METRO Next - 2040 Vision

[Luminare]

Maybe we should start a thread just for ideas to propose and suggest at these meetings?

[Luminare]

7 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

BRT is a solid investment right now for the city. It’s cheaper and just as asthetically pleasing as light rail. There are a few success stories in SF and Chicago. I think the best option right now for Richmond is BRT. And we can focus our energy on getting the airports connected to light rail. 

 

In my experience through different types of negotiations, whether personally or in architecture, you get in everything you really want first. You can always scale back. BRT might be more realistic, but we just don't know what might happen. We get in as much as we would like to see and then trim it down to the must have's later.

 

I also read in the AP the other day that Pelosi (who I never ever thought would ever say something sensible in her political career), claimed that she wants the Democrat controlled House to be focused on public works (among other things). The president even wants to send funding to infrastructure projects. Lets go big now!

Edited November 26, 2018 by Luminare

[j_cuevas713]

4 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

In my experience through different types of negotiations, whether personally or in architecture, you get in everything you really want first. You can always scale back. BRT might be more realistic, but we just don't know what might happen. We get in as much as we would like to see and then trim it down to the must have's later.

 

I also read in the AP the other day that Pelosi (who I never ever thought would ever say something sensible in her political career), claimed that she wants the Democrat controlled House to be focused on public works (among other things). The president even wants to send funding to infrastructure projects. Lets go big now!

Great point. We need to go big! I will applaud Trump for this though I'm not his biggest fan. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by j_cuevas713

[EllenOlenska]

Yeah, at least Trump will make the trains run on time. 

[ADCS]

18 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

I agree. However I kinda want METRO to focus on local transit. I really think we need to lure a different company or create a quasi private government partnership for Heavy Rail. Would be a good idea to wait till TCR activates the HSR. If its successful then rail will go bananas.

 

Oh, I'm not talking commuter - I'm talking a grade-separated rapid transit system. Since this is a long-term plan, and TCR is more likely, why not have it on the books?

[mfastx]

18 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

BRT is a solid investment right now for the city. It’s cheaper and just as asthetically pleasing as light rail. There are a few success stories in SF and Chicago. I think the best option right now for Richmond is BRT. And we can focus our energy on getting the airports connected to light rail. 

 

I agree that it looks like it will end up being BRT, but if there's any corridor in Houston that's more appropriate for rail than BRT, it's the western corridors such as Richmond and Westheimer connecting Downtown and Uptown.  Not at least trying for rail on these corridors would be a mistake as opting for BRT vs rail would limit transit ridership potential in the area.  

Edited November 27, 2018 by mfastx

[j_cuevas713]

Just now, mfastx said:

 

I agree that it looks like it will end up being BRT, but if there's any corridor in Houston that's more appropriate for rail than BRT, it's the western corridors such as Richmond and Westheimer connecting Downtown and Uptown.  Not at least trying for rail on these corridors would be a mistake and severely limit transit ridership potential in the area.  

That's weird because yesterday I was thinking the same thing. Richmond and Westheimer are the two main thoroughfares that connect the eastern side of the city to the western side. Not excluding Washington Ave of course. 

[samagon]

I've said it in so many other threads, but I'll say it here, I wish someone had the guts to make sure either HCTRA and METRO were combined, and that for every dollar spent on tollways, they had to spend a percentage on fixed guideway transit (BRT, LRT, HRT, whatever). And if not merged, then at least send percentage of funds to METRO for that specific purpose.

[cspwal]

Metro had a workshop yesterday and a boarding meeting today.  Here is the download with the new "Moving Forward Plan A Plus" plan

http://ridemetro.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1747&meta_id=39956

 

Big changes are

 - new BRT line along Gessner from West Little York all the way to Missouri City

- new BRT line up to IAH

- extending both the Purple and the Green lines to Hobby

- extending the Red line to North Shepherd

- less "BOOST" corridors, but more focused on East-West travel

- Purple/Green line extension to the city courthouses

- no more red line extension to the airport, which never really made sense to me anyway

- a new "signature bus service" from downtown to uptown

- 2 way HOV lane from midtown to edloe on 59

[wilcal]

12 minutes ago, cspwal said:

Metro had a workshop yesterday and a boarding meeting today.  Here is the download with the new "Moving Forward Plan A Plus" plan

http://ridemetro.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=5&clip_id=1747&meta_id=39956

 

Big changes are

 - new BRT line along Gessner from West Little York all the way to Missouri City

- new BRT line up to IAH

- extending both the Purple and the Green lines to Hobby

- extending the Red line to North Shepherd

- less "BOOST" corridors, but more focused on East-West travel

- Purple/Green line extension to the city courthouses

- no more red line extension to the airport, which never really made sense to me anyway

- a new "signature bus service" from downtown to uptown

- 2 way HOV lane from midtown to edloe on 59

 

Heartbreaking still no LRT for University Line :/

 

I guess BRT will do.

 

I have so so so many questions about the details of this revised plan and I feel like I don't have a good person to ask.

 

In case anyone has any thoughts I'd love to hear them.

 

1) Should we be extending the red line north to a park and ride? I don't get that positioning. 

2) The westheimer signature bus service. It doesn't appear to run on Westheimer the whole way. Where does that dogleg? 

[cspwal]

Fannin south seems pretty popular as a park and ride for the south end of the red line, so a park and ride at the other end seems appropriate

 

From what I can tell of the "Signature bus", it will start at the downtown TC, go down to midtown and take the HOV lane on 59 to Edloe, where it will exit and go to Westheimer and continue the trip from there

[intencity77]

I find the Green Line Extension to Hobby poorly placed. It was originally proposed to go down 75th/Garland/Woodridge and then Telephone to Hobby. I believe this to be the best route for capturing the highest ridership amount possible, especially passing through the very busy Gulfgate Center. Placing the LRT farther east on Broadway (as is in this vision) makes no sense as most of the northern reaches of Broadway (north of I-610) are and always will be a predominantly industrial/port area with very low residential & pedestrian activity. 

[LBC2HTX]

Interesting that they're contemplating a red line extension to Missouri City. 

[EllenOlenska]

I feel like that Missouri Line has gotten the most chatter over the past few years. 
 

31 minutes ago, LBC2HTX said:

Interesting that they're contemplating a red line extension to Missouri City. 

 

[cspwal]

3 hours ago, intencity77 said:

I find the Green Line Extension to Hobby poorly placed. It was originally proposed to go down 75th/Garland/Woodridge and then Telephone to Hobby. I believe this to be the best route for capturing the highest ridership amount possible, especially passing through the very busy Gulfgate Center. Placing the LRT farther east on Broadway (as is in this vision) makes no sense as most of the northern reaches of Broadway (north of I-610) are and always will be a predominantly industrial/port area with very low residential & pedestrian activity. 

 

I think the green line route was chosen for speed over ridership - connecting Hobby to downtown via rail is possible, but no one will ever ride it if it takes an hour and a half to get there.  What is more disappointing is that there is no new service in that corner at all, no BOOST or BRT.  The older plan had a lot more BOOST corridors

[Luminare]

Its only a draft, but still shows a lack of vision, or awareness of what is possible. Its like they exist in a bubble and are unaware of precedents done by other cities anywhere else. There is a lot of potential (even using existing rail lines and utility corridors) to really implement a true multi layered transportation infrastructure, but everyone there seems to have blinders on.

 

EDIT: By the way, the extension to the courthouses' is a waste of time. You have two light rail lines with potential to head west and all they want to do is extend them 0.1 miles to courthouses that might either be relocated or demoed within the next decade?! Just have no clue what these people are thinking.

 

EDIT2: They really need to grab all the people that have worked on Downtown Greenbelt project, The I45 Corridor project, etc... When I looked at those presentations, immediately I told myself, these are people with vision. Who are excited to do their jobs, and want to go all out for this city. METRO is clearly lagging behind and is taking a half-hearted approach.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Luminare

[mfastx]

I'll always support transit improvements of any kind so on principal I do support this plan, but it's truly baffling the decisions they're making on where to put rail vs. BRT corridors.  They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, which is focusing rail on more dense corridors with higher ridership potential and BRT on less dense areas.  It's truly mystifying and would be a massive misuse of money.  What is the use of having TWO lines going to Hobby, take one of those lines and the north line extension and make it an east-west route along Westheimer or Richmond.  Just makes too much sense I suppose. 

[Luminare]

2 hours ago, mfastx said:

I'll always support transit improvements of any kind so on principal I do support this plan, but it's truly baffling the decisions they're making on where to put rail vs. BRT corridors.  They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, which is focusing rail on more dense corridors with higher ridership potential and BRT on less dense areas.  It's truly mystifying and would be a massive misuse of money.  What is the use of having TWO lines going to Hobby, take one of those lines and the north line extension and make it an east-west route along Westheimer or Richmond.  Just makes too much sense I suppose. 

 

Completely agree with you. On principle I support it as well. Any improvement is better than none, but you are exactly right. The people involved seem to be unable to see the forest from the trees and are stuck in the weeds of what is existing instead of looking beyond it to what has potential and what could be possible. I'm sure in the thick of it all and as one whole probably has been in Metro forever (I'm putting myself in the perspective of one who might be a higher up at Metro) this all might make a lot of sense, but as soon as you take an outside perspective the plan immediately falls apart and doesn't hold up.

[wilcal]

20 hours ago, cspwal said:

 

I think the green line route was chosen for speed over ridership - connecting Hobby to downtown via rail is possible, but no one will ever ride it if it takes an hour and a half to get there.  What is more disappointing is that there is no new service in that corner at all, no BOOST or BRT.  The older plan had a lot more BOOST corridors

 

I think that is why they scrapped extending the red line to Hobby. 

 

The green line averages between 17 and 19mph in the East End from my limited understanding. So lets say 18mph average (including time at stops of course) and that gives you an extra 21-22 minutes to extend green line to Hobby. That would put travel time from Hobby to the Convention Center/Discovery Green stop at under 40 minutes unless I'm missing something. 

 

 

[wilcal]

3 hours ago, mfastx said:

I'll always support transit improvements of any kind so on principal I do support this plan, but it's truly baffling the decisions they're making on where to put rail vs. BRT corridors.  They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, which is focusing rail on more dense corridors with higher ridership potential and BRT on less dense areas.  It's truly mystifying and would be a massive misuse of money.  What is the use of having TWO lines going to Hobby, take one of those lines and the north line extension and make it an east-west route along Westheimer or Richmond.  Just makes too much sense I suppose. 

 

Definitely not enough room on Westheimer. Their "premier westheimer bus" is going to skip Westheimer in Montrose and utilize the 59 HOV and head into Greenspoint.

 

Additionally, I wonder what BRT even looks like in some of these examples. 

 

I do agree that you dump Purple Line to Hobby extension. Utilize those funds to convert UH to Bellaire/Uptown transit to LRT. You can keep the outer bits as BRT. 

[H-Town Man]

I don't understand why you extend the Red Line to N. Shepherd Transit Center and have not one but two lines to Hobby when you could be using that money to extend the green/purple lines to Northwest Transit Center. It's going to be real interesting watching a light rail train go past all the junkyards along N. Shepherd. Instead you could be connecting all those people along Washington to downtown.

 

This would also get more pieces in place for conversion of the Uptown BRT line to light rail.

 

[mfastx]

21 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

Definitely not enough room on Westheimer. Their "premier westheimer bus" is going to skip Westheimer in Montrose and utilize the 59 HOV and head into Greenspoint.

 

Additionally, I wonder what BRT even looks like in some of these examples. 

 

I do agree that you dump Purple Line to Hobby extension. Utilize those funds to convert UH to Bellaire/Uptown transit to LRT. You can keep the outer bits as BRT. 

 

For Westheimer, a subway would be optimal which is what I had in mind.  Yes it'd be a lot of money but well worth it in the long run, next 100 years or so.  The ridership numbers in the plan are just backwards, putting LRT (or optimally, HRT but I understand that is not realistic at this point) in those higher ridership corridors would bring even more ridership than BRT.  

 

The orignal plan on Richmond would work well too, that's wide enough for a surface line. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by mfastx

[cspwal]

If only they could build a cut-and-cover subway while they are rebuilding westheimer, but I know that would shut down the whole road for months

 

[102IAHexpress]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 4:34 PM, Luminare said:

EDIT: By the way, the extension to the courthouses' is a waste of time. You have two light rail lines with potential to head west and all they want to do is extend them 0.1 miles to courthouses that might either be relocated or demoed within the next decade?! Just have no clue what these people are thinking.

 

 

The courthouse extension is the only thing that makes sense in this taxpayer boondoggle of a plan. The lack of access to the courthouse was a glaring oversite that I mentioned over three  years ago in the Metro Rail East End/Southeast Line Downtown Construction pics and updates Thread. Also, I'm not sure why you think the CoH courthouse might be relocated or demolished? Absolutely zero chance for funding of a new a courthouse anytime soon. 

 

[wilcal]

2 hours ago, mfastx said:

 

For Westheimer, a subway would be optimal which is what I had in mind.  Yes it'd be a lot of money but well worth it in the long run, next 100 years or so.  The ridership numbers in the plan are just backwards, putting LRT (or optimally, HRT but I understand that is not realistic at this point) in those higher ridership corridors would bring even more ridership than BRT.  

 

The orignal plan on Richmond would work well too, that's wide enough for a surface line. 

 

I think the entire plan costs less than running a subway from downtown to the Galleria via Westheimer. 

[wilcal]

22 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

I don't understand why you extend the Red Line to N. Shepherd Transit Center and have not one but two lines to Hobby when you could be using that money to extend the green/purple lines to Northwest Transit Center. It's going to be real interesting watching a light rail train go past all the junkyards along N. Shepherd. Instead you could be connecting all those people along Washington to downtown.

 

This would also get more pieces in place for conversion of the Uptown BRT line to light rail.

 

 

They want to do BRT between NW Transit Center and downtown. 

 

I think it would be tough to fit LRT on Washington.

 

[felt38]

 

On 12/14/2018 at 9:26 PM, wilcal said:

 

They want to do BRT between NW Transit Center and downtown. 

 

I think it would be tough to fit LRT on Washington.

 

 

 

I think it would look like what was done with the Green Line on Harrisburg.....

[intencity77]

2 hours ago, felt38 said:

 

 

 

I think it would look like what was done with the Green Line on Harrisburg.....

 

That’s exactly what I was going to say. If Harrisburg can fit LRT, Washington definitely can. 

[BeerNut]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwJlDiPa0po

[kennyc05]

I'm confused does Metro have a new logo?

[Visitor]

I dont know why I even waste the time reading or watching Metros plans. I dont think they will ever convince me that a Bus is a real mass transit option. 

 

[Some one]

I think that buses can work as a feeder to rail and/or for less dense areas. But solely relying on buses just screams disaster to me.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Some one

[august948]

2 hours ago, Visitor said:

I dont know why I even waste the time reading or watching Metros plans. I dont think they will ever convince me that a Bus is a real mass transit option. 

 

For a metro area the size of of the state of Connecticut, bus is probably the only real mass transit option.  You need dense corridors for light rail.  We don't have that.  What we do have are spread out suburbs and heavy traffic during rush hour.  If anything, that argues for commuter rail instead of light rail.  Are they even considering that?  All i hear about are lrt and brt.

[cspwal]

Properly implemented BRT is not the same as just "buses".  It has many of the advantages of light rail, just with a lower maximum capacity.

 

What I want to see is an investment in a heavy rail system, one line that could get out to Katy or Sugarland with intermittent stops.  It won't be dense now, but 10 years after it's done, the areas around the stations would be where you're seeing the new Texas donuts and some high rises with whatever amenity is in in 2030 (racquetball court?)

[Trae]

Houston has dense enough corridors for a complete light rail system in the inner loop with extensions to both airports (which isn't the same as a bus from downtown to IAH). You can have lines towards the west and southwest sides of towns. This isn't Houston 1985. With the location of the largest employment centers in Houston and the increase in density within the Beltway, it makes getting rail ridership here easier. The recent expansion was incomplete and doesn't show the full potential of the current lines. Would be a lot different if the University and Inner Katy lines were also complete at this point.

 

I agree with those that say commuter rail would work best from the suburbs, especially since the trains could run more often throughout the entire day than the current Metro P&R system. Studies have shown that even BRT is less favorable to potential riders than rail would be. It's still a bus, just in its own lane. There's talk of autonomous buses from folks who don't want rail but we already have autonomous rail in the world. Hindsight 20/20 (or not since it was voted for by citizens but turned down by the mayor at the time), Houston should have heavy rail down most major freeways with limited stops until you reach the core and it could 17-20 hours a day.

[Some one]

Honestly, this feels more like a plan to appeal to the John Culberson/anti-rail type of people. The plan ignores the potential to add rail on the west side of Houston (arguably the densest parts of Houston), and the light rail extensions being proposed have very little ridership (not to mention very little light rail extension to begin with). It kinda bugs me that Metro is banking on the idea of autonomous vehicles and how they believe it's the "future" when they're forgetting about autonomous trains. I agree with others that we need to build rail to the suburbs (whether it's light rail, commuter rail, or a hybrid). Hopefully the red line extension to Sugarland (or if GCRD can get fundings to build a commuter rail line) can kickstart that.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Some one

[102IAHexpress]

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.

[august948]

I'd add to that work on improving the other transportation issue that has a great impact...rush hour commuter services.

[samagon]

20 hours ago, 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.

 

all this means is that it's currently cheaper to drive than it is to ride public transit.

 

gas prices are at an all time low, coupled with the fact that federally, the gas tax hasn't gone up since 1993 (meanwhile we can't pay to fix the roads, gee, I wonder why?).

 

gas taxes collect about $35 billion per year. according to some studies, it takes about $66 billion per year to cover costs (maintenance and new projects). Keep in mind this is just federal, so interstate highways only.

 

so where we pay 18 cents per gallon tax federally, that should probably be about 35 cents to cover actual costs.

 

states (Texas, cause that's us) I'm sure have the same story. we pay 20 cents per gallon. I can't find how much non-federal projects cost the state, but I am going to assume we have the same shortfalls to cover our infrastructure projects.

 

now, all that money does come from somewhere, so we are paying. the problem is that the payments are masked so it doesn't look like driving costs as much as it really does. the end result is that many more people would have a very clear understanding of the exact costs of driving. as a result they might not want to sell their car, but they would want to reduce their footprint and would choose other options where available. only problem is, the other options available in Houston stink. so too bad, you'd be stuck driving, even if we paid the extra 40 cents per gallon we probably owe.

[Houston19514]

31 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

all this means is that it's currently cheaper to drive than it is to ride public transit.

 

gas prices are at an all time low, coupled with the fact that federally, the gas tax hasn't gone up since 1993 (meanwhile we can't pay to fix the roads, gee, I wonder why?).

 

gas taxes collect about $35 billion per year. according to some studies, it takes about $66 billion per year to cover costs (maintenance and new projects). Keep in mind this is just federal, so interstate highways only.

 

so where we pay 18 cents per gallon tax federally, that should probably be about 35 cents to cover actual costs.

 

states (Texas, cause that's us) I'm sure have the same story. we pay 20 cents per gallon. I can't find how much non-federal projects cost the state, but I am going to assume we have the same shortfalls to cover our infrastructure projects.

 

now, all that money does come from somewhere, so we are paying. the problem is that the payments are masked so it doesn't look like driving costs as much as it really does. the end result is that many more people would have a very clear understanding of the exact costs of driving. as a result they might not want to sell their car, but they would want to reduce their footprint and would choose other options where available. only problem is, the other options available in Houston stink. so too bad, you'd be stuck driving, even if we paid the extra 40 cents per gallon we probably owe.

 

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.)

[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