mfastx

Going to be living in DC starting this summer.  The Metro there is absolutely amazing.  So fast, so efficient.. it has the 2nd highest ridership in the nation only after New York, and what's crazy to think is that it was built totally from scratch starting in the 70s... absolutely no heavy rail infrastructure existed there before that.  

Back in the 70's lots of people there were opposed.. Georgetown University even prohibited a stop from being near their campus.  Now, it's a huge asset to the city, it's spurred so much development especially in Virginia, and they're expanding it to Dulles Airport by around 2020.  

I really wish Houston had gone DC's route starting in the early 80s when heavy rail was proposed, the government was just handing out money to cities building rapid transit systems.. now we have to jump through a million hoops just to get a few hundred million for a paltry light rail line.   It's really too bad that we missed the boat on this. 

Since we didn't get a head start, we will just have to spend much, much more later.  Like LA. 

I believe it's highest ridership per mile. But yeah, just a reminder for everyone, John Culberson lives out in Cypress everyone. He really should be representing a part of town 20+ miles away though...

For light rail systems, we currently have the 3rd highest ridership/mile, behind Boston and San Francisco.  Still very good ridership.  

Too bad we couldn't build heavy rail, that generates much more ridership than light rail. 

Wow 300,000? Where did you find that figure?

It's the total daily ridership of our bus and rail system combined.  Ridership numbers/reports are available on the APTA website. 

Highest ridership in the nation?  Not sure about that, but out of all the proposed lines, the University Line easily has the best ridership potential.  It's a shame that politics got in the way of this line. 

While I am happy to see ridership on the rise in absolute numbers, could these stats also mean than as a percent of total population that ridership is actually down?

Much of our population growth is happening outside of METRO's service area.  You'd think that with population increases, there'd automatically be public transit ridership increases that go along with that, but it hasn't been the case for the last ten years, ridership has stagnated over that time.  When you have a piecemeal rail system with a disjointed bus system it is difficult to increase ridership. 

I do not know where to find farebox recovery for individual routes, but on the subject of ridership, the light rail extension has added about 10,000 new daily riders on the Red Line, and that number is only increasing.  

Total system ridership is also up to almost 300,000 daily, as high as it's been in quite some time.  I expect bus ridership to increase starting this summer with the reimagining program kicking off, and an additional 15-20,000 more rail riders when the SE and E lines open. 

Trust me, this is just the beginning lol. 

Unfortunately there will always be plenty of powerful folk against projects like this.  

Good luck to the developers, they'll need it. 

I'd like to see direct sunlight on the glass before I pass final judgement.  Looks like a gloomy day with lots of shade around. 

The issue with the HOV lanes is that while lots of people use them, METRO was on the hook for construction costs.  Which was close to a billion dollars. 

The HOV lanes carry buses that generate about 30,000 riders/day.  I really wish that TxDOT picked up most of the tab for these lanes, as they are utilized well by drivers, but not necessarily P&R buses.  If METRO had constructed a $1 billion commuter rail system that only got around 30,000 daily riders (less than the original Red Line which cost $300 million) there'd be outrage. 

DC's system is a perfect example of how you don't have to have a 100 year old rail system to get high ridership. 

They built it completely from scratch.  Obviously in Houston the system would look a bit different, not all the lines would converge downtown like they do in DC. 

It's too bad we missed out on our opportunity to begin building a comparable system in 1983.  

Haha, hilarious going from that NYC pic of a massive metropolis and an unbelievable cluster of buildings to the next page with the sea of parking lots that was (still is, although less so) Houston. 

We've made great progress, but still have a long way to go. 

Don't let Metro off the hook for their responsibility in this. They shouldn't have let it get to this point. 

 

They are a poorly run, corrupt institution that until the recent bus plan sat idly by while public transportation in Houston went to pot. Then the rail took over their focus and they fulfilled the prophecy of their detractors. 

 

What did they do from 1980 to 2000? I understand their hands were tied w/ the whole % of sales tax revenue going back to roads but seriously guys.... WTF?

 

If they could have pointed to successful bus lines that needed to be converted to rail and showed a track record of innovation and competence, then maybe we have a better and more robust system now.

 

They have been a sick man who refuses to die for a long time. It's to all our detriment but its true. They need to be scrapped. The leader of a new METRO needs to be elected and accountable. The status quo doesn't work. 

Idk how you expect METRO to deal with the general mobility payments thing.  Those are absolutely essential dollars and no other major city in this country has anything like general mobility payments. 

METRO has proposed numerous comprehensive transit plans over the decades, METRO was extremely well run back in the 1980s with Alan Kiepper at the helm.  Of course when he tried to complete the system with a state of the art heavy rail system classic Houston politics/uninformed voters got in the way. 

When many powerful politicians are against you and you are starved of funding, it's very difficult to be successful. 

"A landmark to the city...." 

Idk about that but alright lol. 

On second looks, not a huge fan of how far setback the building is and how suburban it looks. 

I guess you can't expect much when it's adjacent to a frontage road. 

Interesting.  I like the top.  Not the typical Houston flat roof. 

Haha, that's great Luminare.  Still boggles my mind that there's an existing freight ROW and the NIMBYs are worrying about much quieter less disruptive trains. 

If there's ONE station in Houston, there's going to be a segment of the population that gets screwed out of easy access, no matter how you cut it, even if you place it in downtown.

I just feel like it makes the most sense to place the station downtown, it is the largest employment center, a good portion of these travelers will be business.  

I like the new bus routes, hopefully the can spur an increase in ridership.  I also like how they've removed some redundant parallel bus routes and routes running next to the rail lines, I think they've used the interaction between bus and rail lines well here. 

Great post Luminare. 

I think most people with knowledge of transportation planning would agree that the optimal location for a HSR station without taking into account cost would be downtown, and a station near Uptown (the proposed 290 area station would do fine) would be even better to go along with the downtown location.  A perfect example of this type of layout is Boston, with the downtown South Station location in addition to the "Back Bay" station down the road.  Anytime you can hit multiple large employment centers you do it.  

Remember, the only reason they are looking at this location is because of cost, it's central enough to get enough people to ride it, and it's in an area where land is cheaper and they can build a station more easily.  They are trying to make money with this project and going all the way to downtown would be a huge capital expense initially.  Hopefully they can make it work. 

Hitting both downtown and uptown is perfect, especially if they ever get that light rail/BRT thing going from the 290 area to Uptown, that'd be a perfect high capacity transit mode that can take people from the HSR station to points Uptown, and of course you have the light rail which can do the same downtown.  

There is already an existing freight rail line going from this location to downtown, so I'm not really seeing the neighborhood concerns argument.  The proposed route doesn't even go through that highly populated of an area. 

It's a shame the politics are the way they are down here.  

Building this on a condition that it will never be upgraded to rail is like building a two lane highway with the condition that there will never be any more lanes added ever.  Just asinine and short-sighted.  

Not surprising at all though and Houston has a long history of dirty politics getting in the way of large scale public transportation projects, especially rail.  And it will continue to happen like this, Culberson will remain in office until he decides to step down, and someone will take his place with similar ideology.  

The only way Houston can improve it's transportation infrastructure is if METRO and the City of Houston get on the same page and we have a mayor who makes it a priority.  That is how LA did it, and it's the only way Houston will do it.  Hopefully it happens within my lifetime. 

Honestly it's not bad looking at all, just compared to the prior render it sucks.  Just a standard Houston highrise. 

Great news if true. 

I'm not so sure. A quick glance at Emporis reveals that..

Atlanta has 366 buildings over 12 stories

Dallas also has exactly 366 buildings over 12 stories

LA has 636 buildings over 12 stories

Boston has 318

Philly has 461

You know how many buildings over 12 stories Houston has? 615. The only city comparable in that list is LA, and I think it's safe to say they have their fair share of boxes too. IMO its definitely easier for "unique" buildings to stand out amongst a small(er) skyline.. See Frost Building Austin. Houston just happens to have one of the biggrst skylines in the country. i noticed you didn't complain about the number of boxes in Chicago or NYC...

I'm not talking about total buildings, we just have a different style in Houston, it's not bad particularly, but it's a shame that this development was going to go against that style and now is just conforming to the norm. 

I don't think Houston has anything to do with it. Chances are this would of happened in practically any US city outside of NYC and Chicago.

I guess, Houston tends to have more boxy buildings though, Atlanta, Dallas, LA, Boston and Philly all have more "interesting" buildings, Houston really loves its boxy buildings.  

Downtown is full of typical buildings, the one that I like is the Bank of America building. 

Disappointing, but hey, it's Houston, it's to be expected.