Jump to content

METRORail Purple Line


Houstonian in Iraq

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Maybe so. But if that's true, then why would they not have them embedded in concrete on the Red Line between Fannin South and Reliant Park stations? I've noticed that trains go considerably faster on this portion of the Red Line as well. As you can see here:

These rails aren't embedded at all.

I know this isn't really a big deal, I just find it strange.

Interesting. I had not noticed that before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The East end is all ripe for new development. Who's to say this area will remain as "industrial" as the area between the Fannin South and Reliant Park stations. Also I don't see a need for the rail to speed through this transitional East End area, esp. if it becomes more dense residential/light commercial as we're hoping. Maybe METRO is exercising some foresight?

Just my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so. But if that's true, then why would they not have them embedded in concrete on the Red Line between Fannin South and Reliant Park stations? I've noticed that trains go considerably faster on this portion of the Red Line as well. As you can see here:

I'm guessing the speed of the train is based on the number of cross streets and other interferences between stations. It is pretty desolate as you approach Fannin South.

Trains wheels contact the steel track the same way whether they are mounted on top of rail ties or embedded in concrete ( top and inside of the rail ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Embedded track is more expensive up front but virtually maintenance-free. Ballasted track requires periodic resurfacing to realign it, and keeping the embedded street crossings aligned with track floating in ballast is a challenge. Since it's a light rail application where the rail itself isn't ever going to wear out I guess they decided embedding it was the way to go.

Pixxs (you might have to be friends with METRO on facebook):

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so. But if that's true, then why would they not have them embedded in concrete on the Red Line between Fannin South and Reliant Park stations? I've noticed that trains go considerably faster on this portion of the Red Line as well. As you can see here:

2943957695_48a378b861_z.jpg

Source

These rails aren't embedded at all. Also, in Boston, the Green line's (which is also light rail) rails aren't embedded in concrete either. It seems like this allows for faster speeds as well (for whatever reason). Notice how Boston's Green line runs in the middle of the street as well:

491113854_b44edc6110_z.jpg

Source

I know this isn't really a big deal, I just find it strange.

I'm certainly no structural engineer, or otherwise, but I'd guess it's probably dealing more with imposed speed limits than anything else.

real train tracks that run down hwy3 are no different than tracks out in the boonies, but the tracks out in the boonies, they run at 55mph, maybe higher, but with crossings, and other things, they impose a speed limit on the trains rolling down hwy3.

again, I really don't know, I too am curious to know whether my assumptions are correct or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mfastx, where was that last picture taken? It looks like it was originally a real railroad a long time ago. Is it the Columbia Tap Rail Trail?

Not sure of the exact location, but I know it is in fact the Columbia Tap Rail Trail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

http://www.chron.com...p#photo-2759597

I don't get it. Why doesn't METRO just remove the tree and lay the track? If the community wants this, then the community should pay for it through a mechanism other than its transportation agency.

I totally agree.

screw the tree.

Let the community activists build a better memorial as they see fit from their own pockets.

Now, if Ike blew down that tree, this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, METRO shouldn't have to pay for moving a tree. But if METRO didn't pay for it, the city of Houston probably would have. Either way, it comes out of our pockets.

The City of Houston and METRO are not the same entity. When METRO misuses funds, it validates the concerns of other METRO member cities that their interests and their funds are being responsibly and fairly administered. And besides, this is effectively allocating money away from transit to other uses; that money will never come back to transit in any way shape or form. It is gone forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The City of Houston and METRO are not the same entity. When METRO misuses funds, it validates the concerns of other METRO member cities that their interests and their funds are being responsibly and fairly administered. And besides, this is effectively allocating money away from transit to other uses; that money will never come back to transit in any way shape or form. It is gone forever.

Yes I understand that. But I am doubting that the residents would be agle to conjure up the money themselves, and it would evolve into a situation much like the East End Line bridge, where the City of Houston ended up footing the bill to entrench the light rail line.

Agreed. A waste of money indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Harrisburg underpass is an order of magnitude more expensive. If the City will finance that, I cannot imagine that this would be an impossible request. Besides, there are also a fair number of overlapping CDCs, TIRZs, and Management Districts that serve the OST corridor as I recall. There's plenty of money out there, plus whatever SJL might be able to bring in from DC. If the community can't get funding from a legitimate source, it can only possibly be because they don't care enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure of the exact location, but I know it is in fact the Columbia Tap Rail Trail.

It looks like, based on Google Maps (it's between Lamar and McKinney) the CTRT was moved closer to the red building. Did they really tear up that section of bike trail and rebuild it, even though it hasn't even been five years yet?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those curious of the alignment of this rail as it splits from the other rail outside of downtown, the split happens right at the stadium, it continues on Texas, where the East line goes up Harrisburg.

Once Texas ends, it veers right along the real railroad for a few blocks, then runs parallel to the bike trail (which is fully rebuilt), and then it goes over to Scott street via Dallas street. All the rail is in, and they've started putting in the poles for the overhead power stuff.

You can easily ride a bicycle down the track now to get a good understanding of the alignment...

I haven't figured out where the stops are after the one at the stadium, but they're definitely working on the stop at the stadium, I assume they're trying to get it done before the first game (even if the rail isn't going, they probably want to complete as much work here as they can before the stadium opens).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.chron.com...p#photo-2759597

I don't get it. Why doesn't METRO just remove the tree and lay the track? If the community wants this, then the community should pay for it through a mechanism other than its transportation agency.

The community already did pay for it. $100K is probably a trivial amount to pay not to create an uproar in the community (and enemies on future ballot measures). Paying for a monument as well was unnecessary, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny the same people who have a problem with Metro spending $750K on this tree relocation/memorial combination have no issue with the 20+ year siphoning of Metro funds for non-Metro purposes including the depletion of a $650 million transit surplus in early 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what the City did with the diversion of funds is completely legitimate. The City also has the option of not having a transit agency and using that one-point sales tax for an economic development organization instead that has broad powers to allocate the expenditure of funds. The City could actually do lots things with their sales tax revenue so long as it doesn't exceed the state-mandated level of 8.25%. So...if they don't want to allocate the full point to METRO then that's their prerogative. The City is in charge. They get to decide.

But if METRO uses money to fund something unrelated to its mission, then its as though METRO has just told the City, "HEY, YOU GUYS! YOU DIDN'T TAKE ENOUGH OF OUR TRANSIT MONEY AWAY FROM US TO DO NON-TRANSIT PROJECTS! THAT'S NOT RIGHT! WE'RE GOING TO DO A NON-TRANSIT PROJECT FOR YOU!" Yeah...that'll show 'em... And then METRO will no doubt ask for their money back...but to do what with, exactly? Transit or non-transit? Its ridiculous. They just want to do what they want to do. It's crap like this that makes me think that METRO shouldn't get any more money until its charter is re-tooled, board members get elected, and the ethical standards are made more enforceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I could be a trillionaire if I were born under different circumstances. We're not talking about what COULD be. We're not talking about options. We are talking about the situation AS IS. AS IS, the city does have a transit agency that is supposed to be funded by a ONE CENT sales tax. A WHOLE penny, not .75 of a penny. So, with that being said, your outrage at Metro spending a projected 750K on a "non transit" expenditure is laughable when the city has "legitimately" robbed the agency of close to, if not, a billion dollars over the past 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The City giveth and the City taketh away. It was their money to begin with. They can't steal it from their own cause. And need I remind you, METRO is at the City's mercy, not the other way around. That's not unintentional. Nor is it unjust if METRO is going to misuse its money while "underfunded".

Let's say you were a homeless meth addict that camps out in my neighborhood and I give you change on a regular basis. There's a pinch on my budget for a few months, so I cut back my giving by 25%. You accuse me of stealing from you and the neighbors reveal your addiction to something that costs you the money that you don't have enough of to be doing in the first place. Should I capitulate to you and give you money that I don't have the income to replace, or should I cut you off until the addiction is broken (ideally being proactive and supportive to further your rehabilitation)?

METRO is a whiny, greedy homeless meth addict. We should reform it, not merely prop it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

METRO is a whiny, greedy homeless meth addict. We should reform it, not merely prop it up.

Agreed. But that is also the way it was set up - to be dependent on the City's whims. In the ideal world since that's what everybody espouses on here with their opininions, Metro should be cut free from the city or completely absorbed. Instead it's an Enron-esqe off-balance sheet entity that is under the City's control. It's board members should be elected - not appointed so they are the Mayor's lap dogs. Clean it up ( like that will every happen in a governmental agency) and put a 5-year plan in effect for them to get their $.0025 back. That would give the City ample time to figure out how to pay for the services that Metro is currently funding.

Of course that is how I wish all government was run - on a strict segregated fund basis. If there is a revenue stream for a particlular purpose - Metro $.01 tax for example - then it should be completely segregated and utilized for that purpose. If the city needs money for it's roads/police/slush fund - then it should raise it's own taxes to properly reflect it's costs instead of relying on machinations to give the appearance of a low tax rate.

This should also extend to the state. I remember reading an article a few years ago on how the State Parks and hunting/fishing license revenues bring in something like $70 million a year. When the license fees were set up, they were sold as going to support State Parks and Wildlife. But the annual budget for state parks is something like $10 million ( my numbers may be off - but the result is the same). The rest gets sucked up by the general fund and the guvner gets to crow about low taxes. When asked about the State parks shortfall - I seem to remember his answer was the Parks department wouldn't know how to spend that much money and would waste it. What a crock. If anybody has been to the State Parks - they would actually see a pretty good use of a very small amount of money. They do what they can on the shoestring budget - but there is tons of deferred maintenance. And there are parks they don't have the money to develop - that's why Houston has Lake Houston Wilderness Park - the state owned if for years but didn't have any funds for it.

In ideal world-ville we would get elected officials with the cojones to pass laws requireing segregated funds - but that won't happen in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. But that is also the way it was set up - to be dependent on the City's whims. In the ideal world since that's what everybody espouses on here with their opininions, Metro should be cut free from the city or completely absorbed. Instead it's an Enron-esqe off-balance sheet entity that is under the City's control. It's board members should be elected - not appointed so they are the Mayor's lap dogs. Clean it up ( like that will every happen in a governmental agency) and put a 5-year plan in effect for them to get their $.0025 back. That would give the City ample time to figure out how to pay for the services that Metro is currently funding.

Of course that is how I wish all government was run - on a strict segregated fund basis. If there is a revenue stream for a particlular purpose - Metro $.01 tax for example - then it should be completely segregated and utilized for that purpose. If the city needs money for it's roads/police/slush fund - then it should raise it's own taxes to properly reflect it's costs instead of relying on machinations to give the appearance of a low tax rate.

This should also extend to the state. I remember reading an article a few years ago on how the State Parks and hunting/fishing license revenues bring in something like $70 million a year. When the license fees were set up, they were sold as going to support State Parks and Wildlife. But the annual budget for state parks is something like $10 million ( my numbers may be off - but the result is the same). The rest gets sucked up by the general fund and the guvner gets to crow about low taxes. When asked about the State parks shortfall - I seem to remember his answer was the Parks department wouldn't know how to spend that much money and would waste it. What a crock. If anybody has been to the State Parks - they would actually see a pretty good use of a very small amount of money. They do what they can on the shoestring budget - but there is tons of deferred maintenance. And there are parks they don't have the money to develop - that's why Houston has Lake Houston Wilderness Park - the state owned if for years but didn't have any funds for it.

In ideal world-ville we would get elected officials with the cojones to pass laws requireing segregated funds - but that won't happen in my lifetime.

Perhaps some form of uprising will get the attention of the elected buffoons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...