METRO Next - 2040 Vision

[samagon]

28 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

May I ask the source of the $66 Billion per year to cover costs?  Does that include all of the non-highway spending that is funded by the Highway Trust Fund?

 

(And I think annual receipts are closer to $41 Billion.)

 

https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-is-spent-to-maintain-the-US-interstate-highway-system-per-year

 

I know, not exactly reliable.

 

I did just find another with better sources.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-is-spent-on-roads-creation-and-maintenance-yearly-in-the-US

 

that has links back to the DOT and CBO the CBO link says my number is way low, and that it's closer to $150 Billion. In which case, gas tax needs about 5x increase to cover.

[j_cuevas713]

I feel like if this doesn't pass, it doesn't matter how well we develop as a city, having a bad transportation system will keep us well behind other cities for the next 100 years. 

[Some one]

On 1/14/2019 at 1:19 PM, 102IAHexpress said:

Wondering if Metro should just scrap all rail plans? Nation wide auto sales actually increased in 2018 over 2017.

https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/salesfig_usa_2018

More people are purchasing more trucks and SUV's, if that's even possible. These are national wide numbers not Houston numbers, but generally mass transit numbers are plateauing or falling off nationwide and auto sales are increasing. So, why invest in rail, when buses are more flexible and economical? I think the data is speaking for itself. People in car cities, are riding public transportation only until they can afford to purchase a car, then they stop riding public transit. Which makes sense. Metro should stick to it's founding charter and focus on providing public transportation to people who cannot afford cars, and providing public transportation to people who are disabled.

No offense, but what you're saying makes no sense. So we should stop building rail, why? Because auto sales are going up? So? Even if there are some people who only ride transit until they can get a car, there's still a lot of people who choose transit simply because they don't want to drive. Heck, there are some people who only drive because they have no other choice. Maybe we shouldn't build rail in the suburbs/areas with less ridership potential, but the ridership numbers for corridors like the University BRT shows that there is demand for rail. Plus I'm getting sick of the whole rail vs brt thing and the mentality that we have to build one or the other. Newsflash, we can build both. Build LRT for the dense areas and BRT for the suburbs, heck we can even include commuter rail if there's enough support for it. Same thing for highways and public transportation, they should compliment each other instead of us generally sticking with the former. We've been doing that for a while and look where that's gotten us now.

3 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I feel like if this doesn't pass, it doesn't matter how well we develop as a city, having a bad transportation system will keep us well behind other cities for the next 100 years. 

I agree. It's already bad enough that we're a few years behind when it comes to public transportation.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Some one

[j_cuevas713]

The good thing is that the plan promises to not raise taxes and the way it's funded is a win win for everyone, so I'm pretty hopeful. Especially since more than 10 years ago the city passed the rail lines. We've come a long way since then so I feel good about this. Can we all agree on this forum that we're going to go out and vote and say YES to this plan???

Edited January 15, 2019 by j_cuevas713

[102IAHexpress]

3 hours ago, Some one said:

No offense, but what you're saying makes no sense. So we should stop building rail, why? 

 

Because public transportation should primarily serve the citizens who need transportation, not people who worship trains. It would be a disservice to squander public transportation dollars, when buses can do the job just fine. 

 

A recent article on other cities who are saying enough with the rail already: https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/phoenix/2018/12/20/ten-years-into-light-rail-continue-expand-metro-phoenix/2144400002/

[Some one]

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that we should have rail to please the "train worshipers" (heck, I agree that they should relocate the current extension to hobby airport because they are better served by the future boost corridors). I'm saying that the  BRT extensions being proposed cannot handle the ridership numbers for corridors like the University Line. Considering the fact that the University Line plans on going through dense areas and major business districts like Westchase, Uptown, and Midtown, I think it's better off as light rail.

 

Also as for the "other cities", that's just an article on Phoenix. If other cities are saying "enough" with light rail then why did cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles approve for a referendum to build more light rail (and other forms of transit)? And yes, there were huge voter support for it and here's proof.

https://la.curbed.com/2016/6/2/11845368/metro-measure-r-data-ridership-transit

https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles_County_Sales_Tax,_Measure_R_(November_2008)

http://www.atlantaloop.com/699-2/

 

As for Phoenix, a transit prop was passed with a vote of 55% yes and 45% no (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/08/25/phoenix-elections-transit-results-prop104/32283455/). As for the anti-rail protesters, this article shows that the anti-rail group are being backed by the Koch Brothers, a company well-known for attempting to kill transit projects 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/09/25/the-koch-brothers-are-behind-a-phony-grassroots-effort-to-kill-hight-rail-in-phoenix/ 

 

But, at the end of they day I will admit that there are many problems with public transportation and rail in general. This articles gives a good example on the problem with transit and how we can improve it

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/public-transportation-problems-sustainable-mobility-data/580684/

 

Sorry it took so long to respond.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Some one

[BeerNut]

@ToryGattis  Figured I would share your Chron Opinion Piece

 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by BeerNut

[BeerNut]

http://www.metronext.org/pdfs/2019_meeting_notices.pdf

[samagon]

On 1/21/2019 at 1:11 PM, BeerNut said:

@ToryGattis  Figured I would share your Chron Opinion Piece

 

 

 

I stopped reading when he pinned most of his reasoning on autonomous vehicles.

 

There have been a bevy of articles, since CES particularly, that point to a much slower pace of autonomous vehicle introduction. Here's but one:

https://www.inverse.com/article/52528-a-tale-of-two-autonomous-driving-timelines-detroit-auto-show-vs-ces

 

I'm still all about autonomous vehicles, I want to watch netflix while I'm on my way into the office, but it looks like many companies are not moving as quickly, so to pin our transportation hopes on technology that isn't guaranteed seems like a gamble that would result in paralysis and not getting anything at all done.

 

edit: more articles...

https://gazette.com/business/driverless-cars-tap-the-brakes-after-years-of-hype/article_3ec6668e-1ace-11e9-9b83-c3271a7abfcd.html

https://rapidcityjournal.com/lifestyles/ces-buzz-remains-as-autonomous-cars-take-back-seat/article_6c5a76e6-71e7-581e-9bb6-3cb16b58ebf1.html

Edited January 23, 2019 by samagon

[j_cuevas713]

I think he was missing the point of how rail is important to lay down as a spine for a transit system for buses to feed off of. Even if that system is BRT. And I also think he fails to realize that commuters would rather have a simpler way to travel than worry about how many stops there are. I surely didn’t think that when I was in Seattle. I was just happy I didn’t need my car. As long as people can conveniently get to their destination, they’ll figure it out. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by j_cuevas713

[102IAHexpress]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 8:04 PM, Some one said:

If other cities are saying "enough" with light rail then why did cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles approve for a referendum to build more light rail (and other forms of transit)? And yes, there were huge voter support for it and here's proof. 

 

Voting for transit and riding transit are not the same thing. Just ask Los Angeles' metropolitan transit authority. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-ridership-20180124-story.html

 

The data is there. Light rail in America has just not lived up to the hype. Houston has a choice to make. Houston can be brave and cut it's loses or it can double down on more light rail, thinking light rail will be different in Houston if we just spend more billions and spend more time on it. 

[Some one]

On 1/23/2019 at 11:53 PM, 102IAHexpress said:

 

Voting for transit and riding transit are not the same thing. Just ask Los Angeles' metropolitan transit authority. 

LA Metro's recent line, the Expo Line, garners a daily boarding of about 61,957 riders. I'd say that's a pretty good thing. Heck there's even people who wish that the expo line is a subway. LA Metro light rail is also the most used light rail system in the United States by ridership (67,921,600 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership).  As for the declining numbers, like someone else said, when gas prices are at an all times low, it's no wonder that more people are buying cars. Will it last forever? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Who knows? These articles on LA acknowledges the problem with light rail and what we can do to fix it.

https://www.citymetric.com/transport/los-angeles-metro-great-so-why-aren-t-people-using-it-2742

https://www.planetizen.com/node/86714/light-rail-successes-draw-attention-la-metros-rail-problems

 

On 1/23/2019 at 11:53 PM, 102IAHexpress said:

 

The data is there. Light rail in America has just not lived up to the hype. Houston has a choice to make. Houston can be brave and cut it's loses or it can double down on more light rail, thinking light rail will be different in Houston if we just spend more billions and spend more time on it. 

If Houston wants to build more light rail and not end up like Dallas or Los Angeles, then we're gonna have to start densifying our neighborhoods and build light rail in places where it actually makes sense (and not on old right of ways). Also, METRO is going to have to find a way to speed up transit time and solve the first/last mile issues.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Some one

[samagon]

On 1/23/2019 at 11:27 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

I think he was missing the point of how rail is important to lay down as a spine for a transit system for buses to feed off of. Even if that system is BRT. And I also think he fails to realize that commuters would rather have a simpler way to travel than worry about how many stops there are. I surely didn’t think that when I was in Seattle. I was just happy I didn’t need my car. As long as people can conveniently get to their destination, they’ll figure it out. 

 

true.

 

another article I found regarding the slowing pace of automated cars:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/tech/apple-autonomous-vehicle-reshuffle/index.html

 

Apple blames their layoff and reshuffling on poor iPhone sales, but the truth is, this is an excuse to slow down, they have so much cash, they don't need to slow down.

[Some one]

Sorry to bring this up now, but this has been bothering me for a while. I'm sure Mr. Gattis is a nice guy, but I can't stand his op-eds on public transportation. They all boil down to nothing but "rail bad, highway good, self-driving car future." The notion that we should stop building rail because self-driving cars are the future is kind of laughable in of itself. Sorry, but I can't buy the whole "self-driving cars and ubers will make traffic better" thing. Nevermind the fact that there's been studies that shows that Uber and Lyft have been shown to make traffic worse, but self-driving cars are something that likely won't come in about 15-20 years (maybe even later, considering the malfuctions that have been happening as of late). Why would we abandon rail expansions for something that isn't even a guarentee. Plus, he seems to forget about the fact that self-driving trains are a thing (heck, some transit agencies already have them). Wouldn't it be better to have self-driving trains than cars?

Edited February 6, 2019 by Some one

[august948]

3 hours ago, Some one said:

Sorry to bring this up now, but this has been bothering me for a while. I'm sure Mr. Gattis is a nice guy, but I can't stand his op-eds on public transportation. They all boil down to nothing but "rail bad, highway good, self-driving car future." The notion that we should stop building rail because self-driving cars are the future is kind of laughable in of itself. Sorry, but I can't buy the whole "self-driving cars and ubers will make traffic better" thing. Nevermind the fact that there's been studies that shows that Uber and Lyft have been shown to make traffic worse, but self-driving cars are something that likely won't come in about 15-20 years (maybe even later, considering the malfuctions that have been happening as of late). Why would we abandon rail expansions for something that isn't even a guarentee. Plus, he seems to forget about the fact that self-driving trains are a thing (heck, some transit agencies already have them). Wouldn't it be better to have self-driving trains than cars?

 

I think the best of both worlds would be self-driving buses, wouldn't it?  Trains are nice and all, but they can't take you 5 blocks over from where the rail line is.  A self-driving bus or self-driving car can take you anyplace there's a road.

[Some one]

35 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

I think the best of both worlds would be self-driving buses, wouldn't it?  Trains are nice and all, but they can't take you 5 blocks over from where the rail line is.  A self-driving bus or self-driving car can take you anyplace there's a road.

Not that I disagree with you, but I think buses (and eventually self-driving buses) work best as feeder for rail.

[KinkaidAlum]

5 hours ago, Some one said:

Sorry to bring this up now, but this has been bothering me for a while. I'm sure Mr. Gattis is a nice guy, but I can't stand his op-eds on public transportation. They all boil down to nothing but "rail bad, highway good, self-driving car future." The notion that we should stop building rail because self-driving cars are the future is kind of laughable in of itself. Sorry, but I can't buy the whole "self-driving cars and ubers will make traffic better" thing. Nevermind the fact that there's been studies that shows that Uber and Lyft have been shown to make traffic worse, but self-driving cars are something that likely won't come in about 15-20 years (maybe even later, considering the malfuctions that have been happening as of late). Why would we abandon rail expansions for something that isn't even a guarentee. Plus, he seems to forget about the fact that self-driving trains are a thing (heck, some transit agencies already have them). Wouldn't it be better to have self-driving trains than cars?

 

Follow the money. He's got ties to Joel Kotkin and the Manhattan Institute. Gattis' new think-tank does as well. That means funding from sources like the Koch Brothers and other dark money groups. 

[mollusk]

A visual aid:

 

 

edit:  You can tell they're in Texas because of the dominos.

Edited February 7, 2019 by mollusk

[102IAHexpress]

It's a question of recourses. There are only so many transportation dollars. How much can we afford to throw at expensive slow speed trains at the expense of more useful alternatives? Once those dollars are gone, they are gone. Houston is not the federal government where it can print its own money.

The bigger question becomes, do you want to invest your limited dollars  in old technology or the future? Trains are old technology. They just are. Those in the pro train debate should acknowledge that. Now, instead if we're talking about investing billions in a 200mph regional mag lev, or high speed train instead of a 30mph light rail then I could get on board with that. But investing billions in a technology that travels as fast at it did when it originally debuted powered by steam is a complete waste of tax payer money. 

 

[mollusk]

All of these use ancient technology - even maglev when starting and stopping.  Another visual aid:

 

[august948]

55 minutes ago, mollusk said:

All of these use ancient technology - even maglev when starting and stopping.  Another visual aid:

 

 

The first Segway!

 

From my perspective, the biggest transportation problem isn't getting people around inside the loop.  The biggest problem is getting people in and out of the city mornings and afternoons on weekdays.  For that reason I'd favor commuter rail or enhanced park and ride over extending the light rail much further.

[mollusk]

Cars, buses, BRT, light rail, and heavy (commuter) rail are all resources.  No single one of them can take care of all the transportation needs.  Personally, I think the most heavily used park and ride routes would make good candidates for heavy rail.  IAH would make a good stop on a heavy rail route, too.  Hobby's in a dense enough area that extending it down Griggs/Long Drive and Telephone Road to get there would likely add ridership to the entire route, which wouldn't prevent it from also being a heavy rail stop on the way to points south.

[mkultra25]

11 hours ago, mollusk said:

edit:  You can tell they're in Texas because of the dominos.

 

Yeah, but they're not smoking. When I was a kid, I became convinced through direct observation that cigarettes were almost as important as dominoes when folks sat down to play a few hands of 42.

[august948]

17 hours ago, mollusk said:

Cars, buses, BRT, light rail, and heavy (commuter) rail are all resources.  No single one of them can take care of all the transportation needs.  Personally, I think the most heavily used park and ride routes would make good candidates for heavy rail.  IAH would make a good stop on a heavy rail route, too.  Hobby's in a dense enough area that extending it down Griggs/Long Drive and Telephone Road to get there would likely add ridership to the entire route, which wouldn't prevent it from also being a heavy rail stop on the way to points south.

 

Agreed.  So my metronext plan would be to make all highways (45, 610,10 east, 59/69, 8, 99, 288, maybe a few others like 249) be like the katy freeway west of 610 (26 lanes at it's widest inclusive of mainlanes, feeders, and hov)  Add commuter rail down the middle either by taking an hov lane or (preferably) elevating it with hubs at each highway junction.  Buses and light rail can spoke out from those hubs.  Or, in a cheaper version, scrap the commuter rail and run park and ride style buses on the hov between the hubs all day long. 

 

[Some one]

1 hour ago, august948 said:

 

Agreed.  So my metronext plan would be to make all highways (45, 610,10 east, 59/69, 8, 99, 288, maybe a few others like 249) be like the katy freeway west of 610 (26 lanes at it's widest inclusive of mainlanes, feeders, and hov)  Add commuter rail down the middle either by taking an hov lane or (preferably) elevating it with hubs at each highway junction.  Buses and light rail can spoke out from those hubs.  Or, in a cheaper version, scrap the commuter rail and run park and ride style buses on the hov between the hubs all day long. 

 

I think most of them will be more like the 290 hov lanes. 

Honestly my preferred vision (which is like yours) would be that you can take the park and ride and commuter rail from the surburbs to the city and from there take the light rail and buses around the city.

[bobruss]

If you put 26 lanes on every freeway there won't be any room left for people to live. I don't want Katy style freeways everywhere.The Katy is already reaching the saturation point where it was before Culbertson pushed for its widening. In ten years they'll want to make it wider. That's not a solution. 

We need 21st century solutions that  include less concrete. I want commuter trains, bullet trains,  light rail, BRT, more bike paths, and better sidewalks.

 

 

[jgriff]

Now that I live in the core of Houston I’m all for light rail. I wish they’d put a rail line down West Dallas. I think it would enhance my property value. Since there’s usually some federal funding for these kinds of transit projects, the people who live in urban areas that receive these investments are essentially being subsidized by the people who live in rural areas. I’ll gladly let other people pay to enhance infrastructure of the area I live in. It’s the same situation as the downtown living initiative. The entire city pays for subsidized housing for the middle und upper middle class in downtown. As long as the corruption and pork belly spending are helping my property value and enhance my neighborhood I say keep it coming. Convince me that heavy rail to Katy would make my property more valuable and I’ll be for that too. That might be the case. Heavy rail to the suburbs could make it cheaper to do business in downtown which could keep companies from moving to the suburbs.

[samagon]

On 2/6/2019 at 7:22 PM, august948 said:

 

I think the best of both worlds would be self-driving buses, wouldn't it?  Trains are nice and all, but they can't take you 5 blocks over from where the rail line is.  A self-driving bus or self-driving car can take you anyplace there's a road.

 

 

 

trains and buses that is, and heck, cars too.

Edited February 8, 2019 by samagon

[august948]

4 hours ago, bobruss said:

If you put 26 lanes on every freeway there won't be any room left for people to live. I don't want Katy style freeways everywhere.The Katy is already reaching the saturation point where it was before Culbertson pushed for its widening. In ten years they'll want to make it wider. That's not a solution. 

We need 21st century solutions that  include less concrete. I want commuter trains, bullet trains,  light rail, BRT, more bike paths, and better sidewalks.

 

 

 

I don't know...just looked at google satellite of the west half of the city and I can't really tell a difference between I10 west and the other highways in the view.  You sure there won't be any room left for people to live?  Looks like there's plenty left to me.  And we'll need plenty of room, and a high-bandwidth transportation network to handle the 4 million on their way.  I'm pretty sure they won't all be moving inside the loop.

3 hours ago, samagon said:

 

 

 

trains and buses that is, and heck, cars too.

 

Don't forget bikes!

[august948]

4 hours ago, jgriff said:

Now that I live in the core of Houston I’m all for light rail. I wish they’d put a rail line down West Dallas. I think it would enhance my property value. Since there’s usually some federal funding for these kinds of transit projects, the people who live in urban areas that receive these investments are essentially being subsidized by the people who live in rural areas. I’ll gladly let other people pay to enhance infrastructure of the area I live in. It’s the same situation as the downtown living initiative. The entire city pays for subsidized housing for the middle und upper middle class in downtown. As long as the corruption and pork belly spending are helping my property value and enhance my neighborhood I say keep it coming. Convince me that heavy rail to Katy would make my property more valuable and I’ll be for that too. That might be the case. Heavy rail to the suburbs could make it cheaper to do business in downtown which could keep companies from moving to the suburbs.

 

Forget all these silly proposed light rail extensions and run rail down Richmond to West Oaks Mall!  I'll get behind that.