METRORail Construction Resumes

[totheskies]

I'd almost rather be in Dallas' situation with DART (ok, yeah, I would much rather be in that situation). DART has been in a tailspin with their budget, but at least they were forced into the light about everything instead of lying to their citizenry for so long. So they know they will have to cut back services and raise fares. It's all out on front street, as it should be.

I agree fully with you Niche... METRO has been under terrible leadership. I am hopeful that Mayor Parker has finally gotten some people that are willing to share the truth with us. It seems promising so far. But I think it's a mistake for them to try to avoid raising fares when we're in such a deep hole from the previous administration. If they have to cut services, I guarantee that it will affect my area of town first and foremost (the East End), and that really sucks. I would rather see them raise fares even $0.10, implement more agressive corporate ads on buses, and toll more HOV lanes. Service frequency is painfully thin and slow as is... unless you ride the 81 or 82.

[kdog08]

Life's not that simple. Some people just don't like to drive. Some people find transit to be cheaper than driving. Some people find transit more convenient than driving. Some people just like trains. In many situations, transit is faster than driving.

How about "There is just one justification for transit: People want it."

Thank you. I see Niche either "conveniently" ignored your post or just plain didnt see it. Regardless. transit shouldn't be about only serving a population that can't afford/don't have access to a car and/or relieving traffic congestion. I live 3 miles from my job across 59 from Greenway Plaza and the car is easily the quickest and most convenient way to get there. I've tried the bus (it's unreliable and actually had my bus driver stop for 7 minutes to go to the James Coney Island @ Shepard and Richmond) but it sucks. I try to ride my bike at least 2 times out of the 5 days but I need more options. But according to Niche I don't justify the need for transit.

[kdog08]

I'd almost rather be in Dallas' situation with DART (ok, yeah, I would much rather be in that situation).

ALMOST. Would you rather be stuck with a mediocre system or have the potential to have a decent inner city LRT system?

[TheNiche]

Thank you. I see Niche either "conveniently" ignored your post or just plain didnt see it. Regardless. transit shouldn't be about only serving a population that can't afford/don't have access to a car and/or relieving traffic congestion. I live 3 miles from my job across 59 from Greenway Plaza and the car is easily the quickest and most convenient way to get there. I've tried the bus (it's unreliable and actually had my bus driver stop for 7 minutes to go to the James Coney Island @ Shepard and Richmond) but it sucks. I try to ride my bike at least 2 times out of the 5 days but I need more options. But according to Niche I don't justify the need for transit.

Eh, yeah...excuse me. I was overwhelmed with frustration at a disingenuous poster.

I reject the notion that the availability of an option, in and of itself, is a valid cause for public investment. Otherwise we'd have water taxis down Buffalo Bayou because some people might find it aesthetically enjoyable. Form follows function, not the other way around.

kdog08, I am hesitant to speak to your particular circumstances because your description is inadequate to diagnose the particular problem or its optimal solution. At-grade light rail is not a singular catch-all solution to frustration at the current level of bus service.

ALMOST. Would you rather be stuck with a mediocre system or have the potential to have a decent inner city LRT system?

False choice.

[kdog08]

Eh, yeah...excuse me. I was overwhelmed with frustration at a disingenuous poster.

I reject the notion that the availability of an option, in and of itself, is a valid cause for public investment. Otherwise we'd have water taxis down Buffalo Bayou because some people might find it aesthetically enjoyable. Form follows function, not the other way around.

Really? Water taxis Niche? Is that the best you can do?

Why would you reject the notion that having options on different modes isn't a valid cause for public transportation? Do you know how much it costs to park downtown or the med center or how much campus parking is for college students?You may do, but is parking cost a valid reason for public transit? What about people who's car is in the shop? What about people in between jobs without cars? What about parents who lend their car to their teenagers and are without a vehicle? What about those, like me, that just don't feel like driving? What about those that don't want to own a car? What about those people visiting and without car? Why do you limit transit to only those that meet YOUR own criteria?

kdog08, I am hesitant to speak to your particular circumstances because your description is inadequate to diagnose the particular problem or its optimal solution. At-grade light rail is not a singular catch-all solution to frustration at the current level of bus service.

I work in a pharmacy at the HEB at Buffalo Spdwy and Bissonnet and live two blocks east of richmond and montrose. LRT won't get me from Richmond@Buffalo Spdwy to Buffalo Spdwy @ Bissonnet but at least I will have a reliable service where the driver won't stop the train to take a piss and/or grab some hotdogs at Jame's Coney Island or the bus won't break down or the bus won't be running 15 minutes late. From your responses, it doesn't seem you actually try and use public transit so perhaps your viewpoint is very skewed and biased.

False choice.

Go on....

[TheNiche]

Really? Water taxis Niche? Is that the best you can do?

Why would you reject the notion that having options on different modes isn't a valid cause for public transportation?

My intent was to suggest something so insane that nobody entering the argument could take such a suggestion seriously. ...and that was to prove that the option is not, in and of itself, the mission of a transit agency. The relative effectiveness of an option as compared to a portfolio of alternatives is the more pertinent consideration.

Really? Water taxis Niche? Is that the best you can do?

Why would you reject the notion that having options on different modes isn't a valid cause for public transportation? Do you know how much it costs to park downtown or the med center or how much campus parking is for college students?You may do, but is parking cost a valid reason for public transit? What about people who's car is in the shop? What about people in between jobs without cars? What about parents who lend their car to their teenagers and are without a vehicle? What about those, like me, that just don't feel like driving? What about those that don't want to own a car? What about those people visiting and without car? Why do you limit transit to only those that meet YOUR own criteria?

Those are all good reasons to have transit, and most of them fall under the two broad objectives of transit that I defined earlier. ...but your poorly-defined "desire" to ride transit does not. It is not METRO's mission to satiate a desire by elitist transit aesthetes to enjoy a relatively expensive transportation mode that is subsidized by statutorily-limited government funds such as could be put to a higher and better alternative use (such as providing better mobility to those without the ability or reducing congestion for the rest of us). ...you know, practical stuff.

Let's face it, METRO wasn't exactly playing it conservative with their finances even in good times; and right now, we have something of a crisis that is affecting both our local economy and METRO as an organization. The only reason I'm OK with them moving forward on this project would be the economic impact of federal stimulus monies that would otherwise go to a different city. But in the context of the threat to their claim to stimulus, METRO can hardly afford to be thinking beyond a very narrow view of their mission, one that I would submit to you conforms pretty well with my two-criteria mission statement.

As for where I got the two-criteria mission statement of transit...academia. It came up in several economics classes, among them urban economics, cost-benefit analysis, and a special topics course. Mayor Parker more or less endorsed it during her campaigning, although she put more emphasis on serving people without the wherewithal to transport themselves.

[IHB2]

What about those, like me, that just don't feel like driving?...I work in a pharmacy at the HEB at Buffalo Spdwy and Bissonnet and live two blocks east of richmond and montrose. LRT won't get me from Richmond@Buffalo Spdwy to Buffalo Spdwy @ Bissonnet but at least I will have a reliable service...

so you don't require public transit to get to your job, and it's probable that you live where you do for 1 of 2 reasons - you have to, or you want to.

if it's the former, then you're either willing to walk 2 blocks to board the LRT and then take a long hike from Richmond to Bissonnet to get to work, and do this every day, or you will continue to drive on workdays when the walk is unacceptable to you for whatever reason.

if it's the latter, then obviously your feelings about not driving have been trumped by your feelings about living where you do, as there are multiple housing options within a block or 2 of that HEB, and you would never have to drive to work.

I'm not persuaded that the rest of us taxpayers will benefit very much from providing a more reliable transit experience w/LRT at a much higher cost than bus to transit riders like you.

[kdog08]

Those are all good reasons to have transit, and most of them fall under the two broad objectives of transit that I defined earlier. ...but your poorly-defined "desire" to ride transit does not.

Two objectives that you seem to subjectively moving the goal posts... But anways. I'm not sure how the desire to have multiple options for getting to a destination is poorly defined?

It is not METRO's mission to satiate a desire by elitist transit aesthetes to enjoy a relatively expensive transportation mode that is subsidized by statutorily-limited government funds

Elitist transit aesthetes? Are you talking about people like me who make about 24K/year and live in a 1 BR apt in a 40 year old complex? Again what's hard to comprehend about wanting options?

...such as could be put to a higher and better alternative use (such as providing better mobility to those without the ability or reducing congestion for the rest of us). ...you know, practical stuff.

Practical stuff? No I don't know. Please explain.

Let's face it, METRO wasn't exactly playing it conservative with their finances even in good times; and right now, we have something of a crisis that is affecting both our local economy and METRO as an organization. The only reason I'm OK with them moving forward on this project would be the economic impact of federal stimulus monies that would otherwise go to a different city. But in the context of the threat to their claim to stimulus, METRO can hardly afford to be thinking beyond a very narrow view of their mission, one that I would submit to you conforms pretty well with my two-criteria mission statement.

I agree that METRO really screwed up.

As for where I got the two-criteria mission statement of transit...academia. It came up in several economics classes, among them urban economics, cost-benefit analysis, and a special topics course. Mayor Parker more or less endorsed it during her campaigning, although she put more emphasis on serving people without the wherewithal to transport themselves.

So I guess your stance is the opposite of elitist? We should only focus on serving the poor? People like me have no business desiring a reliable alternative to driving because I do have the means to drive myself where I want.

Honestly, how many times have you rode the bus?

so you don't require public transit to get to your job, and it's probable that you live where you do for 1 of 2 reasons - you have to, or you want to.

if it's the former, then you're either willing to walk 2 blocks to board the LRT and then take a long hike from Richmond to Bissonnet to get to work, and do this every day, or you will continue to drive on workdays when the walk is unacceptable to you for whatever reason.

if it's the latter, then obviously your feelings about not driving have been trumped by your feelings about living where you do, as there are multiple housing options within a block or 2 of that HEB, and you would never have to drive to work.

I'm not persuaded that the rest of us taxpayers will benefit very much from providing a more reliable transit experience w/LRT at a much higher cost than bus to transit riders like you.

I live where I live because I'm hoping to work in research in the medical center. My location is basically between my current job and my hopefully future job. If I get the job in the med center I'm not going to pay those parking fees. Perhaps when I start making enough money I can justify, but until then I will ride my bike or take transit.

I agree that we shouldn't build LRT for riders like me, but we should build it for anyone who wants to ride it.

Honestly, for you antirail folks what ridership would justify the construction of the University and Uptown line (the other lines should be shelved for the foreseeable future)?

[IHB2]

Honestly, for you antirail folks what ridership would justify the construction of the University and Uptown line (the other lines should be shelved for the foreseeable future)?

Please don't label me "antirail" as it is a false characterization. This town needs better, higher capacity, more rapid transit than just individual buses.

I am, however, deeply interested in inner loop mobility issues and everything that affects them, and even more interested in wise expenditures of tax dollars. I have been involved in the Solutions process since summer 2005, spent hundreds of hours meeting with METRO and other stakeholders, and there are reams of public testimony from me. For me, ridership #s on any of the LRT lines is but 1 of several criteria to consider in justifying each line, and it's not the most important IMO.

For the Uptown Line, I don't think any ridership # would be enough to persuade me that the existing design has enough benefit to outweigh the astonishing short-term costs to local businesses and long-term general Uptown mobility. The University Line design is about as bad on its west end where it needlessly elevates over 59, then forces itself into a 3/10mile space already occupied by service roads for the state's 2 busiest freeways, a HOV entry, a toll road terminus, and a multilane arterial.

[mfastx]

I've tried the bus (it's unreliable and actually had my bus driver stop for 7 minutes to go to the James Coney Island @ Shepard and Richmond) but it sucks.

Exactly why I prefer light rail to buses. This type of thing has happened one too many times to me.

ALMOST. Would you rather be stuck with a mediocre system or have the potential to have a decent inner city LRT system?

Agree with you here as well. The reason Dallas has such low light rail ridership is because their stops are too far spread out, like a commuter rail system. Light rail is better suited for staying within the city center, as that's when it can actually be useful. I know METRO plans to extend light rail to the airports, which I think is fine for Hobby, but to Bush Airport I think is too far for light rail to be effective; I believe that commuter rail should be used.

[mfastx]

Eh, yeah...excuse me. I was overwhelmed with frustration at a disingenuous poster.

Oh, OK, that explains why you never acknowledged most of my points.

If you ever rode METRO buses on a regular basis, if you've ever relied on the bus to get you to work on time, you would understand why we prefer light rail to buses. Have you ever lived in a city where you didn't need to own a car, and could get around on a reliable schedule? No car payments, no tickets, no traffic, no accidents, no insurance, no road rage, no gasoline purchases... I would love to be able to do that in at least some parts of Houston. Sorry if my opinion differs from yours.

[mfastx]

For the Uptown Line, I don't think any ridership # would be enough to persuade me that the existing design has enough benefit to outweigh the astonishing short-term costs to local businesses and long-term general Uptown mobility. The University Line design is about as bad on its west end where it needlessly elevates over 59, then forces itself into a 3/10mile space already occupied by service roads for the state's 2 busiest freeways, a HOV entry, a toll road terminus, and a multilane arterial.

Even though I would like to see the uptown line built, I have to agree with this. I don't know how the hell METRO's gonna get a line under that interchange, the only way I see possible is to tunnel.

BTW, the reason it "needlessly elevates over 59" is because of the residents who opposed the line. IIRC the original plan was to have it on Richmond all the way to the Galleria.

Edit: sorry for the triple post, guys. I just figured out how to multi-quote. Yes, I know, I'm a noob.

[TheNiche]

Two objectives that you seem to subjectively moving the goal posts... But anways. I'm not sure how the desire to have multiple options for getting to a destination is poorly defined?

I do not understand your criticism. Nor do I think that you understand mine.

Elitist transit aesthetes? Are you talking about people like me who make about 24K/year and live in a 1 BR apt in a 40 year old complex? Again what's hard to comprehend about wanting options?

Practical stuff? No I don't know. Please explain.

I agree that METRO really screwed up.

So I guess your stance is the opposite of elitist? We should only focus on serving the poor? People like me have no business desiring a reliable alternative to driving because I do have the means to drive myself where I want.

Honestly, how many times have you rode the bus?

I live where I live because I'm hoping to work in research in the medical center. My location is basically between my current job and my hopefully future job. If I get the job in the med center I'm not going to pay those parking fees. Perhaps when I start making enough money I can justify, but until then I will ride my bike or take transit.

I agree that we shouldn't build LRT for riders like me, but we should build it for anyone who wants to ride it.

Honestly, for you antirail folks what ridership would justify the construction of the University and Uptown line (the other lines should be shelved for the foreseeable future)?

$24k is a lot of money for one person; you'd have to have another four unemployed people residing in your household to be considered below the poverty line.

I make almost that much nowadays, and I have a little over half of my income left over every month. Of course, I live with two roommates in a much older place than you do and almost certainly pay less per square foot for the space that I am occupying. And the car that I'm driving right now has a market and/or scrap value of about $500.

There was a period of several weeks earlier this year where I didn't have a car. Mostly, I just walked places. I rode the bus a few times. It wasn't clean; it wasn't quick; it was quite thoroughly effective, however, considering the price. When I got to Point B, I was no longer at Point A. But that's exactly what buses are all about. Since they're affordable, they can service nooks and crannies of the city that light rail could never realistically serve.

I'm not saying that bus service couldn't be improved. There are plenty of ways to do that, many of them quite cost-effective. But for a transit organization with a finite budget, it's capital expenditures need to reflect that. It cannot merely provide multiple transit options for the sake of multiple options. That's aestheticism at its worst, and tantamount to justifying water taxis (which I would happily ride for fun on a public dime diverted from more deserving neighborhoods for my amusement).

I think that this has more or less answered the whole string of comments, directly or indirectly. Correct me if wrong.

[kdog08]

I do not understand your criticism. Nor do I think that you understand mine.

Well we can leave it at that.

$24k is a lot of money for one person; you'd have to have another four unemployed people residing in your household to be considered below the poverty line.

This is what you said earlier: "It is not METRO's mission to satiate a desire by elitist transit aesthetes to enjoy a relatively expensive transportation mode that is subsidized by statutorily-limited government funds"

So perhaps you can see why I was a little confused by the "elitist" remark as my income I divulged doesn't qualify me for elite status.

I make almost that much nowadays, and I have a little over half of my income left over every month. Of course, I live with two roommates in a much older place than you do and almost certainly pay less per square foot for the space that I am occupying. And the car that I'm driving right now has a market and/or scrap value of about $500.

Unfortunately I had to trade in my 96 Honda Prelude and got $500 for it so it's tough swallow. But roommates certainly help with living expenses, I wish I had some of them.

There was a period of several weeks earlier this year where I didn't have a car. Mostly, I just walked places. I rode the bus a few times. It wasn't clean; it wasn't quick; it was quite thoroughly effective, however, considering the price. When I got to Point B, I was no longer at Point A. But that's exactly what buses are all about.

I think if you would ride it more regularly you would notice and emphasize with some of the complaints made against it. But I agree, buses are great, affordable, and usually get the job done for cheap; no doubt about it.

Since they're affordable, they can service nooks and crannies of the city that light rail could never realistically serve.

Correct. They are one part of transit system that has it's many advantages (affordability and flexibility).

I'm not saying that bus service couldn't be improved. There are plenty of ways to do that, many of them quite cost-effective. But for a transit organization with a finite budget, it's capital expenditures need to reflect that. It cannot merely provide multiple transit options for the sake of multiple options. That's aestheticism at its worst, and tantamount to justifying water taxis (which I would happily ride for fun on a public dime diverted from more deserving neighborhoods for my amusement).

It's not for the sake of having multiple options. I'm not proposing/asking for rail down the highways, down our major boulevards, or anything like that. Perhaps you should look at the employment centers (3 of the largest and densest), colleges, universities, museums, the Galleria, retail, residential areas that will be connected by completeing the University and Uptown line. I have no delusions that these lines will be an instant success and revolutionize Houston. These rail lines will take many years to have a meaningful impact but with the rate Houston is growing we will have squandered a great opportunity

I think that this has more or less answered the whole string of comments, directly or indirectly. Correct me if wrong.

More or less.

[kdog08]

Please don't label me "antirail" as it is a false characterization. This town needs better, higher capacity, more rapid transit than just individual buses.

I apologize. I hate when people generalize but I am guilty of doing. So lets move along.

I am, however, deeply interested in inner loop mobility issues and everything that affects them, and even more interested in wise expenditures of tax dollars. I have been involved in the Solutions process since summer 2005, spent hundreds of hours meeting with METRO and other stakeholders, and there are reams of public testimony from me. For me, ridership #s on any of the LRT lines is but 1 of several criteria to consider in justifying each line, and it's not the most important IMO.

For the Uptown Line, I don't think any ridership # would be enough to persuade me that the existing design has enough benefit to outweigh the astonishing short-term costs to local businesses and long-term general Uptown mobility. The University Line design is about as bad on its west end where it needlessly elevates over 59, then forces itself into a 3/10mile space already occupied by service roads for the state's 2 busiest freeways, a HOV entry, a toll road terminus, and a multilane arterial.

I think at this point we will probably have to have another referendum to get these lines built. I agree the Uptown line as configured is a mess which is why we should just start over. It's unforgivable that METRO'S past leadership wasted all this time and money but we can't just sulk and dwell on their failures. At this point we should focus on doing the Uptown and University lines right.

[TheNiche]

This is what you said earlier: "It is not METRO's mission to satiate a desire by elitist transit aesthetes to enjoy a relatively expensive transportation mode that is subsidized by statutorily-limited government funds"

So perhaps you can see why I was a little confused by the "elitist" remark as my income I divulged doesn't qualify me for elite status.

Income is not a qualifying factor for elitism. I am living proof.

Correct. They are one part of transit system that has it's many advantages (affordability and flexibility).

It's not for the sake of having multiple options. I'm not proposing/asking for rail down the highways, down our major boulevards, or anything like that. Perhaps you should look at the employment centers (3 of the largest and densest), colleges, universities, museums, the Galleria, retail, residential areas that will be connected by completeing the University and Uptown line. I have no delusions that these lines will be an instant success and revolutionize Houston. These rail lines will take many years to have a meaningful impact but with the rate Houston is growing we will have squandered a great opportunity

Don't get me wrong, I would never claim that buses should be the only option in a transit system. Different technologies should be integrated to promote system-wide effectiveness. Buses and fixed guideways (whether in the form of HOV or BRT) make an excellent combination and fulfill the dual objectives of transit given a challenging budget constraint. Rail just kind of...sucks...in that context. It's not good strategy.

A careful examination of its ridership patterns suggests that colleges, universities, museums, and residential neighborhoods do a horrible job of generating ridership. Office buildings, hospitals, and I think, possibly, the Galleria, generate awesome ridership, as do major transit centers that force a system bottleneck.

I just hope that you understand that the Red Line wasn't called a "starter line" for nothing. It was built first with entirely local funds as a proof of concept precisely because it was such low-hanging fruit. That kind of success (such as it is) will never again be replicated. And as for light rail being transformative...give me a break. You can't transform a city with merely a billion dollars. The Katy Freeway should be evidence of that. Not even close!

[TheNiche]

It's unforgivable that METRO'S past leadership wasted all this time and money but we can't just sulk and dwell on their failures. At this point we should focus on doing the Uptown and University lines right.

I concur. However... This is a link to METRO's budgets. And this is a link to Chapter 451 of the Texas Transportation Code, which governs Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authorities such as METRO. A link to Chapter 456 may also be of interest. And here's a link to Title 34, Part 1, Chapter 3 of the Texas Administrative Code, which governs tax administration; you will be most interested in subchapters N, O, and P.

There, now, read over all that. Contemplate METRO's budgetary constraints. Then try to justify new light rail in very nearly any circumstance (for which we weren't receiving $900 million from the federal government that otherwise would've gone to another city). I think that you'll run into some difficulties. Correct me if you feel different. Otherwise, contact your elected state legislator immediately. This really should be thought of as more of their problem.

[mfastx]

Rail just kind of...sucks...in that context.

[kdog08]

Don't get me wrong, I would never claim that buses should be the only option in a transit system. Different technologies should be integrated to promote system-wide effectiveness. Buses and fixed guideways (whether in the form of HOV or BRT) make an excellent combination and fulfill the dual objectives of transit given a challenging budget constraint. Rail just kind of...sucks...in that context. It's not good strategy.]

Agreed. But just because we are under sever budget constraints doesn't mean that we should abandoned rail. We should take a look at all of our options for funding. We could certainly get creative.

A careful examination of its ridership patterns suggests that colleges, universities, museums, and residential neighborhoods do a horrible job of generating ridership. Office buildings, hospitals, and I think, possibly, the Galleria, generate awesome ridership, as do major transit centers that force a system bottleneck.

I totally agree. People don't shop, visit museums, or go to college 5 days a week. People generally go to work 5 days and that sort of consistency is why connecting employment centers will generate better ridership. I was merely listing amenities and employment centers that would be served. I forgot to list it would connect our major stadiums! A must for any rail.

I just hope that you understand that the Red Line wasn't called a "starter line" for nothing. It was built first with entirely local funds as a proof of concept precisely because it was such low-hanging fruit. That kind of success (such as it is) will never again be replicated. And as for light rail being transformative...give me a break. You can't transform a city with merely a billion dollars. The Katy Freeway should be evidence of that. Not even close!

Agreed on the red line. Connecting Downtown and TMC = low hanging fruit.

I will not give you a break. Upgrading and expanding the Katy Freeway in a car centric city will not be transformative. However, adding rail in a car centric city will obviously be more transformative than adding more roads and highways in a car centric city. 10-15 years from now if rail is built, Richmond Ave will become different. There might even be some resemblance of pedestrian activity in Houston.

[kdog08]

I concur. However... This is a link to METRO's budgets. And this is a link to Chapter 451 of the Texas Transportation Code, which governs Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authorities such as METRO. A link to Chapter 456 may also be of interest. And here's a link to Title 34, Part 1, Chapter 3 of the Texas Administrative Code, which governs tax administration; you will be most interested in subchapters N, O, and P.

There, now, read over all that. Contemplate METRO's budgetary constraints. Then try to justify new light rail in very nearly any circumstance (for which we weren't receiving $900 million from the federal government that otherwise would've gone to another city). I think that you'll run into some difficulties. Correct me if you feel different. Otherwise, contact your elected state legislator immediately. This really should be thought of as more of their problem.

Too much reading, got a link to the cliff notes?

[mfastx]

Guys I have a solution for the budget restraints. Why don't we give METRO their whole one percent sales tax? Instead of siphoning off 25% of their tax revenue to roads, make it the way it was before Bob Lanier took that money from METRO in the 1990s. IIRC METRO would have an extra 200-300 million dollars a year if they got their whole tax.

Does this have any chance of happening? This being Houston, probably not (lol) but I'd like to know if anything like this is in the works. Does anyone know about this?

[kdog08]

Guys I have a solution for the budget restraints. Why don't we give METRO their whole one percent sales tax? Instead of siphoning off 25% of their tax revenue to roads, make it the way it was before Bob Lanier took that money from METRO in the 1990s. IIRC METRO would have an extra 200-300 million dollars a year if they got their whole tax.

Does this have any chance of happening? This being Houston, probably not (lol) but I'd like to know if anything like this is in the works. Does anyone know about this?

I've heard that idea thrown around. METRO can also sell its soul to corporate sponsorship, although I'm not if METRO is unable to sell advertising space or just hasn't wanted to.

[TheNiche]

Agreed. But just because we are under sever budget constraints doesn't mean that we should abandoned rail. We should take a look at all of our options for funding. We could certainly get creative.

Well yeah, we did look at rail and we did get creative. That's part in parcel of how we're in such a budgetary quagmire AND how we've got $900 million in federal stimulus lined up.

I'd like to see creativity of a sort exercised by state legislators, but that isn't happening. METRO should not count on it. They should plan according to a reasonable expectation of reality.

I will not give you a break. Upgrading and expanding the Katy Freeway in a car centric city will not be transformative. However, adding rail in a car centric city will obviously be more transformative than adding more roads and highways in a car centric city. 10-15 years from now if rail is built, Richmond Ave will become different. There might even be some resemblance of pedestrian activity in Houston.

I'll concede that a billion dollars can transform a few narrow strips of land over the course of many decades if you concede that that is an underwhelming and totally inadequate transformation of the city, at best.

There might even be some resemblance of pedestrian activity in Houston.

But will mobility have been enhanced?

[IHB2]

But will mobility have been enhanced?

exactly. there is currently zero problem with mobility inside the loop by any "big city" measure at any time of day as long as you stay off freeways. it is an utterly car-centric mobility but so what?

[mfastx]

But will mobility have been enhanced?

Transit mobility would be enhanced, yes.

exactly. there is currently zero problem with mobility inside the loop by any "big city" measure at any time of day as long as you stay off freeways. it is an utterly car-centric mobility but so what?

I'd have to disagree. My evening commute down route #25 - Richmond was always is late due to traffic. Sometimes, it takes 20 minutes to get from Kirby to Shepard.

[IHB2]

I'd have to disagree. My evening commute down route #25 - Richmond was always is late due to traffic. Sometimes, it takes 20 minutes to get from Kirby to Shepard.

assuming you're in a car and not on the 25 bus, why do you drive that route if it stacks up like that? many alternatives e/w in that area - the best thing about inner loop streets is the real-time options provided by the # of n,s,e,w through streets in the grid.

[samagon]

assuming you're in a car and not on the 25 bus, why do you drive that route if it stacks up like that? many alternatives e/w in that area - the best thing about inner loop streets is the real-time options provided by the # of n,s,e,w through streets in the grid.

But if there were LR on Richmond, it would be more reliable than buses, thanks to ROW. And as you mention, people that travel by car would have multiple options if Richmond traffic got worse with LR than it is currently with buses.

[KinkaidAlum]

I guess I will have to vote for rail; again.

The biggest thing is we might be turning down FEDERAL MONEY; again.

Will Houston be as idiotic as Guvnah Perry?

So, in the interim, does this mean we will live with torn up roads, that UH moved 100s of trees for no reason, and that our area wont be employing thousands in lucrative construction jobs?

Yippee!

[totheskies]

I know you're responding to someone else, but I've eaten, and I have an hour before I teach...

Well yeah, we did look at rail and we did get creative. That's part in parcel of how we're in such a budgetary quagmire AND how we've got $900 million in federal stimulus lined up.

I'd like to see creativity of a sort exercised by state legislators, but that isn't happening. METRO should not count on it. They should plan according to a reasonable expectation of reality.

Agreed, but reality shouldn't be based solely on fares in the first place. The reality is that METRO serves all of the Greater Houston area, whether you set foot on it or not. For everytime I successfully accomplish one of my job functions via METRO, I take my car off of the road and give you more room with which to travel safely. THAT is the goal of transit. Everyone cannot fit on one train, just like everyone can't jam into one highway (we learned that during RITA). But the rail lines give Houston another option for their travels, and there will be many people that do choose it as a regular option... no matter how badly designed the system is. Once it's built, it will be used.

I'll concede that a billion dollars can transform a few narrow strips of land over the course of many decades if you concede that that is an underwhelming and totally inadequate transformation of the city, at best.

Transit ain't cheap, nor should it be. It's now impossible to separate the backroom dealings of METRO's former administrations from the real and important goal of improving transit mobility for Greater Houston. That's a shame, but it's the truth. So the line costs a billion dollars, and we were lied to about that. Doesn't mean that the need just went away once the true numbers were thrown at us. Houston is still growing, and streets like Richmond are still clogged.

Some of us legitimately see the need for Houston to be proactive and improve our transit. There's nothing wrong with that opinion.

[IHB2]

I guess I will have to vote for rail; again.

The biggest thing is we might be turning down FEDERAL MONEY; again.

Will Houston be as idiotic as Guvnah Perry?

So, in the interim, does this mean we will live with torn up roads, that UH moved 100s of trees for no reason, and that our area wont be employing thousands in lucrative construction jobs? Yippee!

the question is what rail plan will you vote for? the same plan? admittedly including the $900mil there's about $1.2 billion in fed $ that was expected for the 4 lines, but that leaves METRO needing at least 3 billion of its own $ to complete 4 lines. where is that coming from given the current budget realities and restrictions imposed by the 2003 vote?

latest estimate of tax $ METRO spent since 2003 on the 4 LRT lines + Uptown is $300 million!

in other words, METRO could have built another Red Line and had it running 4 years ago for the same money. at least the neverending reconstruction of the Gulf Fwy since the 1950s is a jobs program for road companies. Solutions is the biggest WTF I've seen in Houston tax $ scandals, and I've lived here for 6 decades.