mfastx

Completely agree. Europe is a great model to follow. However, they have an advantage in building projects because they have higher taxes and can invest more in their infrastructure. Hopefully Houston can recieve some funding to improve our public transportation.

Good points, but if you take a look at the thread I started (entitled "light rail cheaper operating cost than buses" or something like that) and look at the link I provided, you'll see for yourself that even commuter rail clearly is more efficient both in subsidy per rider AND in cost per passenger mile. While capital cost for commuter rail is rather high, so is the capital cost for freeways and HOV lanes. After the system is in place, commuter rail is more cost efficient in terms of operating cost than buses. For example, even Austin's half assed attempt at commuter rail (the joke of a system called Capital Metrorail) is more efficient than buses in the region. Los Angeles' commuter rail system is more efficient in terms of operating cost than our P&R bus system. However I do support the idea of HOT lanes.

Correct, I was mistaken. However are you talking about inflation of gas prices or inflation of our currency? I think the reluctance to raise the gas tax comes from the fact that gas prices would become MUCH higher. Funding all of our highways and streets is going to come partially from taxpayer subsidies, just like funding for mass transit, buses, and airports. NO form of transportation "makes" money, and in big cities, building a core rail system in addition to highways is definitely a good option. I'm not sure why people seem to believe that buses are more efficient at anything. The FACT is that they carry less people, and they do so less efficiently than rail.

That's a great question, as I wonder that myself. The Main Street Line actually cost about $50 million a mile. To compare, the Katy Freeway cost about $180 million per mile to reconstruct, which is a similar figure. But one would think simply redoing a street and creating concrete slabs (stations) wouldn't cost nearly as much as a 20 lane highway. On the plus side, maintanence costs for light rail are far lower than freeway maintanence costs, as light rail doesn't need to be re-done (at a much higher cost than original construction) like freeways do. The maintanence for light rail is on a much smaller scale.

Like I said we have only gotten federal money once. Edit: oh and we definitely didn't recieve $1.6 billion, we got $900 million. We should have gotten it decades ago. METRO should not have any difficulty securing federal money for the University Line, and still many people are opposed to that line. You should know that. That's what Eisenhower sold it as, yes. The government started subsidizing highway construction during that time period and haven't stopped. Don't tell me that ubran freeways constructed with taxpayer money were built for "defense." It was a mistake to dismantle our rail systems instead of improving them and cities are figuring that out now and are scrambling to build more rail. OK, fair point. However I disagree that raising the gasoline tax is more affordable than METRO's $0.75 sales tax. Gasoline taxes is a flawed approach to subsidizing highways. Not everyone drives on highways, yet everyone that pays for gasoline subsidizes them. Not to mention that since gas taxes only cover about 50% of the cost of highway construction (don't forget about maintanence and reconstruction costs) gas taxes would have to be doubled, which would be more than the rate of inflation. Resorting to insults and bullying, are we? Heh heh you remind me of the "stop Ashby" crowd when it comes to defending your precious highways. I already proved that rail is more efficient than buses, I even started a thread on it. Oh, I do that too. And it sucks lol. I work in the Galleria area and go home towards Montrose, and no matter which way I take (Richmond, Westheimer, 59) it is all backed up, it sucks. I will never go away, I am here to stay! (hey that rhymed)

Uh, no. They have recieved federal money one time, and that was last year. Correct, for METRO, the money is not unlimited. In fact it is like pulling teeth to get the federal government to finance any METRO project. That is correct, under current Republican congress, there has been a severe curtailment of funding for public transportation projects. METRO's tax base has shrunk since it was created, hopefully they can get their full tax back. TxDOT and other freeway construction agencies have NEVER gotten enough gas taxes to cover highway construction. The Interstate Highway system was constructed ENTIRELY by taxpayers. While this road will be a toll facility, all freeways will have to be converted to tollways to have revenue even come close to covering the costs of building highways. It's already been figured out. It's common fact to anyone who knows what they're talking about that in the long run rail is more cost efficient than building highways. I do currently ride the damned bus, and it sucks.

That whole "park-in" thing was the most ridiculous thing I've seen in awhile. Are they trying to show that the highrise will cause everyone to park their cars in the street? How dumb.

Right, I understand that. But TxDOT gets its money from the federal government, and they get whatever they want. They don't have a budget like METRO does, or the City of Houston does. They have an unlimited supply of money, which is something that METRO and the City of Houston doesn't have, which is why we can't improve our non-freeway infrastructure.

I'm totally fine with us pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into freeways, it just pisses me off how a lot of people in this town are so opposed to spending a fraction of that on rail. It's ridiculous. Anyway, the Grand Parkway doesn't need to be built, but it will improve transportation in the region certainly. I am not anti sprawl and I am not too concerned about killing habitats. I'm definitely in favor of building the freeway, but at the same time I wish we could use some of that money to improve what we already have. The condition of some of the streets in Houston is embarrassing.

I find it interesting how, here in Houston, we pour billions of taxpayer dollars into building highways and no one bats an eye. However, when we try to build a ~$1 billion rail system, people cry "waste of taxpayer money, etc." The mentality is so different here than in most large cities.

It's about time they got started. It seemed like those little white things were just sitting on the building, with no other progress, for months.

Hopefully this actually happens. This idea makes too much sense.

Sorry, I just don't agree with saving suburban citizens $20 over increasing the funding for METRO. If I lived in West U, I'd want MORE transit, so that I could actually use it.

West University is saying if they don't get the roughly $300,000 a year they would have to raise taxes? lol, by how much, like a few dollars per person?

Will be there too, very excited!

Looks pretty cool. I just hope that something else goes in place of the Momentum dealership that it's replacing (which is just blocks away). Hopefully the current Momentum dealership on Richmond won't become and empty lot.

What?! At grade?! Are you sure? It was my undestanding that they wanted a bridge over the UP tracks, and that local residents (NIMBYS) didn't want it. So they negotiated and got METRO to build an underpass. I'm pretty sure they weren't trying to cross tracks at grade, that wouldn't be feasable/possible. LOL, I don't really like Dallas either, and I never suggested trying to emulate them!

Isn't METRO building the MLK memorial in agreement with the city? I assume the city had something to do with it. It's troublesome that METRO is paying for it, yes. But I'm not outraged because in the grand scheme of things, it isn't much money at all. I'm more outraged about the East End line underpass deal, and how the city is picking up the tab for east end residents. I'm upset that it will delay construction. We certainly don't need a better transit system. I believe we already have a somewhat adequate system, and we are improving upon it. But I would like to see an excellent system, why not? We are growing and buidng as a city, why not make responsible infrastructure investments? I agree, but I think giving METRO's full share of the tax back is certainly within our means.

I already suggested that we create a whole new "general mobility" tax. That would be more than enough, and would also give METRO their whole sales tax. Agreed. This is why I am suggesting a whole new general mobility tax, which would give the city funds to vastly improve street conditions. Not really. METRO has had plenty of financial issues, and is struggling to build a mediocre rail system (although they will be able to afford it, but just barely IMO). Most excellent transit systems have much more funding than that. For as big of a city as Houston is, it just isn't enough to comfortably build a good transit system that serves more than a couple hundred thousand people.

I understand, but they should still give back METRO's full income.

No. Partly, yes. Just like public transportation is partly paid for by farebox recovery. LOL, we sure derailed this thread pretty quick didn't we?

I completely agree. What's the point of creating a transit system and then diverting money away from it? The City of Houston needs to create a whole new "General Mobility" tax and use it to improve the poor condition of local streets. Give METRO's whole funds back.

Haha, don't worry, I'm sure we all know what the classic parking lot in downtown looks like!

I'm perfectly fine with 48 stories. While we all want a 50-60 story building, 48 is not bad at all. I'm excited to see the rendering!