102IAHexpress

9 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Yeah, because almost 7% of the Red Line's boardings are at Smith Lands station. 

Depending on the time of year Smith Lands is usually between the fifth to third most boarded station in Metro's entire light rail network for weekday boarding's. It's essentially a private park and ride. Additionally, the official Park and Ride for the Red Line is Fannin South, which is usually the third most boarded station in Metro's entire light rail network. Two of the most popular light rail stations are essentially parking lots. LOL

If the Med Center could offer more parking for its employees, almost 7K boarding's would be wiped off the Light Rail ridership numbers. Shocking. 

https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/RidershipReport.aspx

1 hour ago, Naviguessor said:

Hobby Rental Car Center?  Don't recall hearing about one of these developing. Should happen. 

This is needed to support the high ridership estimates by Metro. Passengers boarding to get to their rental cars will no doubt still be counted as light rail passengers. An easy way to inflate the numbers.  Much like the Smith Lands stop on the Red Line. 

Good discussion of the tax/political hurdles. The only solution I have other than expanding the highway and/or just abolishing Metro and starting from scratch, is to restrict the HOV lanes to Metro buses only. There are too many cars slowing down the HOV lanes, and too many HOV violators. Motorcycles are exempt per federal law I think, but other than that, keep the solo drivers out of there. 

17 minutes ago, august948 said:

 

But that statement points towards making commuter solutions the priority.  What seems to be on the table is more oriented towards moving people around in the city and not so much moving them in and out of the city.

Good point. The issue is the Metro board and their fiduciary duty to their "shareholders" to borrow from corporate law. The largest shareholder, Houston, gets the most board seats (5). Second is Harris County Commissioners court (2), then the other 14 municipal members share (2). For a total of 9 board members. Most of the board members are loyal to "shareholders" in Harris County or Cities on the Harris County border. Accordingly, most of the movement will be intra-Harris County or intra-Houston. 

Again, I'm not opposed to abolishing Metro and starting from scratch. Heck, that's how Metro was created in the first place, by replacing the old HouTran system. 

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

There's a more fundamental worldview disagreement here. 102IAHexpress seems to believe that public transit's primary purpose is to serve people who can't afford a car. If you start from that perspective, you're never going to end up with a decent transit network. You will instead end up with what most American cities have - a bunch of slow, low-frequency bus lines and *maybe* some sort of specialized service specifically for commuters that doesn't run on the weekends or late enough to get you home from going out. 

Mostly accurate representation of my view. But to be more accurate, my view is specific to Houston. Or more specifically to the incorporating charting documents of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. It was chartered primarily as a means to serve people who cannot afford automobiles, AND people who are physically impaired. 

If you believe that the Metropolitan Transit Authority should have a different primary purpose. Then petition your representatives and ask to either amend its stated purpose or abolish it and start from scratch. 

The more fundamental disagreement here, as I see it, is what people -think- Metro's legal purpose is vs. what its -actual- legal purpose is. If you think Metro was chartered to be a New York City type public transportation network, then of course you want more rail. But, Houston is not NYC. 

On 4/23/2019 at 10:59 AM, cspwal said:

Well implemented BRT is a low capacity version of light rail, but the differences to change it over are substantial - you would have to rip up the entire busway and start over with rails.  It's better to do it right the first time

That's like saying, lets build this skyscraper right the first time and make it 100 floors instead of 35.

The busway "track" is just surface road. There is no disruption in rapid bus service during light rail conversion because the bus, is still a bus, and it can just drive around that section of rail construction. Not that hard. 

18 hours ago, samagon said:

this is indeed part of it, and why the loss of the university line has really dealt a huge blow to the overall success of the system.

 

everyone says "See, these two added lines have really low ridership!" well, you removed a component of those lines, people being able to travel from east of 59 to job opportunities in the galleria area, and all points in between without a car would have been huge. the system of added lines was designed as a set to be successful, and when you take a piece out of that set, it's like taking a wheel off of a car and complaining because it doesn't move very well.

Indeed it is not part of it. People can still take the 82 Westheimer and tons of other buses. The "system" is one of local buses, commuter buses and light rail. Our bus system is one the most successful in the country. But even with our successful bus system, the green and purple lines have not been able to leverage that success relative to the buses they replaced. 

On 4/20/2019 at 11:42 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

 the Red Line is proof Houstonians will use it to get to popular destinations whether for work or play. 

The red line is proof that if high ridership bus routes between the med center and downtown are converted to a light rail line, it will remain high ridership route, but at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The green and purple lines are proof that if existing low ridership bus routes are converted to light rail, they will remain low ridership light rail routes but at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

On 4/19/2019 at 3:44 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

But your sample size is too small which is why it seems like a waste. Multiply that 20 mins for every additional trip the train is able to take within those 20 mins and the additional revenue from riders and it all compounds on itself saving hours upon hours of travel time for riders, not just 20 mins total. 

Your sample size is too big which is why it seems like a great investment. Objectively, the additional train trips that the purple and green lines take now compared to the buses they replaced has -not- yielded compounded results in ridership/revenue. Why should an extension to Hobby be any different, this time, to every inaccurate Metro projection from the past? 

If your projections are correct why not just start off with a rapid bus line extension? If the numbers hold up, expand to light rail.

Not sure I would call it a joke. It's public transportation. What are you expecting? It's a bus. A pretty reliable one that I've taken many times to Hobby. Usually takes me less than an hour or about an hour. But I hear you. Buses "suck" and trains don't "suck." But in my opinion, building  light rail at a cost of almost a billion dollars to shave 20 minutes off the bus time (if we're lucky), is not a good use of taxpayer money. 

22 minutes ago, cspwal said:

Bottom line, for me it depends on the size of my travel party, travel time, time of day, and cost.  So is a family going to take a train to hobby to go to Disney world? Probably not.  Is one or two people going on a vacation on a budget going to?  Maybe.  Is a visitor coming in on a budget going to?  Maybe.  It depends on how attractive it is to ride

I agree. But we don't need to speculate too much. We have data already. Public transportation exists and is in use to/from Hobby. All of the types of travelers you mention in your post have already rejected public transportation at the airport. The real question is, how will light rail (at a significant higher cost) be more attractive than the current bus service? 

Outside of Hobby Airport workers, who would actually use this light rail route? Families? No. Single travelers with large suitcases? No. Business travelers who can expense a taxi? No. 

I'm thinking only budget minded travelers who are traveling to downtown. Not a huge a market. 

If I was in charge, (which i'm not) and I had to yield to the mob that wants this boondoggle. I would incorporate park and ride stations along the route, with over night parking available (at your own risk). Park for free or just a couple of bucks, take the light rail to the airport. Kind of like the Smith Lands station. Med Center employees park at the station and ride to the Med Center (also inflates the ridership numbers, but that's for another thread). But I'm not in charge, so that means Metro will double down on stupid and think that if they build it, riders will just come. 

Good article in today's WSJ regarding why high speed rail has failed to materialize in the US. Illinois is shown as the example of why it has failed to take off. Governments are realizing that European/Chinese like high speed rail is not feasible in the US. However, higher speed rail is more feasible (up to 110/mph). The article remains open minded about investor backed high speed rail projects like the ones in Texas and Florida.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-speed-rail-in-the-u-s-remains-elusive-illinois-shows-why-11551713342

Not sure if this belongs here. Mods can move if you want. Saw this in today's WSJ. Renovations on the Rothko Chapel. 

Quote

Houston’s Rothko Chapel, the final masterpiece of one of 20th-century America’s most recognized artists, hasn’t led an easy existence. For a place meant to help visitors transcend their earthly travails, it has faced many. Mark Rothko died by suicide a year before the chapel opened in 1971, leaving his family and supporters to decide how best to foster his legacy in the face of the building’s subsidence, the city’s harsh sunlight, and humidity’s toll on his works.

In the latest and most ambitious effort to finally get it right, the ecumenical chapel is closing on Monday for renovation and expansion ahead of its 50th anniversary in 2021. The octagonal building, commissioned in the mid-1960s by Houston’s de Menil family, was designed as part of a total work with Rothko’s 14 enormous panels, in black and dark plum, to invoke a spirit of transcendence. That was always a delicate enterprise, and the aim of the current $30 million project is to do it better....

Full article with some cool pictures...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-push-to-preserve-a-rothko-masterpiece-11551283796

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 8:46 AM, Some one said:

There’s also been a huge increase in support in rail. The only concern is cost, but if the infrastructure bill does pass, metro could take advantage of that.

 

Whatever hope of new rail infrastructure being built with federal tax dollars, just took a huge hit because of California's boondoggle of a high speed train fiasco. If anything, the feds may want to get money back on wasted train investments! I can see the feds spending money on rebuilding/repairing -existing- rail infrastructure though.

This is a very old table from the feds. But i'm just amazed at how -few- highway miles Houston has. I would like to see more recent statistics. But the case could be made that Houston should add more highway miles. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p11.htm

1 hour ago, cspwal said:

Of course they will have longer commute times

NYC also has the biggest, fastest, most frequent, heavily used, train system in America. It's supposed to be the "best." Funny, I thought more trains=less congestion. 

No matter how you slice it, Houston's congestion is not that bad. Congestion should be measured by not only automobile congestion but the combined congestion of automobile and public transportation congestion.  Because as we can see, standing, waiting for your NYC subway train is a real thing. But fine, if you want to only include automobile congestion then INRIX traffic analectics is the best source in my opinion. Even there, Houston is not even in the top ten most congested cities in America for automobile traffic. 

http://inrix.com/scorecard-city/?city=Houston%2C TX&index=77

http://inrix.com/scorecard/

1 hour ago, skwatra said:

 

2. Chron article from 2018 states 

I stopped reading after you said Chron article. Wikipedia is more accurate than chron.com

5 hours ago, skwatra said:

My further discussion was what life is like getting around Houston and how congested and slow things have gotten in the last decade. LA is a better example, and I feel like that now - rush 'hour' has expanded and the reverse commute has faded. No matter where you are or what direction you're going between 3-8pm its crowded and slow and I would like more options.

You are entitled to your anecdotal evidence. And I'm not suggesting you should ignore your personal observations. However, the fact is Houston's commute time relative to other cities, has actually gotten faster not slower. If you have facts that suggest otherwise, then please post them. 

4 hours ago, skwatra said:

you could make the same slideshow called "Tales of Highway Hell" in Houston and have equivalent scenes and stats.

You could. But it would be misleading. NYC commuters have the longest commute time in the Country. Houston does not. But nice try. 

A nice visual aid of the facts: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/average-commute-time-by-state.html

Tales of Subway Hell: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/11/nyregion/mta-subway-tweets.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

And this from the only city in America where rail makes economic sense. 

It's a question of recourses. There are only so many transportation dollars. How much can we afford to throw at expensive slow speed trains at the expense of more useful alternatives? Once those dollars are gone, they are gone. Houston is not the federal government where it can print its own money.

The bigger question becomes, do you want to invest your limited dollars  in old technology or the future? Trains are old technology. They just are. Those in the pro train debate should acknowledge that. Now, instead if we're talking about investing billions in a 200mph regional mag lev, or high speed train instead of a 30mph light rail then I could get on board with that. But investing billions in a technology that travels as fast at it did when it originally debuted powered by steam is a complete waste of tax payer money. 

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 8:04 PM, Some one said:

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. 

Voting for transit and riding transit are not the same thing. Just ask Los Angeles' metropolitan transit authority. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-ridership-20180124-story.html

The data is there. Light rail in America has just not lived up to the hype. Houston has a choice to make. Houston can be brave and cut it's loses or it can double down on more light rail, thinking light rail will be different in Houston if we just spend more billions and spend more time on it. 

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/

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.

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.