Slick Vik

Great location for them to be by a light rail station and the downtown transit center and in the center of the city in general.

One of my transit fantasies (although more grounded in reality and more highway-friendly than my HAIF peers) is to extend the Red Line down to 288 as sort of a hybrid commuter line. The biggest problem with this is Pearland falls outside of METRO's jurisdiction, and it's difficult by vote/impossible by law to add the METRO tax in Pearland, so you'll end up with free riders or a complicated multi-agency system.

Realistically from fannin south the commuter line down 90 will start. And any light rail would probably go to hobby airport.

Rail?! Rail in general tends to be a bad cost-benefit proposition, but why would you ever consider building one when one *already exists* a mile to the west perfectly connecting the Med Center and Downtown? There *might* be a good argument for extending the existing line south (although I doubt it), but there's no universe where it makes sense to build a parallel line!

Highways tend to be a bad cost benefit proposition but you advocate for those. You're ideologically against rail we get it.

Double stack was the plan all along just had to wait for cars from CAF

Actually, I am not trolling. Houston isn't as cool as it was in the 80s. There's more to do, and more restaurants, but it's not quirky and cool. Tearing down the Pierce would contribute to a greater loss of cool. If I wanted urban core stuff, I would move to somewhere that grew that way.

Trollolololololololol

Honestly, that is one of the stupidest responses I could imagine. Neither of those issues is in any way related to whether the Pierce should stay or go.

It is in the sense that hard headed stubborn people didn't want to see any changes and had no vision for the future, because the liked the way things were going because it fit their comfort zone and agenda.

That would be a misguided move on the part of TxDOT. There's nothing wrong with the Pierce as it is, other than needing some fixes at the merges with other freeways.

People said the same thing about slavery and segregation. Get with the times.

Just counting down to the demolition of the pierce.

I think 102 runs more frequently than before now at least.

I've heard of a lot of people having transfers added now that weren't there before, either another bus or the train, however I've also heard the buses run much more frequently for the most part. Once the post oak bus lines get made I can see some more changes coming, more buses feeding into that. And university line down the line would change everything.

One solution is having a stronger Metro police presence at problem stations.

Seems like common sense but metro doesn't do that

  

Which is perfect for Houston. Houston is dynamic and always changing. Routes need to be dynamic as well. Unless we enact zoning and start doing some major city central planning, BRT is the best compromise.

On some routes like bellaire and westheimer west to highway 6 but inner city should be rail I think.

Wheeler station is very busy now. I think this is due to the amount of buses that are feeding into it. It has surpassed downtown transit center in my opinion. This could be a good thing because it's by far the most unsafe station on the original red line. More eyes are better. Probably has some competition with a couple of the ones on the red line extension though. I think the stations near shelters are the ones with issues but what can you really do about that?

On the bus v train debate, my experience is that buses cater to those that do not have a car and need them for mobility. Trains cater to those who prefer the consistency and ease of use. Yes I'm generalizing and yes there are exceptions.

As a business traveler, colleagues and I take rail when it's available, but not buses. Even in a city like Chicago, it's train and walk or if the walk is too far/too cold we hail a cab.

I'd be quite happy to see light rail down the washington corridor. And I'm the same person who has no desire to see the HSR go down that same corridor.

Or those that don't want to pay for parking.

Perhaps true for cities with a heavy rail option. Houston has no heavy rail, so I'm not sure that argument furthers our discussion. In Houston our light rail caters mostly to homeless people and people who park their car near a station and ride for a station or two to their final destination. In Houston commuter busses are very popular. The park and ride system works well. Perhaps that's what the HSR station in Houston will be like?

And It's ASLO my experience that business travelers prefer taxi's and Uber, which is to say they prefer cars once they get off the train or plane.

What does aslo mean?

Some new info on the HSR would be great.

And yes, i will admit that I have a strong dislike for buses. Not that i don't see the utility of them, I just didn't get super excited about the "reimagined" routes because to me, and probably me only, it seems like Metro is patting themselves on the back and the satisfaction with their new plan will inhibit planning future rail projects.

Just my two cents, not trying to spur an argument over buses, haha.

It's a remarkable change. I'm shocked Houston had the foresight to do this honestly

Completely agree. Its why BRT has been successful where its been implemented. Even investing in dedicated bus lanes that are clearly marked like bike lanes also helps a great deal.

BRT is good until the demand is too much. I took it in Leon Mexico, Bogota Colombia, Quito Ecuador, Mexico City and Istanbul. In every case the buses were packed despite 2-3 minute frequency, causing many people to not be able to get in and keep waiting. At that point heavy rail is needed. So why not just build it to begin with if you know the demand is pent up? BRT is ok for a speculative route but that's about it.

I agree about the frequency.

But what's interesting is there was a unique opportunity to observe which mode people prefer train or bus. For a short period of a few months the 50 bus temporarily ran down Texas ave. Up until the new bus rollout I could exit the back of JP Morgan Chase and ride it to Annunciation Catholic Church in front of minute maid. Sometimes it wasn't there when I was exiting so I would just walk to church. What's interesting is the number of people who waited for that bus even though they could have taken the new green/purple line out to the east side. they were preferring to wait for the bus versus riding the new rail.

A lot of people didn't even know the new rail lines were open.

An elitist that rides the bus and train? LOL Do you even know what the word means?

I'm not anti-homeless. If I was I wouldn't live in downtown. I get bummed everyday. If it bothered me I would move. What part of town do you live in?

Are you really surprised that well off people generally do not want to ride our light rail for more than a few stations if at all? Seriously? are you really surprised?

I get that yall want trains because trains are cool and other cool cities have them. I get that you want Houston to be elite like those other cities "world class" even.

But I instead care about people and want a system that moves the most amount of people, safely, cleanly, and efficiently. Buses are the best option for a city like Houston.

I get angry watching an almost empty green line train that cost millions while I see people wait in the heat or rain waiting on the #50 bus. It's the elite who don't actually use public transportation who live out in the burbs that try to divert precious public dollars onto trains when the people that rely on buses are getting less and less reliable bus service. It's not right. It's not fair. Come live in the city and see what I'm talking about.

Have you taken the bus since the new system was rolled out? It's all about frequency which matters most to bus riders. Ask someone who has ridden a bus and a rail and see what percentage say they prefer riding a bus? It's a necessity but the more rail the better.

If you're talking about riders from the Smithlands station to the TMC, that's exactly my point. They ride for a station or two and get off. It's a park and ride. There are park and riders and homeless people on the light rail. Of course there are exceptions but that's the bulk. If they could they would park in their respective hospital but they can't so they park in the surface lot across from smithlands and ride for a station or two.

I almost feel like ridership numbers for our light rail should eliminate the numbers from the smithlands station. That station must inflate numbers by the thousands. The only reason they ride is because parking is limited in the TMC and their companies subsidize the parking and Qcards.

That's not a total knock on our light rail. It is popular as a park and ride for upper middle class riders from the med center. Which is to say people like their cars but hate expensive parking. A HSR station in the NW mall parking lot makes a lot of sense from a business perspective.

I guess we should eliminate 100% of park and ride numbers also then. By the way all the park and ride combined ridership is less than the original red line. What a success.

That's a false assumption. There are thousands of BUS riders who are forced to use the light rail. They chose to start there mode of transportation on a different mode but are then forced to transfer to something else.

If it makes you feel better knowing the ridership numbers are high because of the busses that feed it and the park and riders who can't find parking, well I hope that gives you comfort. But luckily the investors of this HSR care more about profit than a warm happy feeling. They will make wise business decisions because that's the obligation they owe their investors, contrast that versus putting a light rail or bus line where policy makers deem it more popular or HAIFers for that matter.

That's how any system with rail works, buses feed into the rail

What's so negative about his comment? Seems like you're negative on busses. Public transpiration is more than just trains. Don't get stuck on your ways of overlooking the popularity of busses in this city, especially with commuters.

Take a grammar class.

I am not necessarily against rail, but putting rail down Washington removes capacity from a major thoroughfare with few alternates. Center might work as a path for rail, but buses would be a lot cheaper and far more flexible.

I don't think we really need more rail, at least not as implemented by Metro. I also think you are overestimating the popularity of light rail with business travelers. They tend to prefer cars or taxis, so they don't have to mix with the rabble.

I think you underestimate the rail effect as compared to buses. There is a significant segment of the population that would ride rail that refuses to ride the local bus. And for those that would ride either the bus or train, the train is reliable and extremely frequent two things the buses usually are not.

And I don't care if one thoroughfare is removed people can find alternative routes. Allen parkway and center and memorial are all parallel to Washington I'm tired of this city pandering to drivers and saying to hell with everyone else. Deal with it and find an alternative if Washington has light rail.

That's not going to happen either, as there's no good way to get light rail out there. There aren't many streets wide enough for light rail between Downtown and Northwest Mall. So, buses it is.

Jesus quit with your negativity. No no no it's not possible. We get it you're stuck in your ways and hate rail transit and love cars.

Downtown is actually fairly easy to get in and out of once you learn the street grid. Also this grid makes it remarkably efficient to exit as well since there are so many roads that you can take to get out not just one.

That assumes there's a reasonable way to get HSR to Downtown without major disruption to the areas the rail transits inside the Loop. I am not convinced that's possible.

Give me a break nothing is going to convince you. The major disruption is the freight that's already there HSR is much less disruptive and quiet. All I hear from your neighbors is NIMBY ignorance and fear of the unknown.

I'd argue that downtown is not the center of the Houston area. This is based on my perspective of the majority of the population living west, south and north of the city. Sure there are loops that DT is the center of, but there is far less east of Houston.

Also, HSR in other countries does not typically enter metro centers but terminates outside city centers and uses local rail to connect. For example the Tokyo station is roughly 7 miles from downtown.

Geographically it is the center.

Many folks seem to think that the HSR needs to be connected into the transit system. From the business perspective, I think that's misguided and just plain wrong.

The main market will be business travelers. Business travelers don't use transit. They are on an expense account. At their originating end, they will be glad to drive and park since they will expense the parking fee. At the remote end, they take a taxi or rent a car.

The next market is leisure and personal travel, mainly catering to middle income, upper income and affluent folks. Going to the train station will be like going to the airport. Most people get a family member or a friend to provide airport dropoff and pickup. Other folks will drive and park, just like they do today.

Then there's the lower-income and economy crowd. Currently this is mostly served by MegaBus and Greyhound. Many of these folks who don't have family/friends available for dropoff will be interested in transit. But those travelers are not the main market for HSR. They will stick to the cheapest service, MegaBus and Greyhound.

Also keep in mind that people with anything more than minimal luggage prefer to avoid transit. Keep in mind this is not Europe. This is Houston.

So from the business perspective, the idea of transit connectivity is bad business. Eckels comments have been consistent with the idea that people will drive to the station. It will be most important for the station to be easily accessible via car, and also have thousands of parking spaces, preferably reasonably-priced. Is there sufficient space downtown for parking? The Dallas station site already has two currently-unused large parking garages left over from the demolished Reunion Arena.

The station site will also need to support the rental car agencies. From the perspective of easy access, providing ample parking at a reasonable price, and providing space for the rental agencies, the Northwest Mall site looks quite good.

I think there is also a desire to make the station site a major destination. For that objective, more available land is a big plus. The 16-acre downtown Post Office site is perhaps the only suitable downtown site with (maybe) enough space, but so far there is no indication if the recent buyer (Lovett Commercial) is working with HSR, or if Lovett has any interest in accommodating HSR.

HSR will make a business decision, not a political decision to support an urbanist's vision of transit connectivity. It appears that decision will be made once they get all the cost numbers and ridership/revenue numbers completed. The inner loop section of rail will probably cost around $1 billion, so it will need to be worth the price.

I think a Northwest Mall location makes a lot of sense, and would also make the entire conversation about the inner loop alignment moot. Of course, the track could always be extended into downtown in the future. I think ultimately that stations at downtown, Northwest Mall and the Grand Parkway could be desirable.

This is all extremely short sighted and a lot of unwarranted assumptions, and frankly sounds like the perspective of a car-oriented person. First of all downtown is in the absolute center of the city; that speaks for itself. Secondly there are three train lines downtown now and as the system expands that will mean even more. If you go to any country with high speed rail, business travelers are not the only ones that use the service. Same goes with public transit. A good system brings everyone.

Many folks seem to think that the HSR needs to be connected into the transit system. From the business perspective, I think that's misguided and just plain wrong.

The main market will be business travelers. Business travelers don't use transit. They are on an expense account. At their originating end, they will be glad to drive and park since they will expense the parking fee. At the remote end, they take a taxi or rent a car.

The next market is leisure and personal travel, mainly catering to middle income, upper income and affluent folks. Going to the train station will be like going to the airport. Most people get a family member or a friend to provide airport dropoff and pickup. Other folks will drive and park, just like they do today.

Then there's the lower-income and economy crowd. Currently this is mostly served by MegaBus and Greyhound. Many of these folks who don't have family/friends available for dropoff will be interested in transit. But those travelers are not the main market for HSR. They will stick to the cheapest service, MegaBus and Greyhound.

Also keep in mind that people with anything more than minimal luggage prefer to avoid transit. Keep in mind this is not Europe. This is Houston.

So from the business perspective, the idea of transit connectivity is bad business. Eckels comments have been consistent with the idea that people will drive to the station. It will be most important for the station to be easily accessible via car, and also have thousands of parking spaces, preferably reasonably-priced. Is there sufficient space downtown for parking? The Dallas station site already has two currently-unused large parking garages left over from the demolished Reunion Arena.

The station site will also need to support the rental car agencies. From the perspective of easy access, providing ample parking at a reasonable price, and providing space for the rental agencies, the Northwest Mall site looks quite good.

I think there is also a desire to make the station site a major destination. For that objective, more available land is a big plus. The 16-acre downtown Post Office site is perhaps the only suitable downtown site with (maybe) enough space, but so far there is no indication if the recent buyer (Lovett Commercial) is working with HSR, or if Lovett has any interest in accommodating HSR.

HSR will make a business decision, not a political decision to support an urbanist's vision of transit connectivity. It appears that decision will be made once they get all the cost numbers and ridership/revenue numbers completed. The inner loop section of rail will probably cost around $1 billion, so it will need to be worth the price.

I think a Northwest Mall location makes a lot of sense, and would also make the entire conversation about the inner loop alignment moot. Of course, the track could always be extended into downtown in the future. I think ultimately that stations at downtown, Northwest Mall and the Grand Parkway could be desirable.

This is all extremely short sighted and a lot of unwarranted assumptions. First of all downtown is in the absolute center of the city; that speaks for itself. Secondly there are three train lines downtown now and as the system expands that will mean even more. If you go to any country with high speed rail, business travelers are not the only ones that use the service. Same goes with public transit. A good system brings everyone.