and incompetence.

Yes, you are right, there is not enough money as transportation funding for public transit is currently structured. I am just saying that if the government put as much priority into rail lines as they did highways, then money wouldn't be a problem. I guarantee you anti-rail bias has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Houston has a sorry transit system. The reason that Wilson pulled all that crap is because he knew that if he played it clean, was 100% transparaent, etc, then people would vote against rail, because it's almost as expensive as highways. The thing is, the people voting against it don't know this, they think that rail is much MORE expensive than highways, and that is not the case. No, I do not like what Wilson did, but I can see why he did it. He got the cheapest deal, which included violating FTA rules. Apparently he thought it would be okay since a transit official told him it would be okay. I am not going to disagree with you any more about METRO, because you seem to know a lot. But I have to disagree with you about all of this not coming from anti-rail bias. If we as a city did not have anti-rail bias, then our transit system would be built in the 1980's with heavy rail, grade seperated technology. We would have let the late Alan Kiepper build out his transit plan. (May he rest in peace.) If every politically powerful Houstonian were behind this project, these lines would be up by 2012. All of these allegations have stemmed from the anti-rail camp, in an effort to slow/stop the project. And none of these allegations came before Annise Parker brought attention to the "incompetence" of METRO.

It infuriates me that these people don't give a rat's ass that highways are almost 50% federally funded, user fees only cover 51% of costs. That means that since the Katy Freeway expansion cost 2.8 billion, then you and I's income taxes payed over 1.3 BILLION dollars of the cost. That's more than the WHOLE heavy rail transit system proposed in the 1980's would have cost, AND it would have payed for our light rail expansion. And that is just a SMALL stretch of freeway in Houston that my tax dollars payed for, and I drive on that freeway maybe a couple times a year. Why is nobody outraged at that? Why does no one demand that TxDOT be more fiscally responsible, or transparent? Where are the costs of ALL of the freeway construction around the city? I cannot find the cost of all of these new highways, that doesn't sound transparent to me. If TxDOT is not transparent, why should METRO be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole situation really blows... We have the numbers inside the loop to make large parts of the area very walkable with the rail system.

Yes, you are right, there is not enough money as transportation funding for public transit is currently structured. I am just saying that if the government put as much priority into rail lines as they did highways, then money wouldn't be a problem. I guarantee you anti-rail bias has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that Houston has a sorry transit system. The reason that Wilson pulled all that crap is because he knew that if he played it clean, was 100% transparaent, etc, then people would vote against rail, because it's almost as expensive as highways. The thing is, the people voting against it don't know this, they think that rail is much MORE expensive than highways, and that is not the case. No, I do not like what Wilson did, but I can see why he did it. He got the cheapest deal, which included violating FTA rules. Apparently he thought it would be okay since a transit official told him it would be okay. I am not going to disagree with you any more about METRO, because you seem to know a lot. But I have to disagree with you about all of this not coming from anti-rail bias. If we as a city did not have anti-rail bias, then our transit system would be built in the 1980's with heavy rail, grade seperated technology. We would have let the late Alan Kiepper build out his transit plan. (May he rest in peace.) If every politically powerful Houstonian were behind this project, these lines would be up by 2012. All of these allegations have stemmed from the anti-rail camp, in an effort to slow/stop the project. And none of these allegations came before Annise Parker brought attention to the "incompetence" of METRO.

It infuriates me that these people don't give a rat's ass that highways are almost 50% federally funded, user fees only cover 51% of costs. That means that since the Katy Freeway expansion cost 2.8 billion, then you and I's income taxes payed over 1.3 BILLION dollars of the cost. That's more than the WHOLE heavy rail transit system proposed in the 1980's would have cost, AND it would have payed for our light rail expansion. And that is just a SMALL stretch of freeway in Houston that my tax dollars payed for, and I drive on that freeway maybe a couple times a year. Why is nobody outraged at that? Why does no one demand that TxDOT be more fiscally responsible, or transparent? Where are the costs of ALL of the freeway construction around the city? I cannot find the cost of all of these new highways, that doesn't sound transparent to me. If TxDOT is not transparent, why should METRO be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is just a SMALL stretch of freeway in Houston that my tax dollars payed for, and I drive on that freeway maybe a couple times a year. Why is nobody outraged at that?

Well obviously we just need to build a superhighway directly from your home to your place of work. Your personal convenience is the metric upon which all government spending should be based.

Seriously...that's pretty conceited, man.

I've been anti-rail for years. I don't think that the technology makes the slightest bit of economic sense as it has been implemented by METRO to date. There really are not any redemptive qualities. Also, the original referendum was passed by a very narrow margin; if other projects hadn't been bundled along with it, it probably wouldn't have passed in the first place.

Part of me wants to feel a cathartic euphoria at this news, particularly on account of that mid-term elections will probably stack the deck against it. But I can't ignore the fact that $900 million of federal funds will be redirected to other cities if the new referendum does not pass. That's a huge economic impact. If it were up to me, I would rather that another major hurricane strike Houston so that we could get federal assistance in that way...but it's not up to me. I'll take it! To refuse the funds would be tantamount to passing up the opportunity to commit a theft against a fellow citizen if such a thing were legal. It'd be dumb. And I may be amoral, but I'm not dumb. Therefore, I support this referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well obviously we just need to build a superhighway directly from your home to your place of work. Your personal convenience is the metric upon which all government spending should be based.

Seriously...that's pretty conceited, man.

I've been anti-rail for years. I don't think that the technology makes the slightest bit of economic sense as it has been implemented by METRO to date. There really are not any redemptive qualities. Also, the original referendum was passed by a very narrow margin; if other projects hadn't been bundled along with it, it probably wouldn't have passed in the first place.

Part of me wants to feel a cathartic euphoria at this news, particularly on account of that mid-term elections will probably stack the deck against it. But I can't ignore the fact that $900 million of federal funds will be redirected to other cities if the new referendum does not pass. That's a huge economic impact. If it were up to me, I would rather that another major hurricane strike Houston so that we could get federal assistance in that way...but it's not up to me. I'll take it! To refuse the funds would be tantamount to passing up the opportunity to commit a theft against a fellow citizen if such a thing were legal. It'd be dumb. And I may be amoral, but I'm not dumb. Therefore, I support this referendum.

A disagree 100% with the first statement of your post. Most people who are against rail are against it because they "won't ever ride that stupid train." I was just looking at things from another perspective. If people are against rail because they will never ride it, then why aren't there people against freeways because they will never drive it? I think we should all be for projects that benefit the city as a whole. I am glad the Katy Freeway was expanded, it didn't need to be done, but it is an improvement. Just like the transit situation, there's already buses, but why not improve the service? Are you anti-rail in general, or anti-light rail? Yes, light rail is the worst type of rail transit, but it's still better than buses. Light rail was the only type of rail METRO could build, because everyone rejected their more expensive plans, congressmen blocked federal funding, so we could only afford this short, at grade, accident prone, but still better than buses 7.5 mile line. It's still pretty damn good, it's the second highest ridership per mile, behind Boston's. Hell, it attracted 20,000 riders who didn't ride transit before due to its reliability. Not any redemptive qualities? How about making getting around Houston without a car easier and more reliable? How about being able to go from the Galleria to downtown on a reliable schedule? Do you actually ride METRO regularly? I used to, and couldn't stand riding those buses all over town. They are too slow, get caught in the same traffic as cars, and will have you waiting at the stop for an hour as three buses on the other side go by. Why do you think we will ever have a good transit system using only buses? Have you ever ridden a bus? If you have, what made you love them so much over trains? Because boy, do I have a lot of bus stories for you.

What would you do to create a better transit system here in Houston? Add more buses? I would love to hear your thoughts on this because you believe somehow we can have a good transit system without a core rail system. Are there any other cities that have done this succesfully?

I don't care why you are voting in favor of rail in the referendum, at least you would vote yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheNiche - Another thing, why did you take one quote of my post out of context and attack it like that? Are you joking around, or what? Because if you actually read my whole post it's quite obvious that I would not have the kind of feelings about highways that you are accusing me of having. I don't get it, did you actually read my whole post? Or did you just glance at it and saw that quote? Can't we have a reasonable discussion while acknowledging and responding to each point of each other's posts? Because I notice that frequently you completely disregard the majority of a user's post and take a quote out of context.

Even though I disagree with IHB2, at least he responded to all of my points, instead of responding to once sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad the Katy Freeway was expanded, it didn't need to be done, but it is an improvement. Just like the transit situation, there's already buses, but why not improve the service? Are you anti-rail in general, or anti-light rail?

Because light rail costs too much relative to the benefits that can be achieved. You can use the same funds to increase the service quality or quantity of bus transit to achieve superior effects. That's why I'm anti-light-rail.

There are a handful of exceptions where heavy rail is concerned; none of them exist within Houston. New York City and Chicago are pretty much it, and to the extent that such systems exist in those cities, they also demonstrate the proper implementation, which is with extensive grade separation.

Light rail was the only type of rail METRO could build, because everyone rejected their more expensive plans, congressmen blocked federal funding, so we could only afford this short, at grade, accident prone, but still better than buses 7.5 mile line. It's still pretty damn good, it's the second highest ridership per mile, behind Boston's. Hell, it attracted 20,000 riders who didn't ride transit before due to its reliability.

Well, yeah. The Red Line was low-hanging fruit. If every city built only 7.5 miles of light rail (and molded its bus routes in an hourglass shape around either end of the line), you'd see a lot of similar results. Probably much better!

Not any redemptive qualities? How about making getting around Houston without a car easier and more reliable? How about being able to go from the Galleria to downtown on a reliable schedule? Do you actually ride METRO regularly? I used to, and couldn't stand riding those buses all over town. They are too slow, get caught in the same traffic as cars, and wil have you waiting at the stop for an hour as three buses on the other side go by. Why do you think we will ever have a good transit system using only buses? Have you ever ridden a bus? If you have, what made you love them so much over trains? Because boy, do I have a lot of bus stories for you.

I tried out METRO's light rail a couple times. I figured out that I could travel to my destination at twice the speed in my car and that at-grade light rail was still subject to traffic lights, congestion, and inexplicable stops. Basically, it was a glorified bus. It wasn't worth the ticket that I opted not to pay for.

What would you do to create a better transit system here in Houston? Add more buses? I would love to hear your thoughts on this because you believe somehow we can have a good transit system without a core rail system. Are there any other cities that have done this succesfully?

Vacuum-sealed maglev would replace Park & Ride and provides 25-minute commuter service to Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Galveston. Grade-separated BRT corridors paid for by expensive tolls for private automobiles would serve the urban core, providing high-speed intracity transit that maximally utilizes precious right-of-way. High-frequency shuttles would circulate in edge cities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not shy about spending money. I think that more should be spent on both highways and mass transit, nationwide. I just want it to be worthwhile. Light rail as we have built it is not at all. It is an abysmal 19-mile-per-hour excuse for "rapid" transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...