METRORail Construction Resumes

[samagon]

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!

yeah, this really angers me

they have done torn up scott, and also a portion of the rails to trails trail that will be overlayed by the rail system.

[VicMan]

Can we please bill all of the individuals responsible so they are immediately bankrupted?

No, really, we need to determine who is guilty and force them to pay up for the money that they forced us to lose. If it bankrupts them and harms prospects for them and their families, too bad.

It'll also set an example for future leaders.

[kdog08]

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.

Which is why I suggested we need to start over with the plans. Furthermore, we might have to go so far as to restructure METRO and make them accountable public servants. Obviously you haven't gotten creative because METRO itself is the problem. Who really trusts METRO to run things competently? It's great there was a shake up in METRO and it seems they got some smart, competent people on the board now. Perceptions can certainly be misleading, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, whose to say the next board members or CEOs won't be clones of Wilson? Perhaps we need to shake things up at the state level and come up with a statewide transportation plan. Texas is one of the most rapidly urbanizing states and do we really want to become a state with infrastructure like CA?

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.

You are being very disingenuous. The University Line is miles long, so the notion that " billion dollars can transform a few narrow strips of land over the course of many decades" is woefully inadequate. Try again Niche. Perhaps we should define what we mean by transformative.

[kdog08]

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?

That is short sighted and incorrect. Zero problem with mobility? Seriously? The mobility of the inner loop is perfect? We must live inside different loops of different cities then.

In 2000, there was ~1 million less citizens of the Houston metro, so I would think 10 years ago traffic was a little better in the loop. What will traffic be like in 2020 when there could an additional ~2 million added since 2000? Simply short sighted.

[mfastx]

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.

I traveled by bus on that route. If I had a car at the time, I would just hop on the always congested 59.

[IHB2]

That is short sighted and incorrect. Zero problem with mobility? Seriously? The mobility of the inner loop is perfect? We must live inside different loops of different cities then.

In 2000, there was ~1 million less citizens of the Houston metro, so I would think 10 years ago traffic was a little better in the loop. What will traffic be like in 2020 when there could an additional ~2 million added since 2000? Simply short sighted.

did you notice I qualified the statement with both "currently" and "big city measure"? I am talking about now, not 2020, and compared to driving a car in street traffic in NYC, Chi, Phil, LA I'd say Houston drivers with even a slight grasp of the inner loop street grid have zero mobility issues at any time of day. I did not say a thing about "perfect" mobility.

the post was a response in agreement with Niche's comment that the LRT lines won't enhance mobility. that is undoubtedly true for drivers inside the loop that 1) don't have to use public transit and LRT doesn't go near enough to where they need to go, and 2) don't have to travel on any of the arterials that will contain the LRT guideways. that will be most of us that live inside the loop.

[mfastx]

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.

The more the project is delayed, the more it will cost, and the more METRO will spend. If the whole city was behind this rail expansion, then it would have been completed on time. It is taking so long to build because of shortsighted political opposition.

[IHB2]

I traveled by bus on that route. If I had a car at the time, I would just hop on the always congested 59.

if you choose 59 over any e/w surface street n or s of Richmond at rush hour, you deserve to sit in traffic.

[mfastx]

if you choose 59 over any e/w surface street n or s of Richmond at rush hour, you deserve to sit in traffic.

Well that depends. Even if 59 is congested, it's still faster then West Alabama/Westheimer going from the Galleria area to Downtown.

[DrLan34]

Got this e-mail today for whoever is interested in taking this directly to METRO.

THE NEW METRO TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING MONDAY ON BUDGET

September 23, 2010 • Special Edition

The NEW METRO is hosting a public hearing on its FY2011 budget at noon Monday, Sept. 27, 2010 and the public is encouraged to attend. In a break from past practice, the budget will be presented by METRO’s President & CEO George Greanias.

The meeting will be held in METRO’s Board Room at 1900 Main. Detailed operating and capital budgets will be available for viewing beginning Friday morning, Sept. 24th on METRO’s Web site, www.ridemetro.org. Monday’s public hearing will be broadcast live on our Web site.

“We want the public to know how this budget was assembled and to assure the public that its tax dollars are being spent wisely,” said METRO Board Chairman Gilbert A. Garcia, CFA.

Greanias said the NEW METRO will always strive to be strong stewards of taxpayer dollars. He acknowledged that the proposed fiscal 2011 budget reflects current economic challenges.

“We scrubbed this budget looking for areas to save money without compromising service to our customers,” Greanias said. “Some savings are small, like removing office plants, while others are larger like eliminating more than 150 desktop and network printers.”

The operating budget reflects no fare increase for riders or elimination of routes.

Greanias stressed that METRO employees are making sacrifices, including a 30 percent increase in health insurance premiums and the elimination of car allowances for METRO upper management.

“In the NEW METRO, our senior management will be graded, in part, on the number of times they ride our service,” Greanias said. “It just makes sense that they ride the system they manage.”

Delays in federal funding for the light-rail build-out had a major impact on proposed spending levels, which Greanias stressed will be revised throughout FY2011 as developments in funding and sales tax income change.

“We built this budget on the basis of pragmatic conservatism, so that more things are likely to go in our favor than not,” he said.

At Monday’s hearing, the public will be encouraged to comment on the budget. Those comments will be evaluated prior to the budget adoption on Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010.

[TheNiche]

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!

METRO is still proceeding with the East, Southeast, and North lines, so the tearing up of roads and the removal of trees near UH isn't for nothing. What's disappointing about that is that those routes weren't receiving stimulus funds. I really wish that they'd gone with BRT on all of those and extended the routes further out.

Agreed, but reality shouldn't be based solely on fares in the first place. 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.

I never claimed anything of the sort. Didn't I just provide links to all the various fiscal reports and state laws governing how METRO gets and spends money!?

METRO's primary source of revenue is sales taxes. That actually makes a lot of sense because 1) transit should be subsidized above the level that would be supported by fares, and because 2) sales taxes allow for commuters that live outside of the jurisdiction and commute into it to do business to pay into the system.

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 completely agree that this is a fundamental purpose of transit. Although Mayor Parker might disagree with me on this (she thinks that it is to provide transportation for the poor), I think that that is even more important. I would not argue that light rail cannot do this or that it would not be used; I am arguing, however, that buses can do it on a more cost-effective system-wide basis.

Consider this simple question: How can the greatest number of commuting miles (not riders) be shifted from single-occupant automotive transport to multi-occupant automotive transport or non-automotive transport in such a way as 1) is legal and ethical, 2) exhausts METRO's finite and mostly exogenous budget, and 3) serves to reduce the average commute time. All it takes is a little research to determine...well, frankly, that our priorities (yours and mine) and the priorities of most transit agencies are vastly different. I'm not even prepared to say that they're all just poorly run. It's that, to varying degrees, they're approaching a different problem than what we're defining.

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.

Our capital expansion plans should reflect the capital budget; the converse is not possible. METRO's budget is mostly exogenous, determined by factors beyond its control.

I would like to see a larger transit budget too (so that we can move beyond the quagmire that is light rail), but I cannot fault METRO on that issue. It is not in their power.

Which is why I suggested we need to start over with the plans. Furthermore, we might have to go so far as to restructure METRO and make them accountable public servants. Obviously you haven't gotten creative because METRO itself is the problem. Who really trusts METRO to run things competently? It's great there was a shake up in METRO and it seems they got some smart, competent people on the board now. Perceptions can certainly be misleading, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, whose to say the next board members or CEOs won't be clones of Wilson? Perhaps we need to shake things up at the state level and come up with a statewide transportation plan. Texas is one of the most rapidly urbanizing states and do we really want to become a state with infrastructure like CA?

Should I take it as flattering when someone like yourself comes along and basically yells at me, "No! You're wrong! Everything you said earlier is true! Now let me read your mind and expound on what you didn't say, probably saving you the time of answering someone who didn't think it through to the logical conclusion! [yada, yada, yada] There! What do you have to say about that, Mr. Smartypants!?"

You are being very disingenuous. The University Line is miles long, so the notion that " billion dollars can transform a few narrow strips of land over the course of many decades" is woefully inadequate. Try again Niche. Perhaps we should define what we mean by transformative.

Actually, you're right. I was being disingenuous. I accidentally thought of light rail as a corridor (or rather, a strip), when its impact is really much more nodal in spatial terms.

The Urban Land Institute generally considers 1/4-mile to be a walkable distance, beyond which a person's willingness to walk falls off dramatically. I'm not going to subtract out areas that overlap; I'm not going to account for the effect of a street grid (which tends to turn circles into diamonds inscribed into the circle). I'm going to keep my analysis simple and generous.

Consider that the Red Line has 16 stations. The land area (incl. bodies of water such as White Oak and Buffalo Bayou) within 1/4-mile of those stations is precisely pi. It just happens to work out that way.

pi * radius * radius * #stations = 3.14 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 16 = 3.14 sq. mi. = 2009.6 acres

METRO's service area is 700 square miles. Now, consider what has occurred along the Red Line between 2004 and 2010. Our economy was growing like mad and real estate and healthcare finance was an easy game to play. The way things were will not soon be repeated. And nor will the Red Line's success; it was low-hanging fruit, the easiest to develop around.

So has light rail transformed the areas around it? Well...the TMC probably would've grown with or without it. Hermann Park's re-do would've still happened. UH-Downtown's rapid expansion probably wouldn't have been affected very much. A couple of downtown towers probably would have been developed in different places (including METRO's own headquarters). Some of the Crosspoint retail in Midtown admittedly might not be there. All in all, however, evidence of a transformation is somewhat lacking.

Land prices did go up along the Red Line, particularly in Midtown. But that's mostly just speculation. It may be highrise land in 2040, but it won't be anytime soon. And hell, if the Red Line had been built in 2040, it'd probably have used superior technology and also made the highrise land viable (to the extent that it still existed, because of course it would've been less expensive for longer and more easily developed at an earlier date). So...it's kind of a wash.

And again, this is low-hanging fruit in the best of times. If this is an indicator of transformative development, label me unimpressed. I'd rather stick to regional mobility solutions and serving those who need it the most, which you ain't!

[mfastx]

METRO's primary source of revenue is sales taxes. That actually makes a lot of sense because 1) transit should be subsidized above the level that would be supported by fares, and because 2) sales taxes allow for commuters that live outside of the jurisdiction and commute into it to do business to pay into the system.

Agreed.

I am arguing, however, that buses can do it on a more cost-effective system-wide basis.

Okay, that's fair. But then I would argue that even though in the short term, even though light rail isn't as cost effective, it still provides a better service. Also, as the city builds around the lines, I would think that cost effectiveness would improve in the long term, due to higher ridership.

I would like to see a larger transit budget too (so that we can move beyond the quagmire that is light rail), but I cannot fault METRO on that issue. It is not in their power.

Also agree with you here. We can start by giving METRO their whole 1% sales tax, as I mentioned in a previous post. I am for light rail because it is an improvement over buses quality wise, but since you told my your transit plan, here's mine: I would have rather seen a heavy rail system go where the Red Line is now, with extensions to Bush/Hobby Airports, and a heavy rail line to Uptown (basically along the same alignment as the University Line) while going up Post Oak in a subway. I believe light rail is well suited for the North, East, and Southeast lines, but I would also like to see BRT along streets like Bissonnet and Westheimer. Of course you have the traditional bus routes that go north/south (Kirby, Shepard) and connect to the rail/BRT systems, but those routes need to be improved frequency wise. The Park and Ride bus system is fine as is, but two corridors where commuter rail would be good are 290 (to also connect with the uptown heavy rail line, while continuing downtown) and to Galveston. I really don't see the need for the rail line to Missouri City that METRO is planning, but what the heck, I'm a pro-development guy, go for it.

METRO's service area is 700 square miles.

Don't know where you got that number, to my knowledge, METRO's service area is over 1,200 square miles, but that's Wikipedia. Where'd you get that number?

[TheNiche]

Also agree with you here. We can start by giving METRO their whole 1% sales tax, as I mentioned in a previous post. I am for light rail because it is an improvement over buses quality wise, but since you told my your transit plan, here's mine: I would have rather seen a heavy rail system go where the Red Line is now, with extensions to Bush/Hobby Airports, and a heavy rail line to Uptown (basically along the same alignment as the University Line) while going up Post Oak in a subway.

Heavy rail is even worse. Grade-separated BRT (such as we already have in a P&R system) can offer superior and scalable service as compared to heavy rail. And airport routes have notoriously poor ridership relative to cost. They're great if you happen to not live here or if you happen to be a frequent traveler...which is more or less a subsidy to wealthy people.

Don't know where you got that number, to my knowledge, METRO's service area is over 1,200 square miles, but that's Wikipedia. Where'd you get that number?

Mea culpa. I was thinking about a different transit system from a comparative analysis I had done on a different thread. Thanks for strengthening my argument further.

[LegacyTree]

So has light rail transformed the areas around it? Well...the TMC probably would've grown with or without it. Hermann Park's re-do would've still happened. UH-Downtown's rapid expansion probably wouldn't have been affected very much. A couple of downtown towers probably would have been developed in different places (including METRO's own headquarters). Some of the Crosspoint retail in Midtown admittedly might not be there. All in all, however, evidence of a transformation is somewhat lacking.

Land prices did go up along the Red Line, particularly in Midtown. But that's mostly just speculation. It may be highrise land in 2040, but it won't be anytime soon. And hell, if the Red Line had been built in 2040, it'd probably have used superior technology and also made the highrise land viable (to the extent that it still existed, because of course it would've been less expensive for longer and more easily developed at an earlier date). So...it's kind of a wash.

To be fair Niche, you don't think it would be in a future developer's best interest to build another Greenway plaza/Exxon campus further out in the burbs on greenfields. Enclaves seem to be the Houston development paradigm with or without light-rail. I think Metro and the city leaders thought they could try to entice development back to the CBD with the rail line but speculation ensured that only high-rises would be feasible. The fact is light-rail increases land values too much and is a gov't give away to property owners along the corridor. This stall just allows more time for real estate investors to buy up land around the new rail lines and perpetuate what we saw with the red line corridor.

[mfastx]

Heavy rail is even worse. Grade-separated BRT (such as we already have in a P&R system) can offer superior and scalable service as compared to heavy rail. And airport routes have notoriously poor ridership relative to cost. They're great if you happen to not live here or if you happen to be a frequent traveler...which is more or less a subsidy to wealthy people.

Look at Atlanta's MARTA. Even though what they have is basically an unfinished heavy rail system, they still have higher ridership relative to service area. Even though they have less than half of METRO's service area, MARTA still has over 2/3 of our ridership. Heavy rail just usually generates the most ridership. I think it's safe to say that if the Red Line were grade seperated heavy rail, ridership would be higher, wouldn't you agree? Besides, heavy rail's value appreciates over time, as Houston densifies, more riders will pile on, therefore making it more cost-effective.

I don't think heavy rail to the airports would be as bad as you make it to be. Just think of all the people that would ride it into town instead of renting a car, therefore giving money to METRO instead of some rental car company. Washington DC is a good example of how heavy rail to the airport can be successful, plus they're expanding a line to Dulles Airport. I doubt they would do that if they thought it would be a waste of money.

[TheNiche]

To be fair Niche, you don't think it would be in a future developer's best interest to build another Greenway plaza/Exxon campus further out in the burbs on greenfields. Enclaves seem to be the Houston development paradigm with or without light-rail.

Generally speaking, yes. The land is less expensive, the buildings can be shorter and thus less expensive, they can have more control over abutting properties and access, most companies don't need access to the entire metropolitan area's labor force--only a slice of it--and besides which, new construction disproportionately serves more affluent people, for whom transit in any form tends to be less appealing.

I think Metro and the city leaders thought they could try to entice development back to the CBD with the rail line but speculation ensured that only high-rises would be feasible.

I'm not sure that I agree that the thought process was so well organized. METRO and the City suffered from a poor relationship, and after all, the only person from the City that exerted any amount of influence over METRO was the Mayor.

I tend to believe that the foremost motivations from the top down were ego, empire-building, and career advancement.

[TheNiche]

Look at Atlanta's MARTA. Even though what they have is basically an unfinished heavy rail system, they still have higher ridership relative to service area. Even though they have less than half of METRO's service area, MARTA still has over 2/3 of our ridership. Heavy rail just usually generates the most ridership. I think it's safe to say that if the Red Line were grade seperated heavy rail, ridership would be higher, wouldn't you agree? Besides, heavy rail's value appreciates over time, as Houston densifies, more riders will pile on, therefore making it more cost-effective.

I don't think heavy rail to the airports would be as bad as you make it to be. Just think of all the people that would ride it into town instead of renting a car, therefore giving money to METRO instead of some rental car company. Washington DC is a good example of how heavy rail to the airport can be successful, plus they're expanding a line to Dulles Airport.

I've harpooned MARTA in a previous thread. It still bleeds. You should look it up.

I doubt they would do that if they thought it would be a waste of money.

How wonderful for their sense of expectation.

[kdog08]

Should I take it as flattering when someone like yourself comes along and basically yells at me, "No! You're wrong! Everything you said earlier is true! Now let me read your mind and expound on what you didn't say, probably saving you the time of answering someone who didn't think it through to the logical conclusion! [yada, yada, yada] There! What do you have to say about that, Mr. Smartypants!?"

Eh?

Actually, you're right. I was being disingenuous. I accidentally thought of light rail as a corridor (or rather, a strip), when its impact is really much more nodal in spatial terms.

The Urban Land Institute generally considers 1/4-mile to be a walkable distance, beyond which a person's willingness to walk falls off dramatically. I'm not going to subtract out areas that overlap; I'm not going to account for the effect of a street grid (which tends to turn circles into diamonds inscribed into the circle). I'm going to keep my analysis simple and generous.

Consider that the Red Line has 16 stations. The land area (incl. bodies of water such as White Oak and Buffalo Bayou) within 1/4-mile of those stations is precisely pi. It just happens to work out that way.

pi * radius * radius * #stations = 3.14 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 16 = 3.14 sq. mi. = 2009.6 acres

Thanks for your math but it is totally unnecessary, as it's hard to visualize 2009.6 acres. Luckily my old buddy Christof Spieler made these maps using the current data at the time (2007) using 1/4 and 1/2 mile radius. Try to ignore the alternative route and stations (hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can resize them):

METRO's service area is 700 square miles. Now, consider what has occurred along the Red Line between 2004 and 2010. Our economy was growing like mad and real estate and healthcare finance was an easy game to play. The way things were will not soon be repeated. And nor will the Red Line's success; it was low-hanging fruit, the easiest to develop around.

Wow 6 years? You expected transformation after that short amount of time. And connecting that low hanging fruit, with a higher hanging fruit can't possibly replicate the red line's success? May I borrow your time machine? My flux capacitor isn't working properly.

So has light rail transformed the areas around it? Well...the TMC probably would've grown with or without it. Hermann Park's re-do would've still happened. UH-Downtown's rapid expansion probably wouldn't have been affected very much. A couple of downtown towers probably would have been developed in different places (including METRO's own headquarters). Some of the Crosspoint retail in Midtown admittedly might not be there. All in all, however, evidence of a transformation is somewhat lacking.

As I said before (you may want to work on your reading skillz) that we should define transformative. As a person with a strong biology/biochemistry background transformative doesn't necessarily mean bold changes but can be very subtle. What is transformative to you since you missed what I previously said and just assumed I meant that LRT would be responsible for all these developments.

Land prices did go up along the Red Line, particularly in Midtown. But that's mostly just speculation. It may be highrise land in 2040, but it won't be anytime soon. And hell, if the Red Line had been built in 2040, it'd probably have used superior technology and also made the highrise land viable (to the extent that it still existed, because of course it would've been less expensive for longer and more easily developed at an earlier date). So...it's kind of a wash.

Yes the land immediately adjacent to the rail rose to high, but 2-3 blocks away saw the most development. Again who said anything about about transformative = highrise land?

And again, this is low-hanging fruit in the best of times.

I disagree and more speculation.

If this is an indicator of transformative development, label me unimpressed. I'd rather stick to regional mobility solutions and serving those who need it the most, which you ain't!

Yes I realize me with my obscene 24K/year salary I am not worthy of using transit or wanting better transit.

However, these chosen people of yours also work in and in close vicinity TMC, Greenway Plaza, Uptown, and Downtown and they are usually responsible for "keeping on the lights" and providing food, retail, and other services to these large, dense (in Houston terms) employment centers. So I'm not sure if you realized that, because it's not just elitist individuals like myself with +24K/year salaries that work in the loop.

I think starting with a LRT backbone connecting our core employment center, universities, and major cultural amenities is ideal. I like an inside-out approach because as you notice heavy traffic flow, HOV system, and park&ride system is inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. From this LRT backbone we can continue to add park&ride, regular bus service, signature bus, or any other bus service we can come up with. I am a big fan of Tory Gattis's ideas about improving bus service, especially Houston's far flung employment centers Houston Strategies .

Building a metro wide mass transit is a long and expensive process and I fully understand the current budget situation. However, we and METRO need to get more creative, find ways to make METRO more accountable, etc.; essentially we need to start over.

[samagon]

Consider that the Red Line has 16 stations. The land area (incl. bodies of water such as White Oak and Buffalo Bayou) within 1/4-mile of those stations is precisely pi. It just happens to work out that way.

pi * radius * radius * #stations = 3.14 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 16 = 3.14 sq. mi. = 2009.6 acres

METRO's service area is 700 square miles. Now, consider what has occurred along the Red Line between 2004 and 2010. Our economy was growing like mad and real estate and healthcare finance was an easy game to play. The way things were will not soon be repeated. And nor will the Red Line's success; it was low-hanging fruit, the easiest to develop around.

I like this kind of shoot from the hip analysis, but it would be beneficial to have something to compare against.

I think it would be interesting to see a 6 year analysis of a bus route of similar distance and number of stops, just as a comparative, as the comparison would likely not be in the same area, and economic conditions, it won't be that scientific, but it would still be interesting to see.

Something else that would be interesting, since a lot of people have brought it up in passing, what about a 6 year analysis on a freeway widening project?

Personally, I think 6 years just isn't enough time to realize any tangible benefits of changes in current transit options, either by introducing a bus route, replacing a bus route with LTR, or widening a freeway (or even a street).

After watching the ridership numbers of the LTR, I think it takes years for people to see the benefit of using this form of transit (especially in a place like Houston where LTR is still a foreign idea), once that is realized, is it not inconceivable that businesses will see that they have an audience that may just look out the windows and see something they like, and decided to hop off and go there? I mean, isn't that why Westheimer has higher rents than some other streets, cause there are more people that travel down westheimer?

What about differences that aren't measurable? What about the potential increase of numbers of people that can take advantage of that corridor? What about the actual increase of numbers of people who take that corridor? What about the positive and negative economic impact to surrounding businesses of expanding the freeway, building LTR, reinforcing the street for the increased weight of bus traffic?

[mfastx]

I've harpooned MARTA in a previous thread. It still bleeds. You should look it up.

I've seen it. Every way you break it down, METRO is fiscally in a better situation that MARTA. But I think that ridership is the most important thing, and MARTA beats us in that catagory (ridership relative to service area).

[TheNiche]

Something else that would be interesting, since a lot of people have brought it up in passing, what about a 6 year analysis on a freeway widening project?

Personally, I think 6 years just isn't enough time to realize any tangible benefits of changes in current transit options, either by introducing a bus route, replacing a bus route with LTR, or widening a freeway (or even a street).

A little data for you: in the last six years, 4.9 million square feet of new office space has been completed in the Energy Corridor, alone, most of it speculative. Investors just ate it up with a spoon! And as you can see from browsing this document, most of that was completed fairly recently and only just started as construction was wrapping up on the expanded freeway. ...of course, Memorial City, Westchase, Park 10, and points west have also witnessed staggering growth in that span, and that doesn't get reflected in those numbers.

After watching the ridership numbers of the LTR, I think it takes years for people to see the benefit of using this form of transit (especially in a place like Houston where LTR is still a foreign idea), once that is realized, is it not inconceivable that businesses will see that they have an audience that may just look out the windows and see something they like, and decided to hop off and go there? I mean, isn't that why Westheimer has higher rents than some other streets, cause there are more people that travel down westheimer?

LRT ridership was initially high but stabilized at a somewhat lower level. It does not seem as though initial enthusiasm was lacking.

As for your speculation about visibility... Visibility is important, but demographics are crucial. To that end, I think that Westheimer is actually a very good case study supporting my point because it is so varied in terms of capacity, volume of use, demographics, and retail rents.

What about differences that aren't measurable? What about the potential increase of numbers of people that can take advantage of that corridor? What about the actual increase of numbers of people who take that corridor? What about the positive and negative economic impact to surrounding businesses of expanding the freeway, building LTR, reinforcing the street for the increased weight of bus traffic?

Some of those impacts can be estimated, just not usually very well by a government agency or a hired consultant. Academic analyses tend to be more intellectually honest. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) is actually a national leader in performing these kinds of analyses; it is unfortunate that TXDoT has a penchant for subverting the data. Bart Smith at UH also dabbles in this field.

[TheNiche]

I've seen it. Every way you break it down, METRO is fiscally in a better situation that MARTA. But I think that ridership is the most important thing, and MARTA beats us in that catagory (ridership relative to service area).

MARTA's service area is about as large as the area encompassed by Beltway 8.

METRO's service area is 2.6 times as large. That's the area of two (2) beltways and also three (3) inner loops. It takes in the Katy Prairie, the vast affluent suburbs of northwest Harris County, Kingwood in Montgomery County, and a fair bit of Fort Bend County...yet leaves out Pasadena, one of the denser and poorer parts of the metropolitan area, which is close-in and should be easy pickings.

So, yeah...not your best line of argument.

[kdog08]

Aw Niche you couldn't reply to me? I bet you are coming up with a zinger!!!!

However, let me step in here if you don't mind.

A little data for you: in the last six years, 4.9 million square feet of new office space has been completed in the Energy Corridor, alone, most of it speculative. Investors just ate it up with a spoon! And as you can see from browsing this document, most of that was completed fairly recently and only just started as construction was wrapping up on the expanded freeway. ...of course, Memorial City, Westchase, Park 10, and points west have also witnessed staggering growth in that span, and that doesn't get reflected in those numbers.

No doubt, by far the most employment growth has been occurring outside of BW8. However, would all this office growth have occurred without the freeway expansion?

This type of of growth is perfect for park&ride and circulating bus as mentioned by Tory Gattis in his Sept 14 blog HTOWN Strategies

LRT ridership was initially high but stabilized at a somewhat lower level. It does not seem as though initial enthusiasm was lacking.

Again, one line. Not the most reliable benchmark.

As for your speculation about visibility... Visibility is important, but demographics are crucial. To that end, I think that Westheimer is actually a very good case study supporting my point because it is so varied in terms of capacity, volume of use, demographics, and retail rents.

But wait? There are no significant employment centers/corridor/areas unless you count Uptown/Galleria. I thought we agreed that employment = decent ridership. However, if you are suggesting "Signature Bus" down Westhimer then you are preaching to the choir. Westheimer past Kirby (at the least) is more narrow than Richmond so LRT is a no go.

[TheNiche]

Aw Niche you couldn't reply to me? I bet you are coming up with a zinger!!!!

However, let me step in here if you don't mind.

No doubt, by far the most employment growth has been occurring outside of BW8. However, would all this office growth have occurred without the freeway expansion?

This type of of growth is perfect for park&ride and circulating bus as mentioned by Tory Gattis in his Sept 14 blog HTOWN Strategies

Again, one line. Not the most reliable benchmark.

But wait? There are no significant employment centers/corridor/areas unless you count Uptown/Galleria. I thought we agreed that employment = decent ridership. However, if you are suggesting "Signature Bus" down Westhimer then you are preaching to the choir. Westheimer past Kirby (at the least) is more narrow than Richmond so LRT is a no go.

Just to boil things down (because I'm tired)... I agreed with some of what you said. Much of the rest is semantics; people know what I'm getting at.

I think that there is a key difference between most projects in west Houston and most projects along the Red Line in that most projects in west Houston have been speculative and could have been built anywhere in the region provided that there was investor interest, whereas most projects along the Red Line really couldn't have possibly been very far away from it, especially in the Texas Medical Center. Sure there are exceptions, however I can personally attest from professional experience that investors got a sudden and intense priapism-inducing hard-on for west Houston when the freeway got expanded. It wasn't just that land prices got speculatively bid up; crap actually got built. Memorial City got new highrise condos! Nowhere along the Red Line got new highrise condos. I'll grant you that there's some subjectivity to the interpretation of data, but it's still a pretty strong case.

The Westheimer thought experiment was just that, to aide with conceptualization. I'm not suggesting it as some kind of capital improvement.

People at various levels of income value time differently than you do. As a general rule, capital expenditures on transit should aim to be attractive to the largest pool of prospective riders that is possible on account of that we can afford to move more of them cheaper than we could the same number of more affluent people. And yeah, since the poverty rate in Houston was 20.7% in 2007 and I'd imagine is closer to 25% at present, and you make twice the amount of income as someone living in poverty, and yet the percentage of commuters that use transit was only 4.1%...I'd say that a transit agency should have a long way to go before it bothers trying to directly target your demographic. ...but of course, if the federal government offers to give them $900 million to do something irresponsible, it isn't irresponsible anymore. [shrug]

[mfastx]

MARTA's service area is about as large as the area encompassed by Beltway 8.

METRO's service area is 2.6 times as large. That's the area of two (2) beltways and also three (3) inner loops. It takes in the Katy Prairie, the vast affluent suburbs of northwest Harris County, Kingwood in Montgomery County, and a fair bit of Fort Bend County...yet leaves out Pasadena, one of the denser and poorer parts of the metropolitan area, which is close-in and should be easy pickings.

So, yeah...not your best line of argument.

I don't think you should fault MARTA for having a smaller service area. Atlanta is a much smaller city than Houston. Why would their transit agency have as large a service area as METRO? Heavy rail just carries the most people, simply because it's the best form of transit. I really don't see how you can argue against that. So you don't think that if Atlanta had as large a service area as METRO (with additional heavy rail lines) they would still have less ridership? Just look at the transit agencies with the highest ridership, they all have rail. It seems to me that you would rather have a fiscally efficient transit agency than a transit agency with high ridership.

[TheNiche]

I don't think you should fault MARTA for having a smaller service area. Atlanta is a much smaller city than Houston. Why would their transit agency have as large a service area as METRO? Heavy rail just carries the most people, simply because it's the best form of transit. I really don't see how you can argue against that.

The Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta MSA is 5.5 million people. The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown MSA is 5.9 million people. They're both low-density post-war Sunbelt cities, and most of the difference is made up for in the far-flung suburbs. It's a pretty close comparison, however Atlanta's inferior highway network makes MARTA's job of attracting commuters quite a bit easier.

So you don't think that if Atlanta had as large a service area as METRO (with additional heavy rail lines) they would still have less ridership?

I don't think that the service areas have very much to do with anything; you are the one who brought them up. Fact is, the vast majority of METRO's operations are contained within an area about the size of MARTA's service area, yet METRO performs better.

It seems to me that you would rather have a fiscally efficient transit agency than a transit agency with high ridership.

I prefer having both.

And yeah, as I've made abundantly clear, I think that transit-related capital improvements spending is lacking; I also recognize that METRO has to deal the cards dealt to them by state and federal entities; three of spades is no ace of clubs.

[Houston19514]

I don't think you should fault MARTA for having a smaller service area. Atlanta is a much smaller city than Houston. Why would their transit agency have as large a service area as METRO? Heavy rail just carries the most people, simply because it's the best form of transit. I really don't see how you can argue against that. So you don't think that if Atlanta had as large a service area as METRO (with additional heavy rail lines) they would still have less ridership? Just look at the transit agencies with the highest ridership, they all have rail. It seems to me that you would rather have a fiscally efficient transit agency than a transit agency with high ridership.

as a bit of an aside, where are you guys getting your service area data for MARTA? From what I can glean, MARTA's service area covers Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton and Gwinnett Counties, which adds up to slightly more square miles than Metro's service area.

[TheNiche]

as a bit of an aside, where are you guys getting your service area data for MARTA? From what I can glean, MARTA's service area covers Fulton, DeKalb, Clayton and Gwinnett Counties, which adds up to slightly more square miles than Metro's service area.

I got my MARTA figure here. Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton counties have their own transit agencies, independent of MARTA.

[illusionescape]

So what's happening to the construction on the North and Southeast Lines? I live on the East End Line and I noticed that all construction pretty much has halted. They were in the middle of pouring new concrete on Harrisburg and they were making good progress. But now I never seen workers there and the street is incomplete. It couldn't even take vehicles on it if they opened it since its not continuous.

[samagon]

So what's happening to the construction on the North and Southeast Lines? I live on the East End Line and I noticed that all construction pretty much has halted. They were in the middle of pouring new concrete on Harrisburg and they were making good progress. But now I never seen workers there and the street is incomplete. It couldn't even take vehicles on it if they opened it since its not continuous.

Have seen pretty much the same on scott.

While I agree that things were bungled, work needs to continue. This is bad.