kdog08

Yea but how will people get to the rail? This essentially seems like a Park&Ride rail system.

Why the stark difference? Service reliability (On-Time) - Weighted Average 69% for Bus; 96% for Rail.

Haha, you are really showing your lack of experience riding METRO. I can understand explosive diarrhea or explosive urination (if there is such a thing) but if you have ever tried to ride METRO -2-3 times a week then you would scratch your head and wonder why a bus driver needs James Coney Island or La Mexicana. I've seen that some drivers carry drinks and lunches so they can appropriately plan if they have a known medical condition.

I'm impressed by DART's can do attitude, and I mean that dead seriously, but who are the people that are going to be riding this system that seems to be generally in the middle of nowhere based on the pics? You seriously can't hope that TOD's just spring along the rail over time?

Aw Niche you couldn't reply to me? I bet you are coming up with a zinger!!!! However, let me step in here if you don't mind. No doubt, by far the most employment growth has been occurring outside of BW8. However, would all this office growth have occurred without the freeway expansion? This type of of growth is perfect for park&ride and circulating bus as mentioned by Tory Gattis in his Sept 14 blog HTOWN Strategies Again, one line. Not the most reliable benchmark. But wait? There are no significant employment centers/corridor/areas unless you count Uptown/Galleria. I thought we agreed that employment = decent ridership. However, if you are suggesting "Signature Bus" down Westhimer then you are preaching to the choir. Westheimer past Kirby (at the least) is more narrow than Richmond so LRT is a no go.

Eh? Thanks for your math but it is totally unnecessary, as it's hard to visualize 2009.6 acres. Luckily my old buddy Christof Spieler made these maps using the current data at the time (2007) using 1/4 and 1/2 mile radius. Try to ignore the alternative route and stations (hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can resize them): Wow 6 years? You expected transformation after that short amount of time. And connecting that low hanging fruit, with a higher hanging fruit can't possibly replicate the red line's success? May I borrow your time machine? My flux capacitor isn't working properly. As I said before (you may want to work on your reading skillz) that we should define transformative. As a person with a strong biology/biochemistry background transformative doesn't necessarily mean bold changes but can be very subtle. What is transformative to you since you missed what I previously said and just assumed I meant that LRT would be responsible for all these developments. Yes the land immediately adjacent to the rail rose to high, but 2-3 blocks away saw the most development. Again who said anything about about transformative = highrise land? I disagree and more speculation. Yes I realize me with my obscene 24K/year salary I am not worthy of using transit or wanting better transit. However, these chosen people of yours also work in and in close vicinity TMC, Greenway Plaza, Uptown, and Downtown and they are usually responsible for "keeping on the lights" and providing food, retail, and other services to these large, dense (in Houston terms) employment centers. So I'm not sure if you realized that, because it's not just elitist individuals like myself with +24K/year salaries that work in the loop. I think starting with a LRT backbone connecting our core employment center, universities, and major cultural amenities is ideal. I like an inside-out approach because as you notice heavy traffic flow, HOV system, and park&ride system is inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening. From this LRT backbone we can continue to add park&ride, regular bus service, signature bus, or any other bus service we can come up with. I am a big fan of Tory Gattis's ideas about improving bus service, especially Houston's far flung employment centers Houston Strategies . Building a metro wide mass transit is a long and expensive process and I fully understand the current budget situation. However, we and METRO need to get more creative, find ways to make METRO more accountable, etc.; essentially we need to start over.

I don't think you understand. Right now you are the guy on the left, Ron Livingston: Furthermore, I don't think anyone on here would disagree that this is an ugly building. It sucks this got built downtown, no doubt about it. So why keep b*tching? We already know it's a crap building. Are you Ron Livingston and.... You have every right to b*tch about crappy architecture on a quasi architecture forum (architecture is probably the 3rd most talked about subject on HAIF). But some people, like myself included, don't need to constantly b*tch about it and would rather move on. You can do whatever you want, but so can I.

It is, but it doesn't mean we don't get sick of people complaining. It's throwing off my chi.

That is short sighted and incorrect. Zero problem with mobility? Seriously? The mobility of the inner loop is perfect? We must live inside different loops of different cities then. In 2000, there was ~1 million less citizens of the Houston metro, so I would think 10 years ago traffic was a little better in the loop. What will traffic be like in 2020 when there could an additional ~2 million added since 2000? Simply short sighted.

Which is why I suggested we need to start over with the plans. Furthermore, we might have to go so far as to restructure METRO and make them accountable public servants. Obviously you haven't gotten creative because METRO itself is the problem. Who really trusts METRO to run things competently? It's great there was a shake up in METRO and it seems they got some smart, competent people on the board now. Perceptions can certainly be misleading, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, whose to say the next board members or CEOs won't be clones of Wilson? Perhaps we need to shake things up at the state level and come up with a statewide transportation plan. Texas is one of the most rapidly urbanizing states and do we really want to become a state with infrastructure like CA? You are being very disingenuous. The University Line is miles long, so the notion that " billion dollars can transform a few narrow strips of land over the course of many decades" is woefully inadequate. Try again Niche. Perhaps we should define what we mean by transformative.

I realize b*tching on the internet about things you really have no control over is in vogue right now, but come on people.

No one is embracing mediocrity but what are you going to do about the building? Are you going to boycott ES? Spit on the architects? Commit acts of violence against those responsible for chopping the crown off the building? There is a big difference in "embracing" and accepting "mediocrity". . Perhaps you should look into an adage about lemons and lemonade.

I've heard that idea thrown around. METRO can also sell its soul to corporate sponsorship, although I'm not if METRO is unable to sell advertising space or just hasn't wanted to.

Too much reading, got a link to the cliff notes?

Agreed. But just because we are under sever budget constraints doesn't mean that we should abandoned rail. We should take a look at all of our options for funding. We could certainly get creative. I totally agree. People don't shop, visit museums, or go to college 5 days a week. People generally go to work 5 days and that sort of consistency is why connecting employment centers will generate better ridership. I was merely listing amenities and employment centers that would be served. I forgot to list it would connect our major stadiums! A must for any rail. Agreed on the red line. Connecting Downtown and TMC = low hanging fruit. I will not give you a break. Upgrading and expanding the Katy Freeway in a car centric city will not be transformative. However, adding rail in a car centric city will obviously be more transformative than adding more roads and highways in a car centric city. 10-15 years from now if rail is built, Richmond Ave will become different. There might even be some resemblance of pedestrian activity in Houston.

I apologize. I hate when people generalize but I am guilty of doing. So lets move along. I think at this point we will probably have to have another referendum to get these lines built. I agree the Uptown line as configured is a mess which is why we should just start over. It's unforgivable that METRO'S past leadership wasted all this time and money but we can't just sulk and dwell on their failures. At this point we should focus on doing the Uptown and University lines right.

Well we can leave it at that. This is what you said earlier: "It is not METRO's mission to satiate a desire by elitist transit aesthetes to enjoy a relatively expensive transportation mode that is subsidized by statutorily-limited government funds" So perhaps you can see why I was a little confused by the "elitist" remark as my income I divulged doesn't qualify me for elite status. Unfortunately I had to trade in my 96 Honda Prelude and got $500 for it so it's tough swallow. But roommates certainly help with living expenses, I wish I had some of them. I think if you would ride it more regularly you would notice and emphasize with some of the complaints made against it. But I agree, buses are great, affordable, and usually get the job done for cheap; no doubt about it. Correct. They are one part of transit system that has it's many advantages (affordability and flexibility). It's not for the sake of having multiple options. I'm not proposing/asking for rail down the highways, down our major boulevards, or anything like that. Perhaps you should look at the employment centers (3 of the largest and densest), colleges, universities, museums, the Galleria, retail, residential areas that will be connected by completeing the University and Uptown line. I have no delusions that these lines will be an instant success and revolutionize Houston. These rail lines will take many years to have a meaningful impact but with the rate Houston is growing we will have squandered a great opportunity More or less.

Two objectives that you seem to subjectively moving the goal posts... But anways. I'm not sure how the desire to have multiple options for getting to a destination is poorly defined? Elitist transit aesthetes? Are you talking about people like me who make about 24K/year and live in a 1 BR apt in a 40 year old complex? Again what's hard to comprehend about wanting options? Practical stuff? No I don't know. Please explain. I agree that METRO really screwed up. So I guess your stance is the opposite of elitist? We should only focus on serving the poor? People like me have no business desiring a reliable alternative to driving because I do have the means to drive myself where I want. Honestly, how many times have you rode the bus? I live where I live because I'm hoping to work in research in the medical center. My location is basically between my current job and my hopefully future job. If I get the job in the med center I'm not going to pay those parking fees. Perhaps when I start making enough money I can justify, but until then I will ride my bike or take transit. I agree that we shouldn't build LRT for riders like me, but we should build it for anyone who wants to ride it. Honestly, for you antirail folks what ridership would justify the construction of the University and Uptown line (the other lines should be shelved for the foreseeable future)?

Never suggested we should be grateful but it was one of those things could be worse kind of situations. We got a crap looking building. Oh well. I care more about the building contributing visitors who will hopefully patronize and contribute money to Houston's downtown. Maybe I am the only one who cares about this building being successful instead of looking pretty.

Really? Water taxis Niche? Is that the best you can do? Why would you reject the notion that having options on different modes isn't a valid cause for public transportation? Do you know how much it costs to park downtown or the med center or how much campus parking is for college students?You may do, but is parking cost a valid reason for public transit? What about people who's car is in the shop? What about people in between jobs without cars? What about parents who lend their car to their teenagers and are without a vehicle? What about those, like me, that just don't feel like driving? What about those that don't want to own a car? What about those people visiting and without car? Why do you limit transit to only those that meet YOUR own criteria? I work in a pharmacy at the HEB at Buffalo Spdwy and Bissonnet and live two blocks east of richmond and montrose. LRT won't get me from Richmond@Buffalo Spdwy to Buffalo Spdwy @ Bissonnet but at least I will have a reliable service where the driver won't stop the train to take a piss and/or grab some hotdogs at Jame's Coney Island or the bus won't break down or the bus won't be running 15 minutes late. From your responses, it doesn't seem you actually try and use public transit so perhaps your viewpoint is very skewed and biased. Go on....

So does this look better than a surface parking lot?

Wow this is great for the area.

ALMOST. Would you rather be stuck with a mediocre system or have the potential to have a decent inner city LRT system?

Thank you. I see Niche either "conveniently" ignored your post or just plain didnt see it. Regardless. transit shouldn't be about only serving a population that can't afford/don't have access to a car and/or relieving traffic congestion. I live 3 miles from my job across 59 from Greenway Plaza and the car is easily the quickest and most convenient way to get there. I've tried the bus (it's unreliable and actually had my bus driver stop for 7 minutes to go to the James Coney Island @ Shepard and Richmond) but it sucks. I try to ride my bike at least 2 times out of the 5 days but I need more options. But according to Niche I don't justify the need for transit.

That's why you use the rail.... duh.