Jump to content

mfastx

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,458

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mfastx

  1. mfastx
    Geez, power lines suck, you'd think that Midtown would bury these considering how urban it's getting.
  2. mfastx
    Love the new sidewalk as well!
  3. mfastx
    What's that building right behind it on the same block? Looks unrecognizable to me. EDIT: I see it now, looks slightly different in the rendering.
  4. mfastx
    Didn't it just get a new paint job a year or two ago?
  5. mfastx
    Any updates on construction? I'd snap a pic myself if I weren't in DC
  6. mfastx
    Perfectly fine with this building. I'd like to see Midtown have more stuff like this TBH.
  7. mfastx
    Frontage roads are pretty functional, but aesthetically, cities without them look nicer, IMO.
  8. mfastx
    I guess it's not THAT bad if the poles double as street lights.
  9. mfastx

    METRORail Green Line

    mfastx replied to a topic in Transit

    I realize that, the comment was mostly a joke lol.
  10. mfastx

    METRORail Green Line

    mfastx replied to a topic in Transit

    Looks like they still need some programming to do on the street lights lol. A green light with a train crossing isn't good.
  11. mfastx
    WOW that thing is nice.
  12. mfastx
    Me gusta.
  13. mfastx
    I like it. My only nit pick is no "frequent" service to IAH, but other than that it looks great. Exciting times.
  14. mfastx
    Wow, that looks a lot nicer than I expected.
  15. mfastx
    While this is certainly true, I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario were this would actually be needed. Developments, people, and business are attracted to rail and other fixed guideway (like BRT). The fact that it's a fixed guideway system gives people and developers comfort in knowing that it will be there for a long time. I think that's one of the advantages of fixed guideway transit, is that it can't move. What you propose seems awfully similar to what we already have. In most cases a more efficient way to do transit is to have a few high capacity trunk lines that the bus and smaller capacity lines feed into. Usually the higher capacity line being much faster and easier to use is what attracts the higher ridership. And just so you know, I'm as excited about the arrival of autonomous vehicles as anyone, and I hope a day comes in my lifetime where every single vehicle is completely free of user input, but I still think that in large cities there will be a demand for transit.
  16. mfastx
    In reply to livincino's post above, I'm not quite sure how you think BRT is more flexible. When BRT is done right, it's pretty much as fixed guideway as rail. When BRT doesn't have its own ROW, there is no longer an advantage to a local bus. At least that's what we're seeing from the proposed Uptown line. Many rail systems around the world are already autonomous, and I'm not sure how you make the connection between cars being autonomous and BRT becoming more successful. And rail already has much higher capacity than BRT, coupling cars isn't too difficult either.
  17. mfastx
    I think it would be a good idea. HCTRA seems to have no problems getting billions of dollars for construction costs. If they apply their "charisma" to achieving funds for improving the transit system, that would be great.
  18. mfastx
    More of their taxpayer dollars go to roads in Houston than any other major city. And the money isn't going away, it's being used to subsidize a low ridership and inefficient bus system. 25% of which (at least) is going towards roads anyway.
  19. mfastx
    I never understood why people are so against spending "their taxpayer dollars" on a train that they don't have any intention of riding. But these people don't ride the bus either, so they are just fine with "their taxpayer dollars" supporting a bus system they don't ride? Why does it matter if there's a rail component? Federal funds used to construct capital projects will be used on other cities if Houston rejects the funds. You're paying the same either way.
  20. mfastx
    Well, we do have a hub and spoke highway system which works quite well. This is my last comment on this because it's obvious I'm not changing anyone's mind, but a heavy rail system similar to the one outlined in the 1983 proposal combined with an improved bus network would do wonders for the region.
  21. mfastx
    You're twisting the argument. I merely mentioned New York as an example of rail technology being around for over a century already. How it is financed and the density of the area it's built in has no effect on the lifespan of the technology. A similar comparison to Houston would be Washington DC's network, which has been around for over 50 years now. DC's system is wildly successful, yet it was publicly financed and the density is nowhere near New York's. Obviously a rail system being built as opposed to the HOV system back in the 80s would have costed a few billion dollars more, the fact that we only netted about 30,000 boardings/day with a system that cost that much and was financed by METRO is pretty sad, considering that METRO spent a fraction of that on light rail and got more riders that way. It's all politics though. EDIT: to clarify, when I said "slightly more" I was referring to the cost of subsidizing a less efficient, less utilized bus system as opposed to spending lots of capital costs but making those costs up long term in lower operating costs.
  22. mfastx
    The subways of New York have already been around for over a century. Sure they'll need to be updated every 50 or so years, but rail has been and will continue to be the most efficient way to transport people for the foreseeable future. You get what you pay for. Houston elected to go with the "cheap" rubber tired route, spending over a billion on an HOV network rather than rail. As a result our transit ridership is embarrassing. As a taxpayer, I'd be more than willing to spend slightly more over the long term on a much nicer, faster, and more heavily utilized system. The 1983 proposal would blow what we currently have out of the water in terms of ridership, and I still don't see how anyone can argue against that.
  23. mfastx
    I don't think that initial capital investment is about immediate ridership gain, but rather it's more about a very long term solution to public transportation problems. A system like that would be around for centuries. You must also consider the fact that it's cheaper to transport people by rail than it is by bus.
  24. mfastx
    That 500,000 boardings estimate of mine comes from a combination of bus and rail riders. Considering that Atlanta gets over 400,000 boardings a day, I think 500,000 is a reasonable number for the proposed system in question. A very conservative estimate.
  25. mfastx
    Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to unlinked passenger trips. That system would be a huge improvement over our current one. Alan Kiepper was ahead of his time, Houston wasn't ready in the 80s, too bad the political climate today makes it impossible to build as good a transit system as this.
×
×
  • Create New...