mfastx

Wow, a beauty!

Wow, this thing is moving fast!

This would be the best thing to happen to the region in awhile. It'd change everything. I'm trying not to get my hopes up though, lol.

I would love to get in touch with Christof or someone from the METRO board. BTW, I have ridden the 102 downtown from Bush. Indeed it is very slow and infrequent.

I generally agree with this, but about the Northeast, remember that most Southwest flights in the Northeast are to and from destinations outside the Northeast. There are some shuttle flights here but they are all smaller planes like US Airways express, JetBlue etc. And those airlines don't seem to have nearly the amount of flights between Houston and Dallas as Southwest, American and United do relative to population. Amtrak takes over 50% of the air/rail share up here, a HSR between Houston and Dallas (if done right) would make a huge dent in the airliner's share. However United collaborates with Amtrak in the NEC and incorporates them into their rewards system, perhaps Southwest might do that with this project.

Very cool vantage point.

Eh, in the unlikely event that this thing happens, I'd be shocked if trains started running any sooner than like 2035. It's a shame.

Tearing down the existing structures? It's a shame that they picked one of the few blocks that aren't surface parking lol.

Very cool Jax, thanks for sharing!

At this point even METRO acknowledges that it couldn't afford to build the line even with federal funds, so I guess we will have to wait and see what their next move is. I'd like to see an experienced head honcho brought in to oversee the next steps METRO takes, whatever they are. Although I do think the people Parker appointed are an improvement.

As far as tax revenue projections, I acknowledge that of course they are trying to make things look good, but until I see other figures I can't assume that the projected revenues would have been inaccurate. It was based off the economy increasing at the rate it was in the mid 2000s. As far as ridership goes, I remember METRO lowballed ridership projections on the original Red Line and it beat those expectations very quickly. Guess we have to wait and see for the next few lines, especially since they need to rework the bus system. Until that, ridership will most likely be less than impressive (light rail ridership increased by about 13% in the first three months of the extension's opening). I generally agree with you though.

I'm not sure I understand you entirely. A figure I saw for Westpark alignment ridership was 20-something thousand, and the figure I saw for Richmond ridership was around 40,000. I concede that I cannot cite any sources but I do recall numerous presentations about tax revenue and ridership projections. Believe it if you want. And that idea sounds good but I'm not sure if getting federal funds for the Westpark section only would be possible, since it is still technically a continuation of a project on Richmond Ave. There are ways for METRO to build the line even with this roadblock that Culberson has graciously offered. A sound agency would explore and exhaust all possibilities.

They're still not done with this?? Thanks for the update!

I'm sure you've heard me say this before, but Richmond would probably generate the 2nd highest ridership of any East-West corridor, #1 being Westheimer. Westheimer would likely require grade seperation however (which I'd prefer obviously, but grade separation is still a mind-blowing concept at METRO). Westpark ridership would be dismal. Ironically, Culberson's supposed "preferred alignment" is to take it next to 59 and down Westpark. It would cost more money and attract less riders. It's ironic that Culberson is proposing something that would be a less efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Right, I understand the processes behind it, and I agree that it happens too frequently. Very frustrating to say the least, hopefully some semblance of the line eventually gets built. IMO an east-west line is really the only line worth spending money on at this point.

I was under the impression that the house appropriates the number of federal dollars to go towards transit, and the FTA decides specifically which cities/transit authorities are worthy of said funds. How is what I stated incorrect? What Culberson is doing is just a petty tactic and it's solely political. He is clueless when it comes to transit, it's a shame that the appropriations committee isn't made up of more knowledgeable individuals.

I have seen multiple graphics in METRO presentations showing the amount of tax revenue they would have had if the recession didn't hit. It would have been enough to build the University Line entirely with local funds.

He might have a point to ask questions about METRO, but to make it a federal crime to allocate federal dollars on two specific proposed rail corridors because some campaign contributors have special interests in the matter is ridiculous. If he's worried about METRO being fiscally responsible then he should settle the matter locally. METRO is doing a fine job on their current projects. And let's not pretend that METRO just pissed away money from the 2003 referendum, the economic recession was the primary culprit in METRO not being able to complete the University line at this point. It's not Culberson's job to determine if METRO qualifies for transportation funds. It's the FTA's job. They thoroughly investigated METRO more than usual and determined that they qualified for federal funds on the currently under construction lines. The new METRO leadership has done a lot to repair its relationship with the FTA and even got a ROD for the University Line should they choose to proceed to ask for federal funds. It's painfully obvious that this is solely political and I would argue that Culberson doesn't know any more than the FTA does about METRO and their ability to responsibly construct the line. These petty actions by Culberson 100% relate to his stance regarding rail on Richmond. He has said numerous times that he wants a Westpark alignment and the fact that he specifically prevented rail on Richmond and Post Oak and not the other lines is proof enough for me that he doesn't give two shits about financial accountability form METRO.

Kind of surprising that Ted Poe of all people is trying to stick up for the light rail. I am not a huge fan of light rail either, but the language specifically says "light or heavy rail," and that I have issue with.

True, but there are a select few politicians who would go through the length he just went through to stop a project that was voted on and approved.

Culberson's gonna Culberson. All he knows is politics, not transportation. Ugh.

Culberson doesn't want rail on Richmond period. Doesn't matter if it's street running, elevated or submerged. This isn't necessarily because he's opposed to rail, but obviously some very "important" people to Culberson are opposed, so of course he will be as well. It's not about what's best for Houston, it's about politics. Personally I think that the best east-west rail route would be a subway line down Westheimer, all the way out to Beltway 8, but whatever. The closest Houston came to having a robust transit system was the 80s. It's been all downhill from there. And BTW, I agree with you about METRO not knowing much about transit either. It's all very frustrating.

I'd say that there are plenty of federal funds going towards highways that only impact the region locally. Loop 610 for instance is federally funded but is completely local. Many local toll roads also get federal funds. Anyway, the "federal funds shouldn't go towards local rail transit" argument is just simply unrealistic to begin with. It happens and it's been happening for decades. The only thing to debate at this point is what cities should get the funds to upgrade their transportation systems, and I don't know why anyone that supports the city of Houston wouldn't want money invested in their region. As for the Richmond Ave. corridor, it's a shame that Congressman Culberson can make these decisions anyway, as he lacks basic knowledge about public transportation, and it is evident in his public statements on light rail. What we need to solve this issue is a strong mayor who makes it a priority to construct a high capacity, high ridership east-west corridor. We can find a way to get it done.

The way METRO is currently funded, it's nearly impossible to make significant public investments without drastically cutting current service. It's the same reason why we use federal dollars to maintain airports and highways locally. If we don't take the money it will go elsewhere anyway.

I want rail, but I want the type of rail they have in DC instead of light rail. Much faster/better. Still support light rail in Houston if the only alternative is local bus service. Sent the email.