METRO Meeting June 18 Regarding Halting Of Transit Expansion

[TheNiche]

Rail on a bad day has been better for me than buses on any day.

Then perhaps bus service requires improvement. We should examine that as a possible alternative, wouldn't you say?

[mfastx]

Obviously, yes. You missed the sarcasm in a response not directed at you.

I got the sarcasm, I was just explaining that your sarcastic comment didn't apply to what I posted they way you thought it did.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341085698' post='404340']

You speak in vagaries. If I misunderstand what you mean to say, it's your problem not mine.

Haha alright, I take full responsibility. Let me reiterate: I am referring to efficiency by analyzing what mode of transit carries riders at a cheaper cost per rider.

My argument is that questions should be asked, so I'm asking questions. Your argument is that you want something more or less specific to come about, but you can't explain why (except in vagaries).

Well I am also asking questions. I have provided my reasoning for believing the way I do, and I have backed it up with numbers. While you have provided more than enough reasoning for your beliefs, you have yet to provide me with statistics. You haven't proven that buses are more efficient and work better than rail.

No. A career could be built upon that endeavor. Its not my job to develop a specific system-wide plan for optimization across five dimensions (space, time, budget). That is the subject of this thread, and you are off topic.

Well I am seriously considering building my career upon that endeavor so I will report back with the results of any future analysis I do.

You should know that pretty much every METRO thread devolves into a bus vs. rail argument, regardless if I am involved in the off topic posting or not. I still maintain that I am in favor of METRO getting their full tax back.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341085698' post='404340']

You are mischaracterizing my input and are not addressing my points. I think that light rail can work in a limited capacity in Houston, but not if we carry forward as it has been implemented to date. It will not always work in every instance along every alignment or in any configuration. And moreover, it performs differently in different cities. But again, my point is that we should seek system optimization; not that there should be light rail or BRT or water taxis or whatever.

Well you have not made that clear in any of your posts so far. Nor have you made suggestions on how rail can be implemented in Houston other than suggesting grade seperation (something I also suggest). So far light rail has undeniably performed well in Houston. While you suggest otherwise, I know that many people utilize the line and the vast majority consider it an improvement over the bus lines that were there before. Sometimes it seems like you refuse to acknowledge the Red Line's success due to an apparent anti-rail bias you have.

I am in support of BRT as well as light rail. But realistically, if METRO wants to provide a good transit system (whether it be BRT, light rail, heavy rail, local bus, whatever) they need a lot more funding than they currently recieve. I want METRO to provide a good service as much as anyone else. I just think that investing in a core rail system will do more for METRO down the line than just simply improving the existing bus system.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341085698' post='404340']

I propose that any additional funding for METRO should be tied to reforms within its organization and to its charter. I say this because I have increasingly come to believe that METRO is obsolete as an entity. A regional transportation authority should be considered, perhaps under the umbrella of H-GAC or as its own separate entity. In either case, its leadership should be voted for by constituents. And since the effects of efficient transportation are directly influenced by land value, I would also suggest that such an organization should receive non-farebox revenue through property taxation of the land value component of appraised property values.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341085698' post='404340']

I was on foot downtown and I live in the Museum District area. I was exhausted and it was there, albeit nonfunctional. I've ridden it twice this year because that's about how frequently I travel back and forth between destinations on the route. And besides, I usually just prefer to walk, get the exercise, and not pay. I'd rather buy better beer (then walk it off) than buy better transit...even if the fare is already massively subsidized.

Alright fair enough. Just want to point out that one of the benefits of rail is that it's easy to recognize and navigate, which means that stragglers like you can easily navigate the system.

Just remember that your rail fare is less subsidezed than a bus fare!

Adding bus service would limit the growth of the city? Well what was Houston before the light rail line opened, a backwater? Did we just magically become the fourth largest city overnight with the opening of the rail line?

Not what I am saying. It would limit future growth, especially future transit ridership growth. As Houston gets larger, more people are going to ride transit. Capacity issues will arise. One example is the Orange Line BRT in Los Angeles. Great line, but there are capacity issues and they are going to have to convert that to rail.

No rail apologist has answered the fundamental question; what transit issue can light rail solve that no alternative measure can that would justify it's cost.

It just depends on what one thinks justifies its cost. I think that increased capacity, reliability, speed, comfort, and ridership justify its cost. Obviously you don't. That's the difference right there.

You can't come up with that answer and that's why the pro rail crowd is intellectually dishonest in their arguments. They don't care about better transit in Houston. If so, they would first advocate for better local bus service, better working conditions for transit workers and an expansion of the existing bus system. All important factors for the betterment of mass transit in Houston all cheaper than light rail.

If you just want a cool train gliding down the street because you will feel that much closer to your urban Utopia just say as much. But don't try to argue for rail using vague numbers and outright lies.

I assume you are talking about me. Are you saying I don't care about better transit in Houston? And yet I waste all of this time on these forums arguing about giving more funding to transit and am going to make a career in transit? And I don't care? Sorry man that's simply not true. I do advocate for better local bus service. We need better bus shelters and displays indicating when the next bus will come. I have tons of ideas on how to improve local bus service. Those improvements can only do so much and it is my experience that transit systems work better if there is a core high capacity system (rail) that smaller local bus routes feed into.

Oh and for the record our light rail is anything but 'cool.' It is a sterile generic POS. I hate how it looks, whoever designed them had no taste. But that's not what this argument is about.

[kylejack]

I used to ride 1 and it never had a 6 minute time table frequency going back several years before rail. Which specific route are you referring to? I don't suppose you have a copy of the time table. Rail is every six minutes throughout the day, not just rush hour. (4:30 AM - 7:30 PM)

[kdog08]

In New York there are routes that are on 1 minute intervals. Metro has run downtown and TMC shuttles on 5 minute intervals. Before the truncation of the 2, 4, 8, and 15 you had four routes (along with the 1 Hospital) that operated between downtown and the TMC at intervals of 6-10 minutes during rush hours making your wait time for a bus less than current wait times for a train and providing alternatives in case one route was late, delayed etc.

Once again you have not provided an example of an issue that light rail can solve that investment in the rehabilitation of the bus system cannot. Frequencies and trip times can be adjusted and dispatchers can be placed along bus routes to make sure they are operating as expected.

What can rail do that other cheaper options cannot?

Look better and be more appealing for the masses. All the cool cities have it.

Seriously though, Houston has the dense employment centers and activity centers (all of which have been growing in some fashion) all lined up to be connected by mass transit. Do you honestly believe a system of all buses would be more popular than a system of LRT, local bus, and Park&Ride?

Neither idea will work without proper funding and proper conditions. There's a reason why light rail works well in cities with decent transit and some density (Boston and LA comes to mind). Light rail can't function in a vacuum so I don't see the point of comparing light rail to buses. It simply is a progression of transit based on demand (yes Niche) that comes along with increasing density, city form, and development pattern. Why doesn't Boston just have buses and commuter rail and not light rail? Why is LA building light rail and not just subways? Simply put major cities need multi modes of mass transit, along with multi modes of roads in order to function in the present and the future. There is no one-size fit all approach and I believe our LRT alignment added with a good dose of P&R and bus will function well with Houston's multi polar form. Houston's future has a good chance of becoming LA-light with semi-dense pockets along multipolar spines, eventually you won't be able to fit all those buses and cars on the same street.

[TheNiche]

I got the sarcasm, I was just explaining that your sarcastic comment didn't apply to what I posted they way you thought it did.

That's because I wasn't responding to what you posted. I was responding to Samagon.

Haha alright, I take full responsibility. Let me reiterate: I am referring to efficiency by analyzing what mode of transit carries riders at a cheaper cost per rider.

That is vague. If all you're looking at are operating costs per rider per year (as I suspect is the case), then actually I think that vanpooling just blows everything else out of the water.

How are you defining riders? Whole trips? Vehicular boardings? What is the economic value of a trip or a boarding? Should that value vary, given the circumstances of the transit user? What if they traveled ten miles instead of two miles? What if they're wealthy or poor; what is their opportunity cost of time on each particular route? Do riders twenty years from now matter less than riders next year; by how much should they be discounted?

How are you accounting for project costs? Are you accounting for operating, capital costs, and costs associated with debt service? Have you accounted for both positive and negative externalities (for instance, truncated bus lines vs. increased transfer times, disruptions to signal timing, or construction disruptions)? How are you accounting for the time value of money?

So, stop speaking in vagaries and tell us your thoughts. On a different thread, please.

Well I am also asking questions. I have provided my reasoning for believing the way I do, and I have backed it up with numbers. While you have provided more than enough reasoning for your beliefs, you have yet to provide me with statistics. You haven't proven that buses are more efficient and work better than rail.

Your questions are horrible, your numbers suck. I do not assert a brightline opinion that buses are more efficient than rail, except that that will be the case some of the time.

Well I am seriously considering building my career upon that endeavor so I will report back with the results of any future analysis I do.

God help us.

You should know that pretty much every METRO thread devolves into a bus vs. rail argument, regardless if I am involved in the off topic posting or not. I still maintain that I am in favor of METRO getting their full tax back.

You're involved in most of them, and you drag such arguments out in a manner that can only be described as prolific.

I found it telling that you skipped over the comment I made about reforming METRO. That was my attempt at steering the conversation back 'on-track', as it were.

Well you have not made that clear in any of your posts so far. Yes I have. Go back. Read. Nor have you made suggestions on how rail can be implemented in Houston other than suggesting grade seperation (something I also suggest). I've been trying to remain on-topic. So far light rail has undeniably performed well in Houston. It has performed well (as expected, given the route), however is still suboptimal and exerts negative externalities on traffic fow. While you suggest otherwise, I know that many people utilize the line and the vast majority consider it an improvement over the bus lines that were there before. I know many people that would disagree; and I suspect that they don't hang out in your circles or ride rail frequently. Anecdotal evidence and sample bias sure is fun, isn't it? Sometimes it seems like you refuse to acknowledge the Red Line's success due to an apparent anti-rail bias you have. Nope, it's just that I refuse to extrapolate its unique success to dissimilar proposed routes. It is not an indicator of anything except what it is.

I am in support of BRT as well as light rail. But realistically, if METRO wants to provide a good transit system (whether it be BRT, light rail, heavy rail, local bus, whatever) they need a lot more funding than they currently recieve. I want METRO to provide a good service as much as anyone else. I just think that investing in a core rail system will do more for METRO down the line than just simply improving the existing bus system.

I suppose that depends on how you define, "good." Here am am, yet again critical of your vagaries. FWIW, I think that their service is already good. It could be better. On the other hand, our local streets could be better, too.

Something I did find interesting about this comment was that now you're advocating for a core rail system, rather than just for rail in general. Should I construe that as a strategic argumentative victory on my part?

Alright fair enough. Just want to point out that one of the benefits of rail is that it's easy to recognize and navigate, which means that stragglers like you can easily navigate the system.

Just remember that your rail fare is less subsidezed than a bus fare!

That assertion would depend on the thoroughness of your cost accounting.

I do advocate for better local bus service. We need better bus shelters and displays indicating when the next bus will come. I have tons of ideas on how to improve local bus service. Those improvements can only do so much and it is my experience that transit systems work better if there is a core high capacity system (rail) that smaller local bus routes feed into.

Would the quarter-cent sales tax pay for all the light rail you want, AND all of these other things? It's all fine and well to advocate for something. But what will you advocate for on a budget?

[mfastx]

That's because I wasn't responding to what you posted. I was responding to Samagon.

Cool.

That is vague. If all you're looking at are operating costs per rider per year (as I suspect is the case), then actually I think that vanpooling just blows everything else out of the water.

I am looking at a combination of ridership and efficiency. Not everything is as technical as you make it out to be. Sometimes you just have to step back and look at the big picture. You are overanalyzing things.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341160105' post='404371']

How are you defining riders? Whole trips? Vehicular boardings? What is the economic value of a trip or a boarding? Should that value vary, given the circumstances of the transit user? What if they traveled ten miles instead of two miles? What if they're wealthy or poor; what is their opportunity cost of time on each particular route? Do riders twenty years from now matter less than riders next year; by how much should they be discounted?

I am defining it by vehicular boardings, which correlate to whole trips. The value of a boarding is that someone is getting somewhere, which is what public transportation is for. I don't believe it should. If a person is going somewhere via public transit, it doesn't matter if he goes ten or two miles, he is still getting where he needs to go. Many different people use public transportation for trips of different lengths, so we shouldn't cater to a trip of a specific length. In the grand scheme of things, all of the variables you are listing don't really matter. What matters is that people are using public transit to get where they need to go, regardless of whether they are wealthy or poor, or how long they travel. There is an interesting statistic that measures the cost per passenger mile, which is helpful in determining the effectiveness of longer routes, such as P&R or commuter rail routes.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341160105' post='404371']

How are you accounting for project costs? Are you accounting for operating, capital costs, and costs associated with debt service? Have you accounted for both positive and negative externalities (for instance, truncated bus lines vs. increased transfer times, disruptions to signal timing, or construction disruptions)? How are you accounting for the time value of money?

Yes I am. I fully acknowledge the high capital cost of rail, and I believe it pays off in the long run in the form of lower operating costs and positive externalities. I have theories on what some believe to be negative externalities associated with rail, but that discussion is for another thread. In short, I beleive the positive externalities far outweigh the temporary negative externalities associated with rail construction.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341160105' post='404371']

So, stop speaking in vagaries and tell us your thoughts. On a different thread, please.

Right. I'd love to explain my theories some other time.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341160105' post='404371']

Your questions are horrible, your numbers suck. I do not assert a brightline opinion that buses are more efficient than rail, except that that will be the case some of the time.

I am asking you the same questions you are asking me. So in that case, your questions suck.

And you might think my numbers suck, but at least I have numbers.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341160105' post='404371']

You're involved in most of them, and you drag such arguments out in a manner that can only be described as prolific.

Yes I am, as public transportation is a great interest of mine. I've spent lots of time studying it. I appreciate the lenient nature of the moderators here to allow for great discussions, even if they are a tad off topic.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341160105' post='404371']

I found it telling that you skipped over the comment I made about reforming METRO. That was my attempt at steering the conversation back 'on-track', as it were.

I did not skip over it at all. I read it and agree with your point of view on that. I meant to reply to what you said but I screwed up the order of quoting you and when I realized it it was too late to edit my post. But I agree that a larger regional transportation agency should be created. And any larger transportation agency would have more funds to adequately construct and run a good transit system.

Yes I have. Go back. Read. I've been trying to remain on-topic. It has performed well (as expected, given the route), however is still suboptimal and exerts negative externalities on traffic fow. I know many people that would disagree; and I suspect that they don't hang out in your circles or ride rail frequently. Anecdotal evidence and sample bias sure is fun, isn't it? Nope, it's just that I refuse to extrapolate its unique success to dissimilar proposed routes. It is not an indicator of anything except what it is.

I've read most of your posts regarding rail in the last few years and have yet to see you state that you support rail in Houston in any form. I do agree that it is suboptimal. I would have liked to see more grade seperation (in fact, all grade seperation) especially through TMC and downtown. I have many ideas on how to improve the Red Line's performance and speed, but again that is for another thread.

I'd argue that most of those that are opposed to rail don't ride public transit frequently. There's always bias, as humans it's nearly impossible to not have it. Likewise, those who drive a car and never get on public transit are almost surely to be opposed to investment in public transit.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341160105' post='404371']

I suppose that depends on how you define, "good." Here am am, yet again critical of your vagaries. FWIW, I think that their service is already good. It could be better. On the other hand, our local streets could be better, too.

I define good the same way most people do: the ability to attract a significant amount of people to ride public transit. What do I mean by significant, you may ask? Well, we all have different definitions of significant don't we? So it's useless to explain what I mean to you, as you are sure to disagree. Let's just say that I think that for a city of this size, 280,000 or so boardings a day isn't enough.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341160105' post='404371']

Something I did find interesting about this comment was that now you're advocating for a core rail system, rather than just for rail in general. Should I construe that as a strategic argumentative victory on my part?

Well that's what I've been advocating. I assumed that it was understood that I was advocating for the rail system that METRO has proposed more or less, which to me is a core rail system. I do not advocate rail lines all over the place criss-crossing the city. That is where BRT would work great. And then you have the local lines feeding into not only the rail lines, but the BRT lines. That's my pipe dream.

name='TheNiche' timestamp='1341160105' post='404371']

Would the quarter-cent sales tax pay for all the light rail you want, AND all of these other things? It's all fine and well to advocate for something. But what will you advocate for on a budget?

Perhaps. It would certainly help. Over time it could pay for bus improvements as well as rail construction. Remember that in the 80s and 90s, METRO had a large surplus of funds, which is probably a reason why some wanted a portion of their tax was taken away.

This will be my last response to you Niche, you can go ahead and have the last word. I need to remember that debating on these forums usually only results in both parties being more entrenched in their original point of view. I believe that rail is worth the initial investment just like BRT and improving the local bus system. However, I beleive that rail should be a priority because it makes more of an impact. I will continue to support most, if not all, infrastructure projects in the Houston area, including local streets because boy do they need it, lol.

Good day.

[TheNiche]

I am looking at a combination of ridership and efficiency. Not everything is as technical as you make it out to be. Sometimes you just have to step back and look at the big picture. You are overanalyzing things.

Your analytic approach is superficial.

I am a proponent of deep analysis; it should acknowledge that transit is for people rather than urban aestheticists. And that is my final word to you on this subject.

[Slick Vik]

Look better and be more appealing for the masses. All the cool cities have it.

Seriously though, Houston has the dense employment centers and activity centers (all of which have been growing in some fashion) all lined up to be connected by mass transit. Do you honestly believe a system of all buses would be more popular than a system of LRT, local bus, and Park&Ride?

Neither idea will work without proper funding and proper conditions. There's a reason why light rail works well in cities with decent transit and some density (Boston and LA comes to mind). Light rail can't function in a vacuum so I don't see the point of comparing light rail to buses. It simply is a progression of transit based on demand (yes Niche) that comes along with increasing density, city form, and development pattern. Why doesn't Boston just have buses and commuter rail and not light rail? Why is LA building light rail and not just subways? Simply put major cities need multi modes of mass transit, along with multi modes of roads in order to function in the present and the future. There is no one-size fit all approach and I believe our LRT alignment added with a good dose of P&R and bus will function well with Houston's multi polar form. Houston's future has a good chance of becoming LA-light with semi-dense pockets along multipolar spines, eventually you won't be able to fit all those buses and cars on the same street.

This is the best post in this thread.

Your analytic approach is superficial.

I am a proponent of deep analysis; it should acknowledge that transit is for people rather than urban aestheticists. And that is my final word to you on this subject.

Every good transit system in the world has rail niche. Give up your anti rail bias this draconian mindset is holding this city back.

[MetroMogul]

Every good transit system in the world has rail niche. Give up your anti rail bias this draconian mindset is holding this city back.

Bad, or simply mediocre systems, much like Metro, have rail also. Rail and good transit system are not mutually exclusive as the horrible Frank Wilson era proved. And once again I say that most in the pro rail crowd don't really care about how "good" Metro is, they just care about walking out of a cookie cutter condo unit that was a crackhouse eight months ago, riding a railcar a few block to the local Starbucks, sitting among other young, hip, urban professionals all smiling smugly and being pleased with how "Euro" it all is.

If these people were really "pro transit" they would realize that Metro is a bus system operating ONE rail line and not a rail system operating one bus line. For transit to be "good" in the city of Houston the bus system must be maintained and expanded as it is the core of the transit apparatus and does all of the heavy lifting. But when someone dares to say, "Hold on, let's not throw all of our eggs in the rail basket just yet, let's ALSO improve bus service," it's as if you spit in their cafe latte.

['Stonian]

MetroMogul -- Even when the light rail line is "built out" with roughly 37 miles of rail, METRO will still be a bus system with minimal rail. No one's suggesting that METRO follow Dallas' lead with DART rail and build almost 100 miles of rail and attempt to supplant the entire bus system..., that would be ludicrous in a region as sprawled out as ours!

I wish the anti-rail folks would just get over themselves. We've already started building our light rail "system" and there's nothing you guys are going to do to stop it -- Culberson and his cronies may attempt to "Delay" it but they definitely will not stop it. THIS TRAIN HAS ALREADY LEFT THE GATE!! Just accept the fact that you guys LOST that fight!

Honestly I'm not at all concerned with the rail expansion opposition because there's some good that comes as a result of the continued debate -- I believe it helps keep METRO honest and realistic and our region will not get carried away with expanding rail in excess of what is prudent.

I've always been and "middle of the aisle" type of guy and can see (and agree) with both sides of most arguments. Politically I'm an Independent (not Republican or Democrat) because I rarely agree 100% (or even 75%) with any particular group. Although I'm a strong rail supporter, I am NOT in support of METRO ceasing to give 1/4 of the collected sales tax back to it's member cities for road projects and re-construction and I will vote AGAINST the referendum!

Have you guys driven around this city lately?? I'm almost embarrassed having to drive my visiting friends around town on these crappy roads. Many times I have to go way out of the way to avoid the embarrassment of hitting potholes. Without even being prompted, my passengers often comment "Why don't yall do something about these crappy roads?"and mind you I drive a big FORD F-150, not some go-cart.

Any referendum that takes funds away from repairing our roads will get a big fat NO vote from me. We need MORE road repair funding, not LESS. If this means it takes METRO another 15 years to build out the rail line then so be it, I'm patient.

Without a doubt, this City needs to find adequate funding for ongoing road repair and this means keeping what METRO gives back AND possibly raising taxes to supplement that. My guess is 30-40% of all roads in the city limits are in need of some form of repair and 20% of our streets are just downright shameful.

[Slick Vik]

Bad, or simply mediocre systems, much like Metro, have rail also. Rail and good transit system are not mutually exclusive as the horrible Frank Wilson era proved. And once again I say that most in the pro rail crowd don't really care about how "good" Metro is, they just care about walking out of a cookie cutter condo unit that was a crackhouse eight months ago, riding a railcar a few block to the local Starbucks, sitting among other young, hip, urban professionals all smiling smugly and being pleased with how "Euro" it all is.

If these people were really "pro transit" they would realize that Metro is a bus system operating ONE rail line and not a rail system operating one bus line. For transit to be "good" in the city of Houston the bus system must be maintained and expanded as it is the core of the transit apparatus and does all of the heavy lifting. But when someone dares to say, "Hold on, let's not throw all of our eggs in the rail basket just yet, let's ALSO improve bus service," it's as if you spit in their cafe latte.

We need a better bus system, plus bus rapid transit, plus rail. Anything less is unacceptable.

[Slick Vik]

MetroMogul -- Even when the light rail line is "built out" with roughly 37 miles of rail, METRO will still be a bus system with minimal rail. No one's suggesting that METRO follow Dallas' lead with DART rail and build almost 100 miles of rail and attempt to supplant the entire bus system..., that would be ludicrous in a region as sprawled out as ours!

I wish the anti-rail folks would just get over themselves. We've already started building our light rail "system" and there's nothing you guys are going to do to stop it -- Culberson and his cronies may attempt to "Delay" it but they definitely will not stop it. THIS TRAIN HAS ALREADY LEFT THE GATE!! Just accept the fact that you guys LOST that fight!

Honestly I'm not at all concerned with the rail expansion opposition because there's some good that comes as a result of the continued debate -- I believe it helps keep METRO honest and realistic and our region will not get carried away with expanding rail in excess of what is prudent.

I've always been and "middle of the aisle" type of guy and can see (and agree) with both sides of most arguments. Politically I'm an Independent (not Republican or Democrat) because I rarely agree 100% (or even 75%) with any particular group. Although I'm a strong rail supporter, I am NOT in support of METRO ceasing to give 1/4 of the collected sales tax back to it's member cities for road projects and re-construction and I will vote AGAINST the referendum!

Have you guys driven around this city lately?? I'm almost embarrassed having to drive my visiting friends around town on these crappy roads. Many times I have to go way out of the way to avoid the embarrassment of hitting potholes. Without even being prompted, my passengers often comment "Why don't yall do something about these crappy roads?"and mind you I drive a big FORD F-150, not some go-cart.

Any referendum that takes funds away from repairing our roads will get a big fat NO vote from me. We need MORE road repair funding, not LESS. If this means it takes METRO another 15 years to build out the rail line then so be it, I'm patient.

Without a doubt, this City needs to find adequate funding for ongoing road repair and this means keeping what METRO gives back AND possibly raising taxes to supplement that. My guess is 30-40% of all roads in the city limits are in need of some form of repair and 20% of our streets are just downright shameful.

I don't think everyone is so patient. Also those member areas could always raise taxes to fix roads instead of relying on a handout.

['Stonian]

I don't think everyone is so patient. Also those member areas could always raise taxes to fix roads instead of relying on a handout.

Well since Monorail was heavily discussed and pursued during the Kathy Whitmire era, it's been around 30 years or so and we're still at 7 miles of rail and finally expanding. If we haven't learned patience by now then I guess we'll never learn. :-/

And how can 1/4 of the sales taxes member cities give to METRO be considered a "handout" when it comes back to assist with road projects. These 15-20 ton buses (with passengers) use our streets as well and most likely do the most damage to the roadbed. In fact the roads could be considered "tracks" for the buses similar to rail is for the trains, so METRO is just as responsible for maintaining the roadbed as it is the bus fleet.

Again, I AM PRO RAIL, but I'm also for well maintained local city streets. To say METRO is a "transit agency" and not a road builder would make sense if METRO only operated rail lines and did not use our roads to move it's buses to deliver "transit", however we know roads are a critical part of our transit in Houston.

[kdog08]

If these people were really "pro transit" they would realize that Metro is a bus system operating ONE rail line and not a rail system operating one bus line. For transit to be "good" in the city of Houston the bus system must be maintained and expanded as it is the core of the transit apparatus and does all of the heavy lifting. But when someone dares to say, "Hold on, let's not throw all of our eggs in the rail basket just yet, let's ALSO improve bus service," it's as if you spit in their cafe latte.

Whoa, whoa, whoa..... WHOA. So you'are telling me that an effective transit must be planned and funded properly..... I had no idea. So all that bus talk early was just bullflurf because rail can in fact do things better than a bus when properly planned and funded. How about that.....

Bad, or simply mediocre systems, much like Metro, have rail also. Rail and good transit system are not mutually exclusive as the horrible Frank Wilson era proved. And once again I say that most in the pro rail crowd don't really care about how "good" Metro is, they just care about walking out of a cookie cutter condo unit that was a crackhouse eight months ago, riding a railcar a few block to the local Starbucks, sitting among other young, hip, urban professionals all smiling smugly and being pleased with how "Euro" it all is.

Haha, you've found us out.... But seriously... bias much?

[kylejack]

If these people were really "pro transit" they would realize that Metro is a bus system operating ONE rail line and not a rail system operating one bus line. For transit to be "good" in the city of Houston the bus system must be maintained and expanded as it is the core of the transit apparatus and does all of the heavy lifting. But when someone dares to say, "Hold on, let's not throw all of our eggs in the rail basket just yet, let's ALSO improve bus service," it's as if you spit in their cafe latte.

If you want to improve both rail and bus service then I don't even know what we are arguing about, or why you say "pro rail" like it's an epithet.

[TheNiche]

We need a better bus system, plus bus rapid transit, plus rail. Anything less is unacceptable.

I think that we need vacuum-sealed maglev running levitated vehicles at 400 mph between downtowns in the four big cities (plus Galveston) and a single gigantic airport in the middle of the network that would replace all major commercial passenger airline service to DFW, IAH, HOU, LUV, and AUS, thus creating the world's busiest and possibly best connected airport, multiple hubs, more competition, lower fare prices, central-city airport access (making transit more effective), and providing global air connections to Austin and San Antonio. This would also take air- and noise-pollution-creating air traffic out of our major cities and free up capacity for regional commercial, air cargo, and general aviation.

My advice to you, having had this idea fall on the deaf ears of otherwise intelligent people, is to prepare yourself to redefine your definition of 'need'. I find that food, water, and shelter is an easier sell.

[TheNiche]

Whoa, whoa, whoa..... WHOA. So you'are telling me that an effective transit must be planned and funded properly..... I had no idea. So all that bus talk early was just bullflurf because rail can in fact do things better than a bus when properly planned and funded. How about that.....

Improper funding may be construed to mean underfunding or overfunding. Funding should ideally be commensurate with an optimal system, and optimality should be a function of both capital and operating costs among other factors.

Presuming that light rail is a component within an optimal system that is undefined is skipping a step: thoughtful analysis.

Haha, you've found us out.... But seriously... bias much?

Just as I believe that light rail is usually (but not always) a suspect proposition, I also believe that the sky is usually (but not always) blue. I am biased in favor of the notion of a blue sky and that light rail should be evaluated with scrutiny. So what? Do you mean to imply that I am not brain dead? Is that intended as some form of a put down?

[TheNiche]

If you want to improve both rail and bus service then I don't even know what we are arguing about, or why you say "pro rail" like it's an epithet.

Hell, I'm pro-rail. I'm pro-water and pro-arsenic, too. Very nearly everything has a time and place.

But there's being absolutely pro-something (like arsenic or light rail) and being relativistically pro-something (also like arsenic or light rail). The thing is, genpop is presumptuous, unimaginative, and lacks intellectual curiosity. This thread illustrates my point. Look at how much I get beat up on just for suggesting that analysis is necessary. Look at how much I have to brow-beat someone before they'll admit that light rail works sometimes in some circumstances, but not all circumstances...before huffing and puffing and storming out of the room.

Having said that, I don't get laid often. You win, I guess.

[Slick Vik]

I think that we need vacuum-sealed maglev running levitated vehicles at 400 mph between downtowns in the four big cities (plus Galveston) and a single gigantic airport in the middle of the network that would replace all major commercial passenger airline service to DFW, IAH, HOU, LUV, and AUS, thus creating the world's busiest and possibly best connected airport, multiple hubs, more competition, lower fare prices, central-city airport access (making transit more effective), and providing global air connections to Austin and San Antonio. This would also take air- and noise-pollution-creating air traffic out of our major cities and free up capacity for regional commercial, air cargo, and general aviation.

My advice to you, having had this idea fall on the deaf ears of otherwise intelligent people, is to prepare yourself to redefine your definition of 'need'. I find that food, water, and shelter is an easier sell.

Mexico city is a good example

[kylejack]

I didn't browbeat you or storm out of the thread and I was replying to MetroMogul, so I don't know why I win.

[samagon]

There's a lot of winning and not much losing in this thread.

I do wish that the representatives who are fighting alternatives to buses and freeways, supposedly in an effort to save the tax payer money from being fleeced by a corrupt metro, would come up with alternatives rather than just push against what's being proposed. I liken their efforts to the anti Walmart crowd, pushing against and saying it won't work, but not working with anyone to solve the problems they bring up. What will end up happening is we will all lose with an inferior product.

[mfastx]

Here is an excellent article written by board member Christof Spieler. It's nice to see someone who actaully knows what they're talking about assess the situation. I encourage everyone to take the time to read it.

My views are, and have been, almost directly in line with his. Our lack of transportation funding is simply a disgrace.

[TheNiche]

Here is an excellent article written by board member Christof Spieler. It's nice to see someone who actaully knows what they're talking about assess the situation. I encourage everyone to take the time to read it.

My views are, and have been, almost directly in line with his. Our lack of transportation funding is simply a disgrace.

I liked Spieler's comments better before he became one of the anointed few. Now, its all insipid drivel, about as internally consistent as hacked-up bits of phlegm floating about in a coffee cup. Drink up, Houston!

[IHB2]

Below is an excerpt from Spieler's essay. Interesting, but he brushes off the current absence of "frequent, all day, everyday" bus service to the employment centers he says will be served by rail, and simply states that people that work in these places have no option but to drive. In the 35 years they've been there, why haven't Greenway Plaza, Uptown, and Greenspoint been served better by METRO buses?

"We know this: when Houstonians are offered high quality transit they use it. Our park-and-ride system – buses that run as often as every 5 minutes during rush hour from suburban park-and-ride lots down HOV lanes directly to Downtown – carry 30,000 boardings every weekday. Half of Downtown employees who live in the areas served by the system use it. With 37,000 boardings a day, our light rail line carries more people per mile than any other in the U.S. besides Boston; Dallas has 10 times as much track as we do, but carries less than than twice as many people. Even outside rush hour, trains are standing room only. Bus service on Westheimer, where bus service runs frequently all day, every day, carries about 15,000 boardings. These riders have found out that high quality transit – transit that is frequent, reliable, and goes where people want to go – makes their lives better.

But most Houstonians do not have the option of using high quality transit. Greenway Plaza, Uptown, and Greenspoint, which are not served by rail and are not connected to the HOV lanes that keep park and ride buses out of traffic, have less than a third of the transit ridership that Downtown and the Texas Medical Center do. If we build the infrastructure to offer those areas better service, many of those employees will use transit like employees in Downtown do. Corridors like Kirby and Washington Avenue, where density is growing, don’t have the frequent bus service that Westheimer does; therefore the new residents moving in are all getting in their cars to go to their jobs. With better service, many of them would be on the bus.

We have a plan to connect more people to high quality transit, approved by the voters in 2003: light rail lines that link Greenway Plaza and Uptown to the park-and-ride system and to the other major employment centers; new park-and-rides; expanded local bus service; links to the airports; and commuter rail"

[mfastx]

I liked Spieler's comments better before he became one of the anointed few. Now, its all insipid drivel, about as internally consistent as hacked-up bits of phlegm floating about in a coffee cup. Drink up, Houston!

Joking? I haven't noticed a change in his ideas and comments. I remember from his old blog years ago he wrote with similar intent.

Below is an excerpt from Spieler's essay. Interesting, but he brushes off the current absence of "frequent, all day, everyday" bus service to the employment centers he says will be served by rail, and simply states that people that work in these places have no option but to drive. In the 35 years they've been there, why haven't Greenway Plaza, Uptown, and Greenspoint been served better by METRO buses?

I think the point he is trying to make is that METRO needs more funding to adequately serve the city, and that throughout METRO's history there has been a lack of funding, therefore resulting in a lack of good service. Could be wrong though.

[mfastx]

On the note of the GM payments, I think the facts in this essay offer overwhelming evidence that the outlying cities get far more than their fair share of GM payments.

[TheNiche]

Joking? I haven't noticed a change in his ideas and comments. I remember from his old blog years ago he wrote with similar intent.

I think the point he is trying to make is that METRO needs more funding to adequately serve the city, and that throughout METRO's history there has been a lack of funding, therefore resulting in a lack of good service. Could be wrong though.

Spieler used to be able to convey logical concepts with brevity. Whether you agreed or not with his conclusions, they were reasonably supported and lent perspective to various alternatives. Whether I agreed with him or not about any particular subject or just in general (and I often did), I could still respect that he was trying to be intellectually honest.

What I see here before me is unforgivable by comparison. The discussion lacks the same precision and elegant brevity. It is soft, murky, intellectually amorphous. It is political cheerleading, nothing more.

The Christof Spieler that I remember would never have written this drivel. Whomever it was that twisted his arm to get him to write it, shame on them.

[TheNiche]

On the note of the GM payments, I think the facts in this essay offer overwhelming evidence that the outlying cities get far more than their fair share of GM payments.

Perhaps. It doesn't mean that GM payments are bad, just badly implemented. (This is odd, because Spieler claims that the new METRO is squeaky clean, its house in order. Obviously not!) Perhaps Houston should get more money by comparison. Maybe certain member cities should stop being member cities. There are lots of ways to resolve an apparent inequity.

If you read closely, he proposes a set of consequences of not obtaining enough money for METRO but carefully tip-toes around taking an explicit position on the issue. He strongly implies a preference but does not state it. (Christ, he might've been bought and sold, who knows? But he's not stupid.)

[IHB2]

Perhaps. It doesn't mean that GM payments are bad, just badly implemented. (This is odd, because Spieler claims that the new METRO is squeaky clean, its house in order. Obviously not!) Perhaps Houston should get more money by comparison. Maybe certain member cities should stop being member cities. There are lots of ways to resolve an apparent inequity.

If you read closely, he proposes a set of consequences of not obtaining enough money for METRO but carefully tip-toes around taking an explicit position on the issue. He strongly implies a preference but does not state it. (Christ, he might've been bought and sold, who knows? But he's not stupid.)

Exactly, I've been debating, sometimes agreeing, with him for 7 years. He not stupid, in fact he's really smart, which is why his essay is so disappointing. It's got none of the internal logic that you can usually count on from him. It's amazing that in a persuasive essay he fails to make a solid case for giving the .25% to METRO - in fact for the LRT supporters he says that no ground will be broken on the University Line until 2018 at the earliest even if METRO gets the .25%, and he completely ignores the Uptown Line. So realistically, the earliest operational date in the best possible case for the Univ Line is 2022 or 2023.

And no discussion of what will be done with buses to make the rail lines useful for commuters other than the ones going to destinations within 1/4 mile of Richmond Ave.

That's a remote and incomplete payoff for absorbing a municipal tax increase to cover the .25% returned to METRO. A significant % of the Houston population is probably too geographcally mobile to see any personal benefit from projects that will not be completed for a decade or longer.

[mfastx]

Spieler used to be able to convey logical concepts with brevity. Whether you agreed or not with his conclusions, they were reasonably supported and lent perspective to various alternatives. Whether I agreed with him or not about any particular subject or just in general (and I often did), I could still respect that he was trying to be intellectually honest.

What I see here before me is unforgivable by comparison. The discussion lacks the same precision and elegant brevity. It is soft, murky, intellectually amorphous. It is political cheerleading, nothing more.

The Christof Spieler that I remember would never have written this drivel. Whomever it was that twisted his arm to get him to write it, shame on them.

I remember reading his old blogs and I don't recall a huge difference. It's a lengthy article because he now works for METRO and has more incentive to get his point accross. For the most part I think he's genuine. He has always been in favor of more funding for METRO and has always advocated it. I think he genuinly hopes to accomplish these goals because he really thinks it will benefit the city of Houston. That's not something you can say about a lot people in politics.

I do agree that the article was quite lengthy, but I think he made some good points and backed it up with numbers. While the purpose of the article is obviously to convince people to vote a certain way, I still thought it was a good read and very interesting to see the numbers behind transit in Houston.