JLWM8609 Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 In another thread, I mentioned that a crossover on Griggs at Beekman hadn't been built. I thought it was left out purposely, but just recently, METRO gave the go-ahead to construct the crossover. I guess delaying the opening of the line would also make it easier for construction to proceed than to have construction of a crossover on an active rail line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 While I'm sure this had been frustrating, I have to agree with James. This will give them plenty of time to work out any issues that are still ongoing. it didn't even occur to me about the construction on the garage interfering with the line. Will the train actually go through the garage? In also wondering when the rail finally starts running, will there be a chance of it running at least 20 hrs a day? The trains were packed at 11pm on a Sat night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 IIRC, the train will go through the garage - I think there was even a picture on some other thread. Piling on with James, having some particular X thing go wrong can then cause a cascade effect, sort of like pulling the last piece out of a Jenga stack. In this case, it sounds like one issue is having to schedule testing around a number of other things. Rodeo is a heavy user, so yep, there goes most of March if you're needing to take the Red Line out of service for some things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigereye Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Houston transit takes a $168M hit for useless projects Metro admits it blew a large fortune Ill-advised plans to the tune of $168 million to be written off February 21, 2011 The Metropolitan Transit Authority is preparing to declare that it has spent $168 million on what have turned out to be useless assets. Most of it was spent over several years on rail expansion projects that never will be built or will have to be started over. For example, Metro has given up on what it calls an intermodal terminal just north of downtown at Main and Burnett streets on the planned North rail line despite having spent $41 million on it. "We're not going to put the public's money into monuments. We're going to put it into transit services," Metro President and CEO George Greanias said. The design for the terminal included bus bays, a kiss-and-ride area, light rail, commuter rail and possibly a Metro RideStore, restrooms, food service, newsstands and gift shops. Greanias said there will be a light rail stop at Main and Burnett, but it has not been determined whether the station will serve other modes of transit. He added that the now-shelved design called for a facility that would have cost far too much to maintain and operate. An additional $28 million went to a Spanish rail car firm for a now-canceled deal that never produced a single car. Metro actually spent $42 million on a contract with the firm, but recently persuaded the company to return $14 million. Metro ran afoul of federal rules requiring the transit agency to buy American-made rail cars, so it had to eat the money it sent to the Spanish firm and rebid the rail cars or forfeit eligibility for $900 million in Federal Transit Administration grant money. 'Unrealized assets' Metro lists another $61 million in what it calls "unrealized assets" for rail expansion in addition to the terminal and rail car spending, including: · $17 million: A result of switching contractors to do design work. · $7 million: Redundant development work by a third contractor. · $9 million: Related to Metro's switch from a light rail plan to a bus rapid transit plan, and back to light rail. · $16 million: From repeated design changes that occurred after laborious review and negotiation. In addition to the $130 million on projects for which Metro has nothing to show, it also is wiping from its books $38 million in operating expenses that had been listed incorrectly as capital expenses. We could've had THIS at Central Station, but even despite a donation from the Downtown District, Metro didn't have enough money. I'm all for rail and bettering this city ad its mass transit option but Metro needs to be radically overhauled. No organization in this city upsets me more than this one. And when I usually get the chance, I voice my displeasure on their own Facebook. This city needs to overthrow Metro leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txn4art Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 As soon as the two delayed light rail lines are up and running and construction is underway on the Harrisburg overpass, Houston needs to do a clean sweep of all current decision makers at Metro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Cityside Crossing has amazingly poor access to the road. Now one way in, one way out, and the railroad crossing there just to the east complicates things (look on Google Earth right now--now way to turn right in or out because of the cars waiting for the real train). Methinks they need to have an alley connecting the apartment complex to the Fiesta parking lot with its own railroad crossing. Easy grocery access can be achieved, for one. Sometimes I wonder if Metro thought about these types of things at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 So typical of METRO. First they lose or waste millions then the lie about the underpass/oeverpass in the east end, and now the FUBAR this too. Thanks METRO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Cityside Crossing has amazingly poor access to the road. Now one way in, one way out, and the railroad crossing there just to the east complicates things (look on Google Earth right now--now way to turn right in or out because of the cars waiting for the real train). Methinks they need to have an alley connecting the apartment complex to the Fiesta parking lot with its own railroad crossing. Easy grocery access can be achieved, for one. Sometimes I wonder if Metro thought about these types of things at all. The whole Griggs corridor has poor access now with the light rail. All of the crossovers have been eliminated, though a signalized crossover was to be added at Beekman according to METRO's plans back in 2006. At that time, traffic on Griggs would have a protected left turn phase to cross Griggs at Beekman. However, at the METRO Capital Programs Committee Meeting on September 17, 2014, the committee approved a crossover at Beekman that would allow a left turn movement from Beekman heading north onto Griggs going west to give neighborhood residents and those at Palm Center access to Griggs westbound. The interesting thing about this crossover is that it won't have a signal. It'll be gate controlled. They said a fully signalized intersection wouldn't meet traffic warrants.There'll be a stop sign on Beekman at Griggs and a railroad crossing gate will prevent traffic from crossing when a train is coming. I bet we'll have those genius drivers who will decide to enter the intersection to pull up to a lowered gate and block traffic on Griggs while a train crosses. They're also addressing the issue of having to go east on Griggs to the intersection with Long and Mykawa and the railroad tracks to make a u-turn to go back west. I've noticed ruts in the median from what looks like large vehicles trying to negotiate u-turns there. In the same meeting, they approved a crossover and a turnout for large vehicles like trucks and buses near the maintenance facility. A business owner located on the westbound side of Griggs complained that his tractor-trailers no longer had access to his business when coming from the west on Griggs. This new turnout would restore access that was eliminated when the tracks were built. One of the board members pointed out that these issues seemed like they should've been caught in the design phase instead of this far along. Another board member remarked that the line was designed to meet "the standards" and the standards have had an impact on the community and the design needs to be tweaked going forward. But, if you look at the design at Beekman as it is now, you can see curb cutouts that were built into the original design for a crossover, and temporary barricades instead of permanent barriers have been there for a while. It seems like this particular turnout was always in the design, but they didn't have approval or funding for it until now. If you want to view the video of the meeting, and the portion that talks about this particular issue, here's the link (It's discussed from roughly 4:00 to 16:30) : http://ridemetro.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=928 The funny thing is even with these improvements, access to Cityside Crossing from the east is still cut off. I guess that goes back to the whole thing about traffic studies. Personally, when I would go to Palm Center or the Houston Texans YMCA before construction started, I used to just take one of the crossovers in the median and head back home west on Griggs. Last time I was there, I had to go east to the SNAFU intersection with Long and Mykawa with the railroad tracks to make a U-turn to head back on Griggs going west. Looking at the aerial view on Google Maps, I've just realized there's a driveway to MLK behind Palm Center and the Texans Y that will allow me to get back to Griggs while avoiding that mess. That'll make things easier until the turnout and crossover are built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 So typical of METRO. First they lose or waste millions then the lie about the underpass/oeverpass in the east end, and now the FUBAR this too. Thanks METRO!They didn't "lie" about it. You think they would've taken this long to screw around for some overpass conspiracy? They took until the beginning of this year to figure out a way to make it work and because of that delayed the opening of the last stretch for another two years. They're losing money on this and if you honestly think they were lying this entire time then you're delusional. If they really were going to do an overpass from the beginning then they wouldn't have waited this long to start construction, they would've built it when they were constructing the rest of the line.METRO really tried to make this work, hard enough to know that it wouldn't be ready in time for the full line opening. It just didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Come on guys this isn't some hair brained conspiracy >.< It's simply a combination of slow action and incompetence. Some of yall say that Metro needs an overhaul? I say a it needs to be killed off entirely and start anew. Whenever I have freakin time to finish my rail proposal I will illustrate what I mean by this, but with the quasi-public/private corporations we can create, we could certainly start something new that could better fit contemporary times and ideas. Metro is way to much of a dinosaur to do anything. If anything Metro should only be limited to bus service while rail is moved to a newer company that could get things going quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 If anything Metro should only be limited to bus service while rail is moved to a newer company that could get things going quicker. They could call it HART (Houston Area Rail Transit) and have commercials featuring Robert Wagner and Stefanie Powers touting the service as "Hart to Hart on HART." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Oh Max. Not often you get to witness a Hart to Hart reference. We could paint the fleet A blue-purple color with Orange and Red stripes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 seriously, though. What are the possibilities of their pushing up the schedule of the garage construction if the line is down for an additional 6 months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 seriously, though. What are the possibilities of their pushing up the schedule of the garage construction if the line is down for an additional 6 months? The garage is already under construction. I doubt there's much "pushing up" possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 From Google Earth, I don't even see this parking garage that the train will go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 Probably because it's not built yet and Google Earth hasn't been updated since May... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Harrow Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 A lot of ignorance here. As per usual, most critics of Metro are still stuck in 2006 and have not moved on with the rest of world to the current year, 2014. A lot of the issues that Metro has stem from Frank Wilson, the deposed former CEO that wasted millions, didn't build one inch of rail, and nearly lost all Federal funding after that Buy America fiasco. When you make that many mistakes it takes a gargantuan effort to clean up, and unfortunately the clean up fell upon those who didn't make the mess in the first place. However, the typically ignorant anti Metro crowd seems to think that the world operates like a 1980s film montage and through a few minutes of cheap, disposable pop music and some cutscenes we will have an up and running rail system. Things don't work like that. Building a rail system is expensive in both time and capital even if everything goes according to plan. So after years of the Caligula like reign of Frank Wilson, rife with corruption, mismanagement and delays, you're not going to be able to wave a wand and get back on schedule and budget because you installed new leadership. This isn't a transit simulation sandbox where you plot your line, click confirm and presto it's complete! Secondly, as always, no one actually cares about the nuts and bolts Metro bus system. As the system lay breathing it's last during the Wilson years everyone was complaining about Light Rail. Who cares? They didn't even have enough buses to run on the routes and services that weren't cut to fund more of the Light Rail project. No one cared though. Metro just completed a massive overhaul proposal of a bus system with roots back to World War 2 that would drastically alter the travel patters in this city, for the better, and no one cares. Except the extremely tiny but very vocal minority which this "new" Metro listens to to almost a fault. Most Metro critics don't know nor understand the most basic aspects of the bus system and don't care to know. They just want to see a shiny new train whiz by that they will only ride until too many of those bus "riff raff" start finding their way aboard. Transit engineering is a complex and involved process on it's own. When you politicize it, it is darned near impossible. This new leadership at Metro has turned this agency around tremendously since Frank Wilson was tossed out by his ear five years ago. Are they perfect, no. Are they as terrible as the uninformed arm chair transit pundits will have you believe, not by a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Hear here, Keith Harrow! I, too, am getting a bit tired of those who insist on punishing the current METRO for the sins of the past. Really, it's un American - "corruption of the blood" was banned in the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights. I love trains as much as I can imagine, but we all need to remember that even the most rail centric places have extensive bus systems. I'm glad that METRO recognizes this, and is taking a ground up review of the bus route system that was largely inadequate even 40 years ago, but has only been given Band-Aids since then.Hear here, Keith Harrow! I, too, am getting a bit tired of those who insist on punishing the current METRO for the sins of the past. Really, it's un American - "corruption of the blood" was banned in the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights. I love trains as much as I can imagine, but we all need to remember that even the most rail centric places have extensive bus systems. I'm glad that METRO recognizes this, and is taking a ground up review of the bus route system that was largely inadequate even 40 years ago, but has only been given Band-Aids since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 They didn't "lie" about it. You think they would've taken this long to screw around for some overpass conspiracy? They took until the beginning of this year to figure out a way to make it work and because of that delayed the opening of the last stretch for another two years. They're losing money on this and if you honestly think they were lying this entire time then you're delusional.If they really were going to do an overpass from the beginning then they wouldn't have waited this long to start construction, they would've built it when they were constructing the rest of the line.METRO really tried to make this work, hard enough to know that it wouldn't be ready in time for the full line opening. It just didn't happen. METRO is not in the business of making money. They are a government agency and should not be out to make a profit but rather to serve citizens. Period. If there are budgetary discrepancies (i.e. losing money) then management should be replaced. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 A lot of ignorance here. As per usual, most critics of Metro are still stuck in 2006 and have not moved on with the rest of world to the current year, 2014. A lot of the issues that Metro has stem from Frank Wilson, the deposed former CEO that wasted millions, didn't build one inch of rail, and nearly lost all Federal funding after that Buy America fiasco. When you make that many mistakes it takes a gargantuan effort to clean up, and unfortunately the clean up fell upon those who didn't make the mess in the first place. However, the typically ignorant anti Metro crowd seems to think that the world operates like a 1980s film montage and through a few minutes of cheap, disposable pop music and some cutscenes we will have an up and running rail system. Things don't work like that. Building a rail system is expensive in both time and capital even if everything goes according to plan. So after years of the Caligula like reign of Frank Wilson, rife with corruption, mismanagement and delays, you're not going to be able to wave a wand and get back on schedule and budget because you installed new leadership. This isn't a transit simulation sandbox where you plot your line, click confirm and presto it's complete! Secondly, as always, no one actually cares about the nuts and bolts Metro bus system. As the system lay breathing it's last during the Wilson years everyone was complaining about Light Rail. Who cares? They didn't even have enough buses to run on the routes and services that weren't cut to fund more of the Light Rail project. No one cared though. Metro just completed a massive overhaul proposal of a bus system with roots back to World War 2 that would drastically alter the travel patters in this city, for the better, and no one cares. Except the extremely tiny but very vocal minority which this "new" Metro listens to to almost a fault. Most Metro critics don't know nor understand the most basic aspects of the bus system and don't care to know. They just want to see a shiny new train whiz by that they will only ride until too many of those bus "riff raff" start finding their way aboard. Transit engineering is a complex and involved process on it's own. When you politicize it, it is darned near impossible. This new leadership at Metro has turned this agency around tremendously since Frank Wilson was tossed out by his ear five years ago. Are they perfect, no. Are they as terrible as the uninformed arm chair transit pundits will have you believe, not by a long shot. That's great but... has anyone interviewed Wilson from his jail cell? What does he have to say about this mess he created and the millions of dollars collected from honest, hard working, law abiding citizens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 did. did I see ltawacs make a post longer than a couple of words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 METRO is not in the business of making money. They are a government agency and should not be out to make a profit but rather to serve citizens. Period.If there are budgetary discrepancies (i.e. losing money) then management should be replaced. Period.I don't disagree with you on anything in this post. However, I don't think it's fair to place blame on certain aspects (such as the waterline break by a different construction crew for a different project) solely on METRO. The other shit, yeah METRO really needs some improvement.But, METRO still needs to bring in profit to pay for these expenses and to build future lines. We can't always rely on bonds to build our infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 But, METRO still needs to bring in profit to pay for these expenses and to build future lines. We can't always rely on bonds to build our infrastructure. Can't say that I fully agree. Trying to pay for infrastructure out of cash flow (and doing nothing to allow that cash flow to even keep up with inflation) is one of the reasons why our roads are in such awful shape, and why we're getting hit with different scams such as private toll roads (an idea that went out of favor about the same time Rutherford B. Hayes left office, and only lately resurrected with less than stellar results). Bonds are how large infrastructure projects are typically funded. As a concept it's pretty close to taking out a mortgage to buy a house, and is one of those things that allows investment to be considered separately from just spending. Subsidizing projects like METRO isn't fundamentally different than the subsidies for other forms of transportation that occur by governments building roads, bridges, airports, and seaports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 No, I definitely agree, I just feel like that's becoming a cop out and the only option. Maybe I misunderstood but yes, I agree, they are necessary for the larger projects but for maintenance and small details METRO needs some sort of revenue correct? I could be speaking out of my ass here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Ah, BFS, we're not far off from one another. I was talking about bonding for infrastructure. I fully agree that routine maintenance and overhead need to be funded from farebox revenues or (perhaps) an operating subsidy - floating a bond for ongoing operations is like taking out a home equity loan to pay the grocery bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Transit engineering is a complex and involved process on it's own. When you politicize it, it is darned near impossible. This new leadership at Metro has turned this agency around tremendously since Frank Wilson was tossed out by his ear five years ago. Are they perfect, no. Are they as terrible as the uninformed arm chair transit pundits will have you believe, not by a long shot. And a number of these issues are complicated by issues inherent to implementing at-grade light rail in a city with under half the population density of LA... People talk about being pro-rail anti-metro. But being pro-rail to the point where you want to see rail regardless of how poor the implementation is will result in these sorts of outcomes. People make the case for rail, but that case consistently falls apart when you compromise grade separation just to see any sort of rail be implemented. Street cars vanished from modern society some time ago for good reason. When you limit yourself to surface streets, buses are a more efficient more flexible solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 19, 2014 Author Share Posted November 19, 2014 And a number of these issues are complicated by issues inherent to implementing at-grade light rail in a city with under half the population density of LA...People talk about being pro-rail anti-metro. But being pro-rail to the point where you want to see rail regardless of how poor the implementation is will result in these sorts of outcomes. People make the case for rail, but that case consistently falls apart when you compromise grade separation just to see any sort of rail be implemented.Street cars vanished from modern society some time ago for good reason. When you limit yourself to surface streets, buses are a more efficient more flexible solution.If a good reason is GM buying them out and ripping tracks out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 If a good reason is GM buying them out and ripping tracks out...We've already discussed this. The streetcars were a private industry and were losing money. You are one of the exact "rail at any cost" proponents that ihop is talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 19, 2014 Author Share Posted November 19, 2014 We've already discussed this. The streetcars were a private industry and were losing money. You are one of the exact "rail at any cost" proponents that ihop is talking about.There were political reasons that were causing them to lose money also. Please stop being so naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Ladies, there's no need for conspiracy theory debates; no one wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.