The Voice of University Oaks

I spent a few minutes staring at that thing while waiting for a taxi on Oud Metha Road last night. From a distance, it doesn't even look like a real building. It looks more like an out-of-scale smokestack.

There are still cranes on top of it, so they're still going vertical.

I want to know what kind of drugs the folks at METRO were taking if they really, truly thought that UP would *ever* let them cross their tracks at grade. In fact, I didn't know that it was even permissable per FTA and FRA regulations to begin with.

Sigh...

Spur 5 dead ends into Old Spanish Trail. I live close to it, but never take it. The one time I did take, I noticed that nobody else seems to take it as well.

I use it regularly. It's like my own private freeway to my neighborhood!

Some day it's supposed to be extended to Pearland. Not sure when, though.

Also from the above-linked Daily Cougar article:

There will be an opportunity to move students from substandard housing to this new project," Vice President for Finance and Administration John Rudley said.

Translation: once these dorms are done, we're moving students out of Cougar Place, and it is going bye-bye.

I would like China Airlines to reconsider their decision to end the Houston-Taipei route next spring.

In case some of you recall, when it was decided to sink the whole freeway below ground level, I knew it was a bad idea. The neighborhood above raised hell and said the freeway noise was too loud so they won and this fiasco was placed below. The perfect storm. Heavy rains prove it. Place becomes a huge ocean (remember Allison).

As was mentioned in another post on another thread a few days ago, the 59 trench is actually meant to flood during an extremely heavy storm event. The freeway acts as a detention pond, keeping the surrounding neighborhoods from flooding.

That being said, I am disappointed that the reconstruction of that section of 59 didn't add any capacity other than an HOV lane and an exit to Main Street. I wish that mainlanes would have been added. As it is, the trench contains two bottlenecks in the eastbouns/northbound direction: after Greenbriar and Shepherd, where two right lanes merge into one, and at the Spur, where people try to squeeze out of the left exit lanes into the three continuing mainlanes at the last minute. Not the best design in the world.

You can tell when Tory doesn't like an idea, as he throws out guesses and assumptions instead of actual figures. In suggesting that there would be a problem filling up the trains, he states that only 2,000 or 3,000 people fly between Houston and Dallas. He is only off by a factor of 4. A quick Google search shows that Southwest Airlines ALONE flies 60 planes daily between the two cities, with nearly 8,000 seats. Add in Continental, American and Delta, and you have nearly 12,000 daily seats....just between Dallas and Houston.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who got a kick out of that assertion. According to Southwest's flight schedule, 372 flights operate between Houston Hobby and Dallas Love every week. Assuming that these flights are handled by Boeing 737-300 and 737-500 aircraft, which comprises the overwhelming majority of Southwest's fleet, that's 137 seats per flight for a total of 50,964 seats offered between the two airports every week. Even assuming a relatively conservative load factor of 0.8 (I fly this route on an almost-monthly basis and have rarely come across a flight that is not completely full), that's 40,771 passengers per week, or 5,824.5 passengers per day. A little bit higher than Tory's "couple of thousand" assumption. And, as you correctly note, that's just the HOU-DAL service provided by Southwest. It doesn't include the mainline IAH-DFW service provided by American and Continental, or the DFW-HOU service provided by American Eagle, or the IAH-DAL service provided by Continental Express (although to be fair, the latter two services are provided using smaller ERJs). So I agree: Tory is off by at least a factor of four.

And, despite Tory's (and some HAIFers) refusal to believe that air transit is subsidized, it is an absolute certainty that transit infrastructure is supported by government, whether through eminent domain, tax free bonds, loans or outright grants. And, don't even get me started on the money pit that is Homeland Security.

Yup. In the comments section, Tory also writes, that his "understanding is that passenger and airline fees completely cover the cost of air travel," which is simply not true. While the Airport and Airways Trust Fund covers *most* of the FAA's operating and capital expenses, it does not cover all of them. In FY 2006, for example, $2.6 billion of the FAA's $13.9 billion budget came from general fund appropriations, i.e. subsidies.

There are also other forms of subsidy, such as the Essential Air Service Program, which provides government subsidies to airlines in order to ensure otherwise-unprofitable air service to small town and rural airports, or state and local government "incentives" aimed at getting airlines to serve local airports. There are also substantial indirect subsidies; for instance, tax breaks received by Boeing, which supplies the bulk of equipment owned by the domestic carriers, or the fact that nearly half of the nation's commercial aviation pilots originally received their training in the military, or "fly America" clauses that require government workers and contractors to use domestic carriers even though a foreign carrier might fly the same route at a cheaper cost.

In fact, direct federal spending in avation has historically been substantial. This report was written before 9/11, when the aviation industry received $5 billion in direct government grants. (All this subsidy, by the way, is going to an industry that is estimated to have cumulatively lost $14 billion since 1947.)

I'm not arguing against subsidies for the aviation industry, because all transportation is subsidized in one form or another. Nor am I arguing that High Speed Rail would be viable or successful in Texas. The capital cost for such an undertaking would be min-boggling, and in the long run it would probably be cheaper to partner with UP and BNSF to upgrade existing lines (through replacing old rails, inproving signal blocks, double-tracking, straightening curves where possible) in order to provide intercity passenger rail at speeds in the 80-100 mph range.

But Tory tends to lose credibilty when he makes demonstrably false assertions such as those you've identified. Which is a shame, since I really enjoyed reading his blog when he first started it a couple of years ago.

I think the Jack Pardee thing is Maggard's Ace in the Hole. It says to other candidates (i.e. highly-regarded assistants such as Sumlin of OU or Haywood of ND) "look, I have a football legend who's willing to work for less than what your agent is demanding for you" in order to get them to come down in price.

If the other candidates fall for it, the University of Houston gets an up-and-coming assistant as its new head coach at a reasonable price, and money is left over to hire competent assistants.

If the other candidates don't fall for it, then Jack Pardee becomes the figurehead of a new staff that includes Tony Fitzgerald (who has been pushing for the job), Jason Phillips, David Klingler, et al. He pretends to be head coach for a few years while a successor is groomed. Pardee doesn't do any recruiting or actual game-planning. All he has to do is dispense advice, attend fundraising activites, stand on the sideline during games, and sit in his office next to pictures of Bear Bryant and NFL Coach of the Year Trohpies when assistants bring recruits in to meet him.

If there's one thing I've learned over the last few years, it's to never estimate Dave Maggard. There is a method to his madness. One way or another, he will bring a new coaching staff to continue the job that Art Briles started, although hopefully with less penalties, special teams miscues, or losses to ULaLa.

If METRO submitted EIS documents and New Starts applications that said "Bus Rapid Transit" for the North and Southeast corridors, and received a Record of Decision from the FTA to build "Bus Rapid Transit" on those corridors, then I think it's perfectly acceptable for the FTA to require new documentation when METRO later decides to build "Light Rail Transit" instead of "Bus Rapid Transit" on said corridors. I really don't know what Frank Wilson is complaining about.

The new documents will be submitted, the FTA will review them, and the process will continue. I really think this is much ado about nothing.

I don't know if anybody else has noticed, but Randall's is currently in the process of repainting and remodeling the interior of the Midtown location. It looks nice - I like the feaux hardwood flooring in the produce section.

Not sure what it means about the overall health of the location, but if this Randall's was performing very poorly Safeway would probably not be sinking money into its renovation.

The Mosaic is giving every new resident a bottle of red wine and a bottle of white wine as part of their "move in" gift package.

Today the folks from the Mosaic called my wife (the Mosaic's official wine provider!) and asked how long it would take for her company to print custom labels for the bottles.

This indicates that move-in is going to be happening in a matter of weeks.

The list of extensions and the map generated by Christof were correct based on the longer-term buildout included in the METRO Solutions plan: the Inner Katy line, the Sunnyside line, the extension of the North line to Greenspoint and IAH, the extension of the Southeast line to Hobby, and the extension of the East End line back to Gulfgate. Whether this is what Houston's rail network will actually look like in 2025, of course, is anybody's guess; these alignments are general and modifications to them are inevitable.

I'd personally like to see the University Line extended to Westchase, and I question whether the North extension all the way up to Bush is financially feasible.

Oooh! This is my 100th post! I feel like I have accomplished something!

I don't get it......

Both churches are eternally "under construction..."

Onto a similar subject I know this is U-Line topic and this may seem to be spiritaully (for lack of a better worid) insensitive but the gigantic church on Elgin across from UH is hideous. It's as if they never completed the structure. Its been at least 15 years since it was erected. Are they going to complete it? Either complete it or metro take it. Sorry is I offended anyone.

That place is the Sagrada Familia of the Third Ward!

At any rate, the median on Elgin between Scott and the Gulf Freeway should be wide enough such that they won't need to acquire any additional ROW.

And Chapultepec.

I'd like to think that METRO can assist these two businesses in their relocation process. But METRO has never failed to disappoint me.

I *hate* saying that. I know a lot of folks at METRO. But it's true.

Just out of curiosity, what basis do you see for a lawsuit? The previous lawsuit was tossed.

The motion that was tossed was Andy Taylor's "fishing expedition" wherein he wanted to depose METRO board and staff under oath. That was rejected by the courts, so he turned around and filed a conventional lawsuit against METRO. That lawsuit is still pending.

The basis of the lawsuit, as I understand it, is that Richmond was not the alignment approved in the 2003 referendum.

METRO has just put up an updated map of the alignment:

http://www.metrosolutions.org/posted/1068/...1807.178951.pdf

Wow. METRO now thinks they'll have the money to build LRT instead of convertible BRT on the Southeast, East, North and Uptown lines?

Not only is extra expense incurred by building LRT instead of BRT (more expensive vehicles, catenary systems, etc.) but now METRO will have to lay rails in places they weren't going to put rails before, such as downtown. Under BRT, they simply would have restriped the curb lanes along Capitol and Rusk as "diamond" lanes. Also, the BRT option didn't include a bridge over the UP tracks that cross Harrisburg. Now they're going to have to build a bridge there (because FTA and FRA regulations do not allow new light rail to cross freight rail at grade).

It sounds from Sallee's article that METRO has massaged their ridership numbers and is going to roll the dice at the FTA New Starts craps table to get these lines built as LRT instead of BRT. This quote is an interesting tidbit:

"We now feel we can pass federal muster (to obtain 50 percent funding) by going to light rail on all five lines at once," board chairman David Wolff said. "We can't help but believe that people will be thrilled by it."

Essentially, METRO thinks that building all lines as rail will eliminate the transfers that would be required between LRT and BRT and therefore increase ridership. They also seem to have factored in a construction economy of scale by building all lines at the same time. Whether the FTA buys it, of course, is a different story.

I'm sorry that the eastern leg of the University Line won't go all the way to Eastwood, but given the extra cost and the flood-prone nature of the I-45 underpass, I can understand the decision. Not that it matters; the University Line is going to be tied up in litigation for so long, and Culberson is going to be doing everything in his power to stop its construction, that I am not at all optimistic that it is going to be built anytime soon. We shall see.

Metro is in negotiations of buying 70 LRT cars for the new lines from a different manufacturer, and if the deal is good enough, they will buy the additional cars to replace the ones that are currently used on the Main street line.

METRO's relationship with Siemens has really gone south.

There have been many engineering studies supporting the quick removal of disabled vehicles as a means to lessen "friction" between cars and improve overall traffic flow. The way SafeClear was implemented might have been controversial, but the theory behind it is sensible.

This piece of "journalism" by 11 News - comparing traffic congestion in 2003 to traffic congestion in 2006 and suggesting that the resulting increase can be blamed on SafeClear, rather than on the continued growth of jobs, houses and automobiles in the region, is beyond ridiculous.

I might have taken the report halfway seriously if it had suggested reasons why SafeClear had increased congestion. More tow trucks on the freeways? Delays caused by tow trucks pulling into traffic with disable vehicles? But, of course, this report didn't do so.

I thought Dolcefino's "OMG! METRO employees can ride buses for FREE!" report a few weeks ago hit a new low in what passes for local television reporting these days. But this "report" takes the cake.

METRO has entered the land acquisition phase on the Southeast and North Corridors. They've already bought and boarded a handful of the houses on the south side of Wheeler.

If Dolcefino did his research, he'd find out that employees ride for free at most of the nation's major transit authorities. This is not something that's unique to METRO.

Wayne Dolcefino is a joke.

This bike rack business is completely new to bus drivers. With time, they'll get used to it. Cyclists can do their part by using the racks when they can and by, as the previous poster mentioned, reminding the drivers that they're retrieving a bike when they get off the bus.

I'm seeing the racks used with increasingly frequency on the 25 Richmond, which is good.

I bet somebody at Metro is kicking themselves now for putting "Westpark Corridor" on the ballot, but unfortunately there's no way to go back in time and change it.

Damn right they are. Shirley Lie-bero and the previous Board of Directors simply didn't give the names of the corridors any thought. They just went with their internal planning names for these corridors without considering the confusion that could be (and has been) created.

"North Hardy" should have just been "North," especially since a Hardy Toll Road alignment was dropped during the Alternatives Analysis. "Harrisburg" should have been "East End" because the study area was much larger than just Harrisburg. And "Westpark" should have just been "West" because the study area, again, was much larger than just Westpark (especially given that Westpark doesn't even exist east of Kirby). They got it right with the Southeast and Uptown Corridors.

METRO proposed quite a few commuter rail lines but yet didn't talk to the owner of at least one line (UP) to determine whether it was even feasible til this yr (from the way UP has described it) and the vote was in 2003. was putting it on the ballot misleading the public?

UP attended several meetings with METRO, H-GAC, TxDOT and various Fort Bend County cities regarding the 90A commuter rail feasibility study, which was completed before the November 2003 referendum. I know because I was at several of them. If UP's claiming that they've had no talks with METRO regarding the Fort Bend County commuter rail line, they're simply lying.

I can't speak for the conversations METRO may or may not have had with UP regarding the Northwest commuter rail line.

Side note: Part of Metro Solution site appears to be down this morning, the University Line page.. so perhaps they will have updates with meeting details later today.

METRO's website says that the DEIS is now available, but when I click on any of the chapters I get a "encyption error" in Acrobat. Is anybody else able to read the DEIS, or is METRO just having problems with their website?

- The stadium will be ready for the 2010 season.

Where will the Dynamo play in 2009? Will they extend their lease at Robertson? Or has the relationship between AEG and the University of Houston become too tainted for that to happen?