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.  

Agreed that just because Southwest hasn't weighed in yet doesn't mean that they won't.  

 

However, the overall situation is much different now, largely because of the amount of security theater we now have to put up with to get onto an airplane.  Before the Global War On Terror, it was possible to leave my office in downtown Houston, run down to Hobby, get a walkup ticket on Southwest and be at a client's office in downtown Dallas or the LBJ area within two hours.  That's not happening any more.

 

Sure, Southwest started out with the idea of high frequency and low cost on high traffic, shorter routes, using secondary airports.  However, it's now got a lot of much longer fights, and with its AirTran acquisition now goes into places it never did before, such as LaGuardia, Dulles, and Washington National.  Also, it's much bigger in the northeast now than it was the last time the high speed train idea was floated, and competes with trains up there just fine.

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! 

Agree completely and that's one of the key issues that I have with METRO.  Without question, they've hit a roadblock by having to deal with an obstinate Congressman, but it's not like this situation is unique.  Congress is filled with idiots and efficient agencies find a way to get things done anyway.  METRO, on the other hand, seems to be completely stymied by this situation and doesn't appear to be capable of coming up with solutions.

 

To be fair though, it's not just a METRO problem, it's a government bureaucracy problem at many levels.  Government is certainly capable of doing great things, it's just that it rarely seems to actually get them done.

 

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. 

My point is, I'm not pro-Culberson but am a bit suspicious of METRO's studies and what it says as truth. A lot of studies commissioned by organizations with a result they want is often geared to tell them what they want to hear (this isn't just METRO, it's many others too), and I'm not even sure of how they get ridership numbers, but I'm sure thee's a lot of guesswork and assumptions. A theory that I offered earlier is that ridership is a numbers game. Lowball it and you won't get funding, go too high and if it fails to make that mark, you'll have a hard time getting funding again, so the trick is to go high but low enough so that if it exceeds that, the line will be a "huge success" and chances of funds are easier next time around.

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. 

But on the other hand, we also have the "a Westpark corridor will have abysmal ridership" study.

If Metro is telling the truth on the first one, then the second one is probably truth as well, and then building the University Line isn't more than a few years away--the Richmond part of the rail could be built with local funds and everything else takes the rest of federal funding (well, at least some of it). Culberson's efforts will be thwarted and everything still plays out legally.

But if METRO is wrong about their "potential" funds, then "potential" ridership is probably also faulty numbers and the Westpark/Richmond corridor ridership numbers are much closer together than one thinks they are.

Does anyone else see the problem here?

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 tend to favor BRT over rail, but agree that an east-west route will likely generate more ridership than the other proposed line.

Culberson's amendment is extremely specific to preventing rail along a specific segment of Richmond. It still allows an east-west connector, just not on that corridor. Cue usual comments about how it won't get any ridership if it's not on Richmond.

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. 

That only occurs if the House provides general funding without specific conditions.  The House can put specific conditions on funding that restricts the ability of the Executive Branch to spend.  It's commonly referred to as an "earmark" and it happens way too frequently.

 

https://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks-public/earmarks_definition.html

 

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I agree with what Culberson is doing, I'm just saying that it's completely inside his authority to do it.

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. 

With all due respect, that's not correct.   The power to appropriate money is exclusively a function of the legislative branch and is specifically a function of the House Appropriations Committee of which Culberson is a member.  The FTA is part of the executive branch and is charged with dispensing the funds in accordance with the laws set by the legislature.  Denying Congress the ability to set conditions to how money is authorized is a significant rewrite of the Constitution.

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.  

Primary culprit? Although you're right since METRO is partially based on sales tax, to blame the very late start on the recession seems to be stretching a bit, considering that the economy was still doing pretty well up until around 2008.

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.  

The problem with the whole discussion of Culberson though is that, once we get past the blind hatred, he does have a point.  METRO has a very poor track record with managing large projects and I think pretty much everyone agrees that they did a poor job managing the funds that they were allocated from the 2003 election.  I'm also not overly impressed with the job that they're doing on the current projects either. 

 

There's a school of thought that since this is federal money, it's "free" money, but there's a fiduciary responsibility to spend it effectively and I don't think that it is wrong of Culberson to demand that accountability.

 

NOTE - this is not related to Culberson's stance regarding rail on Richmond.

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.  

That could accurately describe many politicians on both sides.

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. 

There are lots of broad strokes being painted: "Culberson doesn't understand mass transit" is one, but I honestly don't think METRO does all that well either (for reasons, see my post on page 1). "Culberson is anti-rail" is another extremely popular one, he just doesn't run street running light rail on Richmond...an important difference, which is irrelevant if you're blinded by love of light rail and the All-Important Original Plan, but it's a difference none the less.

Of course, politicians are supposed to be painted in broad strokes: you can stack those things (anti-whatever, think of your own examples) to make deliciously easy to hate.

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. 

Ah, and the ugly "freeways vs. rail" argument rears its head. A key difference is that the highways actually connect to each other and form a truly national "grid" while individual rail projects don't even do that and are mostly pork. Interstate 10, for instance, connects California to Louisiana, and of course goes through Houston with dozens and dozens of other cities.

A national HSR system (or at least something with potential for connection, providing common gauge etc.) IS rail based, and WOULD be valid for discussion for federal money discussions.

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.  

If we want rail, we should pay for it. Why does the federal government need to be involved? 

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.