Some one

The light rail in DFW fails because DART was more focused on building them in old ROW rather than where the people were. It's the very same reason why the Houston metrorail, despite not covering as many areas as DART does, has almost as much riders as DART does.

What's even more annoying is the fact that the Silver Line, which was supposed to be light rail, was later changed to BRT due to cost. And this was before the Metronext plan was approved. So Metro is really inconsistent with these things. Not to mention that a common complaint about the transit plan was that there was not enough rail, especially on the west side. 

I thought they were planning on tearing down half of it and turning the other half into the skypark. 

So they don't wanna, oh I don't know, maybe take a lane or two and convert them into bus lanes? I mean the road is wide enough anyways.

On 1/16/2023 at 7:03 PM, MaxConcrete said:

The Honolulu rail project is one of the biggest fiascos in public transit in the United States. It's a cautionary story for any city looking to build trains.

As mentioned previously, it is massively over budget and extremely late. According to an online report, "Operational readiness is slated for March of 2031."

https://www.khon2.com/local-news/hart-honolulu-rail-route-to-civic-center-costs-9-9b/

The most recent info I can find is that 19 miles will cost $10 billion, or $526 million per mile. This is more than double the original budget. Finishing the last mile (apparently currently unfunded) is another $1.3 billion.

https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hart-history-hawaii-rail-project-when-finished-budget/

Honolulu is not a subway, it is mostly on elevated track. The cost of Austin's planned system was recently raised from $5.8 billion to $10.3 billion, with the tunnel section now projected to cost $978 million per mile.

Of course, public transit ridership collapsed due to Covid, and nationally is still down around 33% compared to pre-Covid levels.

Bottom line: rail transit is obscenely expensive and has low ridership. It's much wiser to build resources that are much less expensive and can be used by multiple modes, including buses, carpools and SOVs. That means managed lanes, as TxDOT is trying to build on the North Freeway.

 

Isn't the I-45 rebuild projected to be $10 billion? I hardly see that as wiser and "less expensive" than building rail transit.

5 hours ago, Heights88 said:

Struggling with the regret for light rail to be built here. Do we consider the green, purple, and red line LRT extensions a success? Ridership on these new lines has been pretty abysmal (even controlling for effects of the pandemic). 

University Line BRT construction is already estimated at $84MM per mile. Building light rail here would likely require at least triple the investment per mile for little to no incremental return.

 

 

To to fair, the purple line and green line were built with the intention of the university line feeding into them. It's like if you build Spur 527 before you build US 59. Also, from what I've seen in the Metro presentation, they expect the University BRT to generate more ridership than the 3-4 planned light rail expansions combined. I think that warrants rail for an "incremental return."

12 hours ago, august948 said:

With regards to moving to and from multiple destinations that are not near a rail station, and/or carrying more goods than you are physically able to lift and bring on the train, that is exactly correct.  If you happen to live by a rail station and all your destinations are near rail stations, and the train runs on a schedule that works for you, then a train might be more efficient.

That issue could be solved by having a walkable environment and an efficient biking and bus system. Yeah cars are still needed by some magnitude, especially if you live in a rural area, but in a large city, having walkable areas accessible by trains should be priority.

12 hours ago, august948 said:

Cars and roads are analogous to the packet switching system used by the internet. 

Trains are a bit more analogous to this technology...

I will never understand this argument. Should we stop driving cars since they have been around since the 1900s? Should we stop using our phones because they were invented in the 1876? Trains in America may be abysmal (although that's due to a lack of investment in them) but that's not the case everywhere else. Go to Spain or Japan and tell them that their maglev and bullet trains are outdated and see how they'd react. 

1 hour ago, Heights88 said:

It's not that rail is not relevant or too old a technology (but that is also kind of true)...it's that it's just not even close to being cost effective. These light rail projects cost $200-500MM per mile (conservative estimates)...highway projects move more people at less than half the cost of rail. The choo choo fans on this board need to come to grips with the fact that cars are far more effective and efficient at moving people to and from decentralized population/job centers. 

Tell that to most European and Asian countries.

Ah yes, this is much more effective and efficient than taking the train.

Now that Houston won the world cup bid, do you guys think Metro will feel more inclined to speed up progress on the University or Inner Katy Line, or even start working on the Metrorapid line to IAH/Purple and green line extension to Hobby? After all, the Red Line (originally the Main Street Line) was built partially for the 2004 Super Bowl.

2 hours ago, editor said:

That makes sense.

In case you, and others, don't know, the reason that people from California say "the" before the names of freeways is due to history.

California had freeways before the federal interstate highway system was established, do they didn't have numbers, just names.  For example, The Seaside Freeway.  When the numbers came along, "The Seaside Freeway" became "The 710." 

It sounds weird to me, too.  And as more Californians spread around the country, I've heard "The" in Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona now.  Ick.

Before you know it we're gonna hear transplants refer to 59 as "The 69".

So should we rename Lockwood Northeimer then?

Imagine if someone sued HCTRA in the 80s because they weren't a "real road agency."

4 hours ago, Montrose1100 said:

I mean, a 18 rail wide super commuter line would be very interesting. 

12 rail lines for local stops and 4 rail lines for express stops.

2 hours ago, samagon said:

the problem here is the name.

TXDoT means, Texas Department of Transportation.

the problem with this name is that transportation is not one of their core deliverable, and they even state that on their website:

https://www.txdot.gov/jobs/life-at-txdot/what-we-do.html

so really, in a bid to be less confusing, they should change their name to TXDoH, or Texas Department of Highways.

the reality is, the bread of this state is pretty well buttered by O&G, it is in the best interests of O&G to see more and bigger highways projects to support more vehicles and higher vehicle miles driven, so they lobby for this to be the focus regardless of who is in power.

it will probably take a federal mandate that says something like "x% of funds released to state transportation departments must be used for projects alternative to highways" before there is anything done at our state level to promote anything alternatives to highways.

The T in TxDoT stands for Tollways.

I don't understand this all or nothing approach TxDOT has. Are they really that allergic to the idea of working with local leaders and residents impacted by the project, even if it sets them back a year or two?

On 7/14/2021 at 7:45 AM, Houston19514 said:

That would be an amazing problem to have.  Let's hope for it.

On 7/16/2021 at 12:26 PM, HouTXRanger said:

I can pretty much guarantee that the University BRT will be one of the busiest lines in the city within a few years, especially if the commuter bus system gets reworked.

While I do agree that the bus lines being busy is great, what I meant is that the buses might exceed their capacity, which could become a huge problem in the near future.

My only concern with BRT is the possibility that the buses might get too busy, especially on the University or Inner Katy corridor.

Yeah I rather they just build the bus lanes and convert the centermost lanes into hov/hot lanes.

So basically this'll be a separate line, but riders will have the opportunity to continue on the Silver Line, right? Also, in the presentation, it also ties into TxDOT's plan to add managed lanes on I-10. Does that mean there's gonna be one transit lane and one managed lane in each direction? And I see between NWTC and the future high-speed rail terminus, they plan to use the 290 hov lane. Does that mean they're going to expand the 290 hov lanes with on/off ramp to the High-Speed rail station, or are they gonna have their own dedicated transit lanes? 

6 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I don't know who said the Inner Katy BRT is the only major project from MetroNext that's "in progress" or what they exactly meant by that, but to be clear, there are at least 3 BOOST corridors that are very much in progress and the University BRT is also in progress.

It seems unlikely we would see ground breaking on the Inner Katy BRT this year.  They are "hoping" to achieve LPA (locally preferred alternative) "later this year." Construction would almost certainly be some months after achieving LPA, if not more.  

From what I've seen, originally they were gonna start construction this year and finish it in 2024. I've seen another Houston Chronicle article that says that it'll be done by 2026, but I'm not sure what the exact timeline is now. Either way, I hope they get started on it soon. We need an Uptown to Downtown line ASAP.

On 12/8/2020 at 4:35 PM, Triton said:

Whatever happened to the America that could build big. I feel like today's America wouldn't have built the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate Bridge 

Let's be honest, today's America wouldn't have built the interstate system.

On 10/11/2020 at 3:22 PM, hindesky said:

Why does this project seem to be taking forever to finish? They don't have any traffic to deal with since everything is closed off.

Because TxDOT.

2 hours ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

get out the jackhammers, lads, they're going to have to widen the bus lanes.
Or, they will do what was originally intended and put a choochoo train down that line because "the buses just don't fit ::wink wink::"

If only a certain politician didn't block the funding for the choochoo...

When I say "Ok" you say "Boomer". OK!

25 minutes ago, DNAguy said:

 

Oof. Karen is the worst.

 

Of everyone who attended this meeting, what percentage of them do you think own a MAGA hat?

 

No need to answer. I've tabulated the results and present to you the Venn diagram:

 

 

 

They're probably the same people who believe rail (or any type of public transportation) is "socialism".

10 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

So did something change cost-wise?  I heard for years and years it seems that the only block to the University Line LRT was political.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2018/11/07/311132/metro-hopes-for-a-strong-advocate-in-congress-with-lizzie-fletchers-election/

Quote

Patman said for cost reasons they’re now considering bus rapid transit for the Richmond corridor, to help provide better connections between downtown and The Galleria.

I'm also guessing the expanded length contributed to the cost. Either way it's unfortunate.

The proposed University BRT should be a commuter rail. I feel like the ridership count and the length justifies it. That and it makes more sense than the light rail expansion plans.

1 hour ago, Geographer said:

Posters on another thread said that Tom Delay and John Culberson were primarily responsible for the cancellation of the University Line for MetroRail.  Now that both are out of office, will  MetroRail include it in their construction plans?

Unfortunately no, or at the very least, not in a while. Metro said in an interview that the reason they can't build the University Line as light rail is due to cost.