mfastx

While the light rail lines under construction will serve their respective areas well, I do wish that the most justified line IMO, the University Line, would have been built first. And I'm very hopeful that METRO's "reimagining" campaign to improve the bus system does some good things. When used correctly, rail lines can be very effective along side a good bus system. I'm particularly excited about the proposed "next bus" indicators at certain stops that show when the next bus is coming. I've seen those in Europe and they are extremely helpful. For the next several years METRO is putting their resources towards buses and not rail so hopefully some real improvements are made.

Actually, I am taking into account the $300 million in capital costs for the original red line. Over a period of 10-15 years, the Red line has made up its capital cost in the difference of operating costs per passenger. Don't forget, with each passing year, millions more boardings are occurring on the train. Rail lines are there for over 100 years, in the long run it is cheaper. Other systems haven't fared so well. DART's system, for example, hasn't come close to covering it's capital costs with higher efficiency operations. Not all rail systems are successful like Houston's Red Line. And the jury is still out on whether the new rail lines will have enough ridership to keep operating costs per boarding down. It will likely take a few years like it did for the Red Line for the new lines to reach their highest potential ridership, and another 15-20 years to make up the capital costs. I am also in favor of making a better bus system. But we are going to have to fork over more taxpayer dollars if we are serious about improving our transit system.

Okay forget about the light rail for a second. What's your suggestion on creating a world class bus system? We'd have to: create grade separations along at-grade rail crossings, so buses aren't held up for 20 minutes by trains. There'd have to be indicators at most bus stops indicating when the next bus will arrive. You'd also have to have separate bus lanes on every route so that buses won't get held up in the same traffic as everyone else. Also, you'd have to get mostly new buses so they don't break down. And a LOT more bus shelters. System-wide, that'd cost more money than you'd think. There are plenty of small business owners along main street. How many businesses went out of business during construction of light rail? And how many new ones have opened up since? I can't take your point seriously until you give me raw numbers. METRO gets more return on their investment on light rail than they do buses. It is cheaper to transport a rail rider in Houston than a bus rider. That is a fact.

No. It would take more money than we've ever invested in light rail to create a "world class" bus system in Houston.

Still less than a 5th of the way there! lol

Well it's cool to see they are at least considering it. And yeah, this problem is something that every user expereinces haha. I've seen a lot of "moo's" around here.

Put simply it's the lack of residents. During business hours downtown is just like any normal downtown. The four new residential proposals, plus the numerous hotel proposals wil help add some life to downtown during non business hours. That will certainly help. If I ever live in Houston again, I'd love to live downtown (if I can afford it, lol). It's moving in the right direction, neighborhood wise and business wise.

Agree with Montrose1100. While I will always support infrastructure improvements, redoing any freeway (whether it's above or below grade) is going cost billions, easy. Even more if you submerge. It's a really neat concept and that'd be great if it got done, but if we only have "x" amount of dollars, I'd rather it be spent elsewhere. Such as reconstructing surface roads, and building sidewalks.

Let me clarify by saying that I think it was certainly a good investment. Even though the entire P&R system carries only around 30,000 or so a day, many other people benefit. The HOV/HOT lanes are a great asset ATM. I was just disagreeing with the notion that METRO is only spending money inside the loop.

METRO built all of that, because that's where they run their buses. Every HOV ramp is used by a bus route. They benefit suburban commuters as well, and that's why there was enough will to spend the money to build them. Suburban areas are getting plenty of return for their tax dollars.

Christof Spieler who is member of the METRO board has said this in numerous interviews. It is a very elaborate system with many flyovers. I'm not surprised at the figure at all honestly.

METRO has spent plenty of money for outside the loop residents. The fact is that building rail lines is more feasible inside the loop due to their being a proportionally higher potential ridership base. The P&R system is something that METRO has invested over a billion dollars into. To this point, METRO has been getting a better return on their investment on "inside the loop" projects.

So I guess LTAWACS is back

Thanks. I was told when I was younger that 100% humidity meant rain.

Hmmm well wouldn't 100% humidity mean water? So the city was underwater? heh

LOL, that thing is a joke, not sure how or why that thing got built.

Put simply, no.

I will say that Dallas is getting an increasingly vibrant street level scene downtown and in the surrounding areas though. So while the office buildings might not be occupied with major firms, there's plenty of business in the area from a retail standpoint. Not sure what their investment in light rail has to do with it, if anything, but it certainly doesn't hurt. In regards to the OP, the proposed light rail line in Detroit will most likely spark some sort of rejuvenation along the corridor over the next few decades, making the area a more desirable place to live. However Detroit's problems are much bigger than poor quality of life on one major street, lol. There are lots of cities with poor public transportation that are doing fine. The posted article is pretty laughable IMO.

It is a great idea for sure. Would cost billions, but I'm in favor. If done right, it'd do wonders for the area and would spark some development.

Most economists agree that domestic infrastructure spending has good effects on the local economy. In this case, the half a billion or so federal funds that would go towards the line is a drop in the bucket of the national budget. Like it or not, there's always going to be a certain amount of money earmarked for local transportation projects. It'd be great if Houston received the benefit of those funds.

It's dubious to me that investing in light rail in Dallas is a cause of high vacancy rates. Houston is investing in three lines to go downtown and their vacancy rate isn't rising.

Well this is good news to those of us hopeful that federal funding wouldn't be blocked for rail. Culberson needs to understand that the Richmond alignment was always a possibility when voters approved the line.

Oh I agree totally. For sure highways are necessary, but there are many cities much larger than Houston with less highway lane miles. We've certainly invested a lot in our highways, especially when you look at it from a "per capita" perspective.

Alan Kiepper knew what he was doing when he proposed the 1983 heavy rail plan. While the first line didn't accomplish much and was overpriced (due to downtown portion being in a subway) the full proposed system was quite comprehensive and would have had lots of ridership today. Oh well. A heavy rail plan serving the whole metro area would probably not be quite that expensive due to much of it being above ground in sparse areas, but yeah it'd be a s**t ton of money. It would also be interesting to look at the total amount of money we've spent on highways throughout the whole metro area. This figure would include original 1950s construction and go all the way to today, including reconstructions and maintenance, adjusted for inflation. I'd imagine it'd be a similarly high number. But yeah, good infrastructure costs a lot, that's for sure.

Does anyone know what the plans are for the portion of the block not covered by the tower? Wasn't able to see anything from the renderings. Hopefully it won't be surface parking smh.