mfastx

Those GM payments help transit in areas that will never have any rail, but still have needs. Like most of the County outside the city limits of Houston. Those folks pay a larg eportion of the Metro sales tax in areas that are called Houston due to limited purpose annexation. If all of that money went to rail projects in the middle of the City, you would soon find those areas withdrawing from Metro.

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.

The Uptown Line isn't the "most critical", because even if you're getting it off METRO predicted numbers, keep in mind that even those are estimates to get funding.

Houston isn't "ardently against public transportation". It's a good thing Culberson's there, because who else would you blame for not getting rail lines built?

Sorry to butt in here, but I think that he's talking about the University line, not the uptown line. And I would say it is the most critical because it has by far the highest ridership estimate (and realistically would obviously have higher ridership than the North, Southwest, and East lines).

Agree on the last point. Culberson is ideologically opposed to rail (which I am still trying to figure out why) but Houston as a whole wants better public transportation, as they have voted for more buses and rail when it's been proposed the last couple of referendums.

However I will say that lots of major politicians seem to be opposed to investing any significant amount of money into public transportation, as shown in their vehement attempts to keep bleeding money from METRO in the form of GM payments.

Interesting plan, I like the subway in downtown but I also think that the TMC/Midtown sections should be subway as well. Especially TMC, traffic is really bad out there.

For the subway lines elsewhere, they seem to link into the light rail, I'm assuming that when you say "subway" you mean "light rail in a subway?"

For the east-west subway line, I'd like to see heavy rail instead. Much faster and higher ridership. Over long distances speed of heavy rail is a huge advantage. Unless you get a light rail car designed to go fast (which is rare) but then capacity issues arise.

There are so many uninformed and misinformed residents in the area. They don't know a thing about public transportation, only what politicians like John Culberson tell them.

Remember, for the Main street line, initial ridership numbers were a paltry 17,700 boardings/day for the first quarter of 2004. It took a few years for ridership to rise to current levels, and I expect the same thing to happen with this line.

They should make it illegal to ever do extensive repairs on Richmond so as not to disturb the endangered and fragile businesses and residents in the area that would not survive any kind of construction process.

Ha! Nice one..

according to a few places Southwest would support high speed rail this time. i even just read that at the time of the last push for high speed rail in the early 90s that southwest was confined to only IN state flights.. no where outside of Texas. so of course they opposed the hell out of the T bone or w/e plan it was they were proposing to connect all the major metros in the state. it would of put them out of business. thats not the case anymore and supposably southwest wouldnt mind getting out of the regional game..

That's encouraging.. but realistically any HSR line between Houston-Dallas or Houston-wherever is going to eat a lot of market share from airlines, who will lose a lot of money on those routes.

The highway and air lobby that overwhelms Texas is going to make it very hard for something like this to happen. 

It's a fantastic idea and would easily capture the majority of the air/rail market share if done right and not half-assed.  It would be a very large but great investment. 

I hope something like this happens in my lifetime, but I am not holding my breath.

The Washburn Tunnel was built in 1950. There was zero concern about soil contamination then. Same thing when the Baytown Tunnel was built in 1953.

 

I know, I just think it's rather silly how everyone immediately says we can't tunnel or build subways because of our water table, and we were doing it over half a century ago. 

There's got to be a way around this.

I'm not sure I understand. Why does it matter if it's gasoline polluted soil or not? 

They built a tunnel under the ship channel, don't tell me that soil wasn't polluted somehow.

That Day's Inn is the biggest eyesore in downtown IMO.  That and the parking lots.

Most of the home developers are public companies so their financials are listed on their websites.  I looked at Pulte for example and they had about a 4.5% operating profit. 

 

You can choose to believe the conspiracy theories or you can believe that there are a lot more builders working on lower margins to build suburban homes, because historically the demand for suburban houses has been much higher than the demand for luxury urban apartments.

 

That's the problem with all the suburban conspiracy theories.  People opposed to suburbs need to create an excuse for the reason that the overwhelming demand is in the suburbs, so they come up with all kinds of conspiracies.  Maybe people move there because that's how they want to live.

You must be confusing me with someone else.  I am not opposed to suburban development. 

I understand that there are many more builders building in suburban areas, which is precisely why the lobby for building highways to nowhere is so strong. 

So what is the conspiracy theory again?  That the suburban development lobby is stronger?

Well, considering that the Interstate 10 widening did help people in Culberson's district (and interstates do service more people and industry than light rails do) I wouldn't write off Interstates for that. And while land in the Loop is expensive, I don't know if the developers "make less money": otherwise you would see less teardowns and rebuilds into townhomes or denser.

Firstly, let me make a couple of disclaimers. 1) I am for interstate projects and think maintaining our freeways is necessary and 2) I would rather heavy rail be built than light rail so I am arguing more because of the principle rather than me thinking that surface light rail is the best fit for the University line corridor.

It's just hard for me to imagine that developers make as much money buying already developed/owned land rather than completely undeveloped land and building hundreds of the same house on it. Not only that, there are a lot more of those types of developers that build suburban areas than urban areas. 

I don't even know if rail being cheaper is true. At least in the case of Union Pacific, I've seen them do rather extensive projects on the rail, and the tracks and ties are both newer than even two decades ago since all of them have been replaced. Every last of the nasty, graffiti covered cars in the New York Subway was withdrawn and replaced with newer models in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And back to freight rails again, an Interstate that hasn't been touched since the 1960s will be a rough ride (and they do exist), a freight line that hasn't been touched since the 1960s will be horrifying with the train going dead slow so that it doesn't tip over. CRINGE! as cars gently rise up and down. WINCE! as the engine wobbles side to side. GASP! as what appears to be a train rolling in what appears to be untouched land.

tl;dr, it's not necessarily "cheaper". As was mentioned earlier, you could even use the ancient Roman roads as an "example" of how highways will last centuries, but it doesn't work that way for roads or rails.

When I say rail is cheaper I am assuming that it doesn't need a total rebuild after 30 years or so, rather minor improvements.  And rail is more permanent in the  sense that citizens/developers can rely on the fact that if a rail line is constructed, it will be there for centuries.  Which, contrary to what some believe, is actually a good thing.

In addition, carrying passengers via rail in the vast majority of cases (and in the long term, always) cheaper than carrying them by bus, which is the alternative Culberson wants.  It's painfully obvious he knows nothing about transit, as he is apparently is pushing for a lower ridership, higher cost route along 59.  He also further cemented his lack of knowledge about public transit when his office compared Metrorail to the system in Atlanta (and called it "light rail," lol) when it isn't even the same technology.  It's quite discouraging that someone with so little knowledge about public transportation is in a position to make such key decisions on it.

If you are fine with our elected officials worrying more about the wishes of developers than the citizens they represent (and no, I do not consider a few citizens directly along the light rail line to outweigh the entire region - who would probably be all in favor of the line if Culberson told them it was a good idea).

I disagree completely with that statement.  Go look at the financial statements of a company like Camden, which focuses on developing apartment complexes in urban areas.  Camden showed an operating profit of over 42.5% of revenue during 2013.  That's an insanely high profit margin in comparison to most businesses and is way more profitable than home builders are.

 

http://www.snl.com/Cache/1001182773.PDF?Y=&O=PDF&D=&fid=1001182773&T=&iid=103094

Fair point, but I'd like to see profit margins of suburban developers, do you know where I could find those?

I also think that long term maintenance costs of rail tend to get understated by proponents.  For example, BART, is a 40 year old system and they have spent a significant amount of money on maintenance and upgrades of stations as well as the need to replace the majority of the cars.  Additionally, BART has indicated that it's projected repair needs to the system are estimated at $15 billion over the next 20 years.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Bay-Area-Rapid-Transits-push-to-invest-in-state-of-good-repair-capacity-improvements--31616

 

Not by any means stating that rail's long term maintenance costs are higher than highways, but it's very important to make heavy rail vs. light rail distinctions related to cost and it's just disingenuous to talk in terms of centuries without recognizing the major costs involved in keeping a system running for even 50 years.

Those are very unusually high numbers, sounds like they are doing a total system overhaul if that is the case.  In that article they cite extensions being <$1 billion and yet "repairs" to stations and new rolling stock being that insanely high number?

Of course every 50 years or so rolling stock and station upgrades will be necessary, but to my knowledge they usually do not cost more than the original line.  Hell, give me $15 billion and I'll build 3 or 4 heavy rail lines in Houston that would serve the area beautifully.

It's a bit of strange hypocrisy that some people have:

New Development on widened Interstates: "Grr! Clearly the politician behind this was in cahoots with the developers of these developments! This is SICK and WRONG and we should never do this again. Widened highways, that is."

New Development on light rail corridors: "Sound the trumpets and beat the drum! Rail was built and new things have come! This is PURE and GOOD and we should do more of this. Light rail, that is."

I think it is sick and wrong for politicians to act in the interest of developers rather than the citizens of the city and the will of the voters. 

You see more lobbying for highways than rail because highways lead to cheap, undeveloped land where developers make more money. 

Rail is generally (and especially in the University Line's case) built on already developed/expensive land where developers make less money and see less potential, which is why you don't see any lobby for rail here.  Of course, you'll have the renegade politician who lobbies for rail because people in his district will benefit from it (oh the horror) but this is a rarity. 

Although rail is much cheaper in the long term (over a period of centuries) and has a more permanent effect, it's not where the money is short term. 

It's just the political system we live in unfortunately.

Question is, wll the East End line open only until the station before the still not constructed underpass?

I believe so, yes.

Well, Katy isn't exactly "nowhere", even 10 years ago before construction began (and points along Katy Freeway). As for Culberson's motivation, do you actually have real proof that he wanted Katy Freeway to be widened solely for money, or is that just rhetoric? Furthermore, even if Culberson was in cahoots with the developers, that's hardly a unique situation. You think that palms weren't being greased when they built the rail down Main and other streets?

There are many other freeways in the Houston area that fit my description. 

If you are implying that rail receives even close to the same amount of lobbying as freeways do in the Houston locale, I would vehemently disagree. 

Obviously I do not have real proof since I am not in close relations with Culberson, but anyone who has followed his policies and reasoning the last decade or so can plainly see it.

Culberson didn't lobby so hard for those I-10 funds to make commute time shorter, or improve regional transportation at all.  His motive is money, and that's where the money was. 

This is why all the freeways are being built to nowhere, because developers have snatched up those lands. 

It's not about good regional transportation solutions, not about improving commute times, it's about money.

OT, but it's too bad that they just finished an excellent restoration on that building on the right yet they are still trying to lease it. 

Its in the middle of nowhere now but we're looking forward to it filling in quickly. I drive this segment both ways at least twice a week and plan to continue using it because its so convenient. It cuts down a 40 minute drive I'm half...no complaints from me!

Exactly why developers lobbied so hard for this to be built, they are going to make a lot of money developing this land.

 

mfastx that 75 story building is three blocks away and doesn't loom over Market Square at all. But its looming presence hasn't exactly done wonders for street life along Texas Ave., so I wonder what your point is?

 

Okay, it's two blocks away, and all over the world there are many large towers that loom over heavily utilized pedestrian areas.  It's all about street level interaction.  No matter how tall the building is, if it engages the pedestrian then they will be comfortable.

Market Square is already going to have a 40 story residential "looming over it"...

And just a block away there's a 72 story building lol.

I don't know that there's any reason light rail vehicles couldn't travel at 80 or 90 or whatever, but they don't largely because there's no need. The Main Street train can travel 66 mph but doesn't because of the close spacing of stops.

 

Metro's financial structure is entirely the produce of elected officials in suburban cities and Harris County, plus the Mayor of Houston, who takes the most money from Metro. Plus, the voters in 2012 voted to continue taking all that money from Metro, and while they were at it ended light rail expansion. 

Most light rail vehicles aren't built with speed in mind.  Our cars are the exception, for example the newer cars we ordered are only certified up to around 45mph. 

Once Houston gets bigger voters will demand more transit.  Look no further than Los Angeles.  Houston needs to develop more, grow in population to the point where our traffic is actually bad (not only on freeways but also on surface roads), and grow politically. 

We are decades away from that so it's hard to have a serious discussion about improving transit when we are locked in for over a decade of paltry funding.

Just disgusting.  Classic dirty politics at its finest.  Wonder how much Culberson got paid to pull this off. 

Anyway, I'd prefer any rail line down this street to be a subway instead.  Better yet, tunnel it down Westheimer, all the way out to Beltway 8.  Of course that'll never happen, but that'd be the best rail line in Houston.

While those design issues may be real bottlenecks, it is freeways and other free roads that cause congestion. There's a market principle that if something is free people will use it until it's gone. Likewise if a road is free, people will use it until it's full. Unless, as someone pointed out, you're building new freeway capacity in markets that are declining in population and that's just stupid. Of course there won't be congestion there, but there already isn't.

 

Actually, to be fair, it's elected officials that cause congestion because for political reasons they want to encourage sprawl in the unincorporated areas and do so by funding roads in those areas instead of transportation options where people already are, or relative to jobs.

 

Sugar Land and Pearland and the others need to greatly grow both their jobs and their populations before you can talk about adding high-capacity transit. And except for Pearland none of the places people think Metro should deliver transit are in the Metro service area, again thanks to local politicians.

 

I like the dreaming about heavy rail and so on, but I'm sorry, that is never going to happen in Houston. We might get some commuter rail, which is not heavy rail as that's defined, but that would only be because suburban politicians found some significant money to waste. The 5-line commuter rail system recommended by H-GAC would cost $3 billion and carry 41,000 riders a day. That's approximately what the Main Street light rail line carries now, and I suspect now that it goes up to Northline mall it carries more than already.

Quoted for truth.  I am not a fan of commuter rail in Houston.  We have already sunk so much cost in the P&R system already and it does a decent enough job.  Besides there isn't enough demand for transit in low density suburbs to provoke enough people to switch to justify the costs of a commuter rail system.

It is a shame. But heavy rail is not inherently any faster than light rail or even BRT. What makes it fast is dedicated right of way and minimal stops. Denver and Dallas and LA have LRT running in long dedicated corridors and it's as fast as any heavy rail anywhere. So dedicated ROW for heavy rail is just as expensive as for LRT. 

Right, heavy rail configurations usually have higher average speeds than LRT/BRT because of stops and grade separations, but it is also more efficient on a cost-per-rider basis, and can travel up to 85mph. 

But of course it's a lot more expensive.  Kind of wish we got started on heavy rail when Kiepper proposed it in the 80s when the feds were handing out money for transit systems. 

We are going to have to build a ton of BRT for it to be as effective and transformative, and I don't see how we can even afford that with METRO's financial structure the way it is.