mfastx
-
Posts
1,457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by mfastx
-
Ha! If corrupt policies was the way New York and Chicago's rail systems were built, then where do I sign?! I kid, I kid.
-
Lovin the soundtrack lol.
-
Haha, same here. Heavy rail is tricky, build just one or two lines, and ridership is underwhelming (see Miami, Atlanta). But it seems to have increasing returns the more you build (see BART, DC Metro). As far as right now, I wouldn't say there is a need for heavy rail, but in the next few decades we are quickly approaching the stage where the investment could be justified. I would absolutely love to work on a project that analyzes commuter patterns, identifies high volume corridors, and figuring out a way to connect those areas as best as possible. All with fancy maps and graphs. I admit I'm certainly biased in favor of building heavy rail. Too many times I have gone to cities with their amazingly fast and efficient subway systems and thought "dammit, why can't Houston have something like this?" My thought process is that Houston deserves better than dinky light rail or BRT.
-
Speed is definitely a concern with respect to the type of light rail we are building, and we are even starting to see that now with the Red Line extension. Which is why I maintain that surface light rail is great for shorter distances less than 10 miles or so, but its effectiveness decreases the longer the lines are. This is another reason why I think heavy rail could work better in Houston than most people think, the average speed for heavy rail systems is over double that of most light rail systems. And in Houston where distances are vast, it would cut down on transit times for people traveling long distances, something that surface rail and local buses can't accomplish. I would like to see some grade separations for whatever mode we end up building.
-
I was told that by someone working on the project, but that was a few months ago so plans may have changed since then. -
Terminal D is in dire need of an upgrade.. the quality of the terminal is much below the par set by other comparable international airports.
-
Another weird thing about DART is that it only serves Dallas and the adjacent suburbs, Ft. Worth and it's suburbs (which is a huge chunk of the metro) are not served, which skews overall transit ridership numbers for the metro as a whole.
-
I don't see it happening either, and I understand the enormously high capital costs that are associated with heavy rail transit. I am just of the belief that the decades and even centuries of excellent transit service is worth the initial investment and occasional facelifts. I would like to see federal funds pay for most of the investment so the local transit isn't saddled with debt. To me, good transit isn't about making money, as no infrastructure makes money. I wish we would have gotten this done in the 80s when the government was handing out money for systems like this, paying up to 80% of the cost.
-
Well, then we have to make sure we do it right. After having ridden many, many forms of transit around the country, I can say with confidence that heavy rail is by far the best transit mode we've got in 2014, and I think it's at least worth a serious look. There's no reason cities like Washington, DC can build a heavy rail system from scratch and we can't (well, I guess DC has a hell of a lot larger pool of money to draw from lol). As far as some of the cities you mentioned, there are some interesting statistics I found from the National Transit Database. For example, in Los Angeles, the operating cost for heavy rail is only $2.20/rider while for light rail it is a whopping $3.7/rider. The cost per bus rider is $2.40. And take a look at Atlanta's statistics, an operating cost of only $2.40/rider for their heavy rail system and a cost of $3.40/rider for their bus system. Miami is a lot higher, with a $4.10/rider operating cost for heavy rail and a $3.90/rider cost for bus riders. With that being said, I think it's important to look at cost per rider for specific modes of transportation as well. Heavy rail usually performs very well in this area. I think that if done right a few heavy rail lines in Houston can be very successful. And for those who insist upon a rubber-tired solution, I just got back from Paris and they have a really cool little tram/subway thingy, which runs on rubber tires and is very cool.
-
I do think METRO should be a little bit open minded when it comes to transit. A few years ago it was "light rail, light rail, light rail" and now it's "bus, bus, bus." I do think a subway should be considered. Even a heavy rail subway, which would require a lot of coming together politically, but would have great short and long term impacts and prepare us well for future growth. I do not think surface grade light rail and bus only is a good long term solution for a city that's growing as fast as Houston.
-
No, the first new routes are going to start sometime this spring.
-
I'm always down for investments that vastly improve infrastructure, but I don't think METRO has any money to even allocate to this.
-
Verrry nice, retail done right. Houston would be one of the most walkable cities in the country if strip centers put their parking in the back or above.
-
A lot of what you describe is what we already have. We do have a very extensive bus network and while obviously there are things we can improve on, the "re-imagining" program is re-working the entire system. I don't necessarily agree that we should employ a Quickline like route on Westheimer, the Bellaire bus route has the highest ridership in the system and the Quickline has been an absolute failure. The only meaningful upgrade in transit infrastructure would be to create separate lanes for the buses or lay down some infrastructure that improves reliability. And once you improve infrastructure anything more than a standard surface road "flexibility" goes out the window, the buses/trains have to run that route to be an improved service. And it's not a bad thing IMO.
-
I never understood why "flexibility" is even an issue regarding transit. Unless it's a low density, low population line, being flexible is useless. The permanence of grade separated BRT and rail is actually an advantage. People know it's going to be there for the long haul, and that the adjacent neighborhoods will always get great transit service. It's the same concept with freeways. If you place a high quality piece of infrastructure somewhere, the city will grow around it. No need for flexibility at all.
-
Hmmm, I actually think the flag is on a lamppost not connected to the tower, but at first I thought the same thing.
-
Better than a parking lot!
-
Parkside Residences: Multifamily High-Rise At 808 Crawford St.
mfastx replied to largeTEXAS's topic in Downtown
Yup. Only good thing about downtown back then was that the Days Inn wasn't abandoned yet, lol.- 1,224 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- multifamily
- ziegler cooper
- (and 4 more)
-
Looking awesome! Thanks for all the downtown updates!
-
The reason I suggest that there are less potential transit riders in the 'burbs is because the lower density allows most people to own and operate a car cheaply. Cars become inconvenient once you get in the city center where parking is a hassle and traffic is worse. Certain lines might be worth the investment for commuter rail, or hybrid commuter rail like the 90A line you mentioned. The reason I hesitate advocating for commuter rail is because traditional commuter rail means trains go to a central station and passengers then have to transfer to a bus or light rail the rest of the way. Our bus and light rail network is quite slow in comparison to most heavy rail subway systems in cities with high commuter rail ridership. Now what I WOULD be in favor of would be a commuter rail type network that doubles as a subway system in the inner city. Exhibit A is Washington DCs system, which is a subway in the central areas of the city but further out stops are far apart and it's more like commuter rail. That would allow people to go straight to their area of employment with minimal transfers (and even if there is a transfer, at most it would be a couple minutes and require no walking). The advantage of this system is better connectivity between suburban areas and employment centers, easier transfers, higher frequencies, higher ridership (both capacity and actual), better cost efficiency, and room for future ridership growth.
-
We've already spent a ton of money on the P&R system. I'd rather we focus our resources on improving inner city transit, not suburban transit. Not enough potential transit riders that far out.
-
Driverless cars are great and certainly are what the future holds. However, there is still a place for rail and buses due to the simple fact that in very large cities, there is not enough space for everyone to have their own car. Even if they are automated, it would still be very inconvenient for people in large cities.
-
It's just not that close to a freeway. Doesn't mean it's "hidden," just that if you don't get off the freeways, it won't be right in front of you.
-
A minor inconvenience? Lol
-
Those areas still receive bus P&R service which should be enough to justify the tax. They benefit from HOV lanes as well, paid for by METRO. I know the argument for GM payments, but I still fail to see the need. Somehow every other major city doesn't need those GM payments. It's just political, there is no actual need.
