Slick Vik

I do recall at meetings concern about rail bringing in crime into the neighborhood

I don't think Manhattan is a good example for downtown stores: it's substantially larger, and way, way, denser. I can't think of a major American city outside of the East Coast that has anything close to what some of you are suggesting. Any ideas?

Chicago, San Francisco

Metrostar info here - http://www.ridemetro.org/Services/CarVanPool/Van.aspx

That's a monthly lease

I think you're right, this will go nowhere, especially extremist arguments as Slick's reply shows. With a mindset like that, it's easy to see why there's gridlock in the Uptown debate to begin with.

And I feel like a fool again for walking into a thread that was never meant for debate to begin with and only bitching about anyone remotely against rail.

It's not extremist it's extremist to make an option that destroys any opportunity regardless of how minor to make some minor accomodations for rail one day in the future if the demand exists at that time instead of a total reconstruction

I think it's worth a debate. After all, some of the ROW cleared for the 610/290 interchange was for a potential HSR to go through, so you could make the argument that it's not local but rail friendly. On the other hand, spurs like 527 really only serve local traffic, so why does TxDOT maintain it?

Lol give me a break. You can't be rail friendly if you're against it in some capacity

Yes, but you didn't read my post. My post stated that to make the elevated lanes compatible for rail, they would have to spend more money to "over-engineer" for rail. That's the same principle of why METRO gave extra money during the Interstate 10 widening to give the HOT lanes "strength" to handle rail, so to speak. Only here, of course, rail was actually voted on and approved for this corridor.

How much more would it cost? Would that not fit in the $25 million? As some engineers on haif posted in the previous thread the additional modifications are minor so this is quite petulant on the part of TXDOT.

Just an off-the-wall, rambling, passing thought, but I thought I'd mention it anyhow...

Would it be practical, and I suppose would it be legal, for a ridesharing start up like these to develop bus service? Or at least a more vanpool-like service.

I'm not sure precisely what the business model would be, perhaps more of a prior planning sort of thing (4 days a week I need to leave from X location and be at Y location by z-o'clock), but I can't help but think with all the METRO gripes, that perhaps the private sector could handle mass transit/commuters in a better manner much as both Uber and Lyft are trying to do for Taxi service.

METRO has had great success with its Park and Ride bus routes. Vanpooling is an option that METRO provides. Does METRO have an app or any other means to match people up for vanpooling, or is it just more of a "if y'all get a group together, we'll rent you the van"? If it is the latter, there's a huge opportunity being missed for people that don't vanpool because they may not even know there are other people commuting in a manner similar to themselves. Maybe there's not a Park and Ride bus from the Kuykendahl P&R to where you work, but by using social networking/app/Big Data, METRO could in addition to the bus route downtown add vanpool routes to Uptown, Westchase, the Energy Corridor, the Medical Center, UH, etc.

If enough people say they want to park their car at the P&R and ride to blank blank location, make a vanpool route. If enough vanpool routes are established between the P&R and blank blank location, then you upgrade to bus service. Once bus service reaches a certain level of demand, then you would upgrade to rail service. Just as buses are more flexible than rail, vans are more flexible than buses.

Perhaps even diversify the van pool offerings by allowing people commit to driving in-bound and out-bound at certain times to allow for van hopping. Perhaps a rider needs to go in at 6a and leave at 8p, but no one else has the same schedule--but someone else goes in at 6a, and another person leaves at 8p. You would sign up as a vanpooler for each leg you wish to ride. Let the drivers use the service free of charge (it's the perk for being a pseudo-employee).

Maybe I even skipped a step--if you don't have enough people for a van set up a carpool. Even before that I suppose, a ZipCar/Uber/Taxi sort of service, for when nobody wants to go where you are going anytime close to when you are going.

Carshare/Rideshare/Taxi. Carpool. Vanpool. Bus. Rail. Never without an option, always the most efficient means of getting there.

My apologies for the rambling.

Uberpool and lyft line exist already and use this idea

Editor, can we get a "Slick Vik vs IronTiger" sub-forum, please. Jesus

Note who responds to who first

No. This is about the elevated portion between post oak and northwest transit center. It's basic extortion. TXDOT is saying they won't give money unless there's a guarantee of no rail ever. That is overreaching and unnecessary.

This is truly bizarre and jihad against rail

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/author/dug-begley/

When building the original light rail line, METRO had to rip up pavement to move utilities and prepping the area for light rail* (remember, power is now running up and down the middle of these streets, not just for the trains, but for ticket machines, lights, etc.).

So no, they are not rebuilding the road "for the hell of it".

*"Light rail construction set to begin Main Street turmoil to last for four years", Wednesday, March 21, 2001, Houston Chronicle

In that case it would make sense

Metro should be responsible for rebuilding roads in light rail conversions (and making sure not to have power poles blocking sidewalks) but not maintaining them, that is the city's job. After all, a lot of developers build streets in subdivisions, but maintenance is still left up to the city.

Only if there is damage. It shouldn't be responsible for total rebuild for the hell of it.

Ah. Well there's that one being built right across the street from Minutemaid, by Discovery Green. I thought it might be that one. Makes more sense since they're digging a foundation.

I was thinking the new jw Marriott but you may be right

Add to this list: New, unwalkable sidewalks with utility poles in the middle of them.

That's bad

Considering that METRO forks over over a quarter of its revenue towards building roads (something no other major transit agency in the US is required to do) then I would think that the city should foot the bill for the "street" portion of light rail projects.

In fact, a METRO board member even suggested this as a plan to get the University line built. METRO would pay for the rail lines and the city (using GM payments) would contribute a few hundred million dollars for road reconstruction.

Exactly road cost is a huge portion of the cost

To be fair defective signals and a chilled water line isn't metros fault. Sounds like Marriott was the hotel responsible for the water line break.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/More-trouble-for-rail-lines-as-opening-pushed-to-5762844.php

http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Metro-says-rail-lines-delayed-until-2015-5762590.php

Yeah, just like it's anything else. If you tear up a bit of sidewalk to work on utilities, you replace the sidewalk. Why should Metro be any different?

Well a bit and total rebuild are two different things. It's just using metro as an excuse to fix roads when there isn't money to otherwise do so.

I know metro was responsible on the original red line to totally repair Main Street. I'll have to take a look around the new ones but it looks like they did a lot of work on Harrisburg.

As Streetcars had operated on the same 1890s fare for decades, Houston Electric (the streetcar company) eventually ran into financial trouble. Additionally, they were burdened by the city’s requirement that they bear the costs for paving streets where they extended their railways. This would essentially usher in their eventual downfall by subsidizing greater ease of mobility for private automobiles.

http://houstontransit.blogs.rice.edu/2011/04/16/who-killed-the-houston-streetcar-part-2/

I'm going to put my money on the BNSF route. I recall one of the bigwigs saying there would be a stop east of CS. The BNSF line looks like it runs about 14 or 15 miles east of CS. Also, at least looking at the map, it appears that the UP route is the longest of the three and so would be more expensive and take longer to traverse.

I agree it seems the shortest distance wise of the three

Do you have any proof of that, or is this just another myth?

Really, guys...I am pro-rail (but not pro-METRO) but when nonsense like this comes up, I have to wonder what side I really am on.

Read the history of houston streetcars. One big reason they went bankrupt is a law that made them responsible for the roads they ran on, which makes no sense.

It seems the same rules are in effect today which is why I'm surprised metro wasn't forced to spruce up MLK.

Also there is no money Richmond has been complaining to be fixed for years but yet don't want the university line which would fix it. If that's not hate for rail I don't know what is.

If they did that, they might decide to arrange the drainage so that it flows onto the tracks. Better to have it rebuilt by the city and/or metro in a complete streets format.

They don't have the money to do it that's why when rail wants to go down a road they use it as an excuse to rebuild the road also.

A transformer blew up. Nearby area lost power much of the night.

Building rail will still be expensive. Having METRO tear up the road and not repair it will give anti-light rail people ammunition.

The anti rail people should rebuild the road themselves.