Houstonians Now Want More Tranist and Less Roads!

[citykid09]

Click this listen button within the link.

http://www.kuhf.org/site/News2?JServSessio...ws_iv_ctrl=1521

http://blogs.ridemetro.org/blogs/write_on/...ed-Access-.aspx

Edited March 12, 2007 by citykid09

[lockmat]

Click this listen button within the link.

http://www.kuhf.org/site/News2?JServSessio...ws_iv_ctrl=1521

http://blogs.ridemetro.org/blogs/write_on/...ed-Access-.aspx

Excellent Stuff!

[musicman]

the comments section sure had some interesting comments.

In the interest of full disclosure, it seems appropriate that if you're going to cite Mr. Crossley saying things that reflect METRO's worldview so well, you really ought to mention how much Crossley and GCI have received in funding from METRO for various projects.

METRO has fallen behind on it's rubber-tired (streets) mobility projects, and is reducing vital bus service to the bus transit dependent riders throughout the service area, yet is ramming through arguably wasteful extensions of the METROrail boondoggle, which does nothing to improve mobility for Houstonians. If anything, in my view, METRO's pro urban rail policies have actually caused more folks to abandon public transit.

If the fact that there are millions upon millions of passenger cars safely transporting millions of citizens over the roads of Harris County, 24/7, with the toll roads awash in cash, it is hard to believe the METRO propaganda that a majority of folks would rather park their cars and advocate more urban rail, just to be herded like "Sheeple" by METRO.

[RedScare]

That comment style sure sounds familiar. Ten bucks I know who it is.

EDIT: Yep. Royko really should expand his vocabulary. His METRO buzzwords are used so often that I know his comments without even seeing his name.

Edited March 12, 2007 by RedScare

[GovernorAggie]

the comments section sure had some interesting comments.

In the interest of full disclosure, it seems appropriate that if you're going to cite Mr. Crossley saying things that reflect METRO's worldview so well, you really ought to mention how much Crossley and GCI have received in funding from METRO for various projects.

METRO has fallen behind on it's rubber-tired (streets) mobility projects, and is reducing vital bus service to the bus transit dependent riders throughout the service area, yet is ramming through arguably wasteful extensions of the METROrail boondoggle, which does nothing to improve mobility for Houstonians. If anything, in my view, METRO's pro urban rail policies have actually caused more folks to abandon public transit.

If the fact that there are millions upon millions of passenger cars safely transporting millions of citizens over the roads of Harris County, 24/7, with the toll roads awash in cash, it is hard to believe the METRO propaganda that a majority of folks would rather park their cars and advocate more urban rail, just to be herded like "Sheeple" by METRO.

Here. We. Go. Again.

[The Great Hizzy!]

When in doubt... blame METRO.

[TheNiche]

I know Crossley well. I'd take his input with a boulder of salt.

[dbigtex56]

I know Crossley well. I'd take his input with a boulder of salt.

Thanks for that observation.

Crossley's credibility just shot up several points.

[IHB2]

there was discussion of this GCAC report back in December on the CTC website, both on christof's blog and the forum:

http://www.ctchouston.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=555

it's perfectly predictable that METRO's paid bloggrrrrl would post about it almost 3 months later and then misstate the conclusion as Houstonians "want fewer roads." yep that'll solve the problem of too many cars going where the owners want to go rather than where METRO wants them to go.

[Trae]

Why can't rail be easy here? In DFW, rail is all over the place (it seems like it). They have like 90 miles of rail. Even Austin is getting 30 miles of commuter rail. How hard would it be to put rail on some old railroad tracks, or down Westheimer. Also, there needs to be overpasses over busy streets. Even Charlotte has that:

[dbigtex56]

yep that'll solve the problem of too many cars going where the owners want to go rather than where METRO wants them to go.

How about getting people to where people want to go, and breaking this cycle of more cars means more roads means more cars, ad infinitum?

The Gulf Coast Institute has information you may find interesting.

[TheNiche]

Thanks for that observation.

Crossley's credibility just shot up several points.

Oh, don't be a clothed horse's ass.

The thing is that he's a visionary, but has very little concept of the real political, legal, or economic limitations that must be overcome. In my experience, I've also noted that he has a difficult time understanding that different people do (and should) have unique sets of consumer preferences.

Take the latest edition of Tomorrow as an example. One came across my desk, and I glanced through. Although the presentation was visually-stunning and largely interesting (if not always useful), I am hard-pressed to find anything that was even remotely implementable, much less even a suggestion on how to overcome the barriers. Crossley is kind of like that in person, too.

How about getting people to where people want to go, and breaking this cycle of more cars means more roads means more cars, ad infinitum?

It does not go on ad infinitum, on account of a finite number of cars, a finite amount of fuel available, and a finite number of humans to drive them.

The best way to ensure that people can get to where they want to go is to ensure a quality road and traffic management system. At various thresholds of congestion, different modes of mass transit become desireable, BUT that doesn't mean that transit can or should serve everywhere that people want to go, just that it should serve the highest-volume routes efficiently so as to alleviate systemwide congestion and maintain the best level of regional mobility that is possible.

Edited March 12, 2007 by TheNiche

[musicman]

Why can't rail be easy here? In DFW, rail is all over the place (it seems like it). They have like 90 miles of rail. Even Austin is getting 30 miles of commuter rail. How hard would it be to put rail on some old railroad tracks, or down Westheimer. Also, there needs to be overpasses over busy streets.

unfortunately METRO doesn't plan their projects well enough IMO. sometimes spending more for grade separations is worth it but they don't see that as a solution.

sounds like you're getting light rail and commuter rail confused or maybe you're just confused in general with statements like "how hard would it be to put rail on some old railroad tracks, or down westheimer?"

[RedScare]

unfortunately METRO doesn't plan their projects well enough IMO. sometimes spending more for grade separations is worth it but they don't see that as a solution.

sounds like you're getting light rail and commuter rail confused or maybe you're just confused in general with statements like "how hard would it be to put rail on some old railroad tracks, or down westheimer?"

It also seems really easy when he creates rail out of nowhere. He claims Dallas has 90 miles of rail, when they only have 45. Also, using Austin's future rail, while ignoring Houston's future plans, is not exactly a level playing field.

....why am I debating with someone who thinks laying light rail tracks down Westheimer is "easy"?

[The Great Hizzy!]

Again... when in doubt, blame METRO.

[desirous]

It also seems really easy when he creates rail out of nowhere. He claims Dallas has 90 miles of rail, when they only have 45. Also, using Austin's future rail, while ignoring Houston's future plans, is not exactly a level playing field.

....why am I debating with someone who thinks laying light rail tracks down Westheimer is "easy"?

Laying the tracks is easy. Convincing humans to be less selfish, not so.

Austin's rail plan is pretty laughable. I lived there for five years, and must say the chosen route is inordinately pathetic. And we think Metrorail on Westpark is bad!

[musicman]

Laying the tracks is easy. Convincing humans to be less selfish, not so.

selfishness is one thing, but poor design will kill you everytime. we need to find creative solutions. i'm not really sure METRO and creative should even be used in the same sentence.

[desirous]

selfishness is one thing, but poor design will kill you everytime. we need to find creative solutions. i'm not really sure METRO and creative should even be used in the same sentence.

What kind of creative? I can't imagine any transit solutions that Houston would practically want, unless it involves teleportation.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

The title of this thread is not a reality where i live and not a reality with ANYONE i know. Im a supporter of rail and mass transit but only as an option. Give people the choice to drive thier own cars or use mass transit and not lie and say Houstonians want more public transit over thier own cars. Houstonians want less roads, my ass!

[Trae]

It also seems really easy when he creates rail out of nowhere. He claims Dallas has 90 miles of rail, when they only have 45. Also, using Austin's future rail, while ignoring Houston's future plans, is not exactly a level playing field.

....why am I debating with someone who thinks laying light rail tracks down Westheimer is "easy"?

I didn't know how much it was. I knew Dallas had plans for 90, so I used that. There's is also under construction, while ours are still on paper. Also, I know the difference between commuter and light rail. Commuter is like the TRE and for longer range trips. They are usually put on old tracks. Light rail goes down the middle, or sides of roadways, and aren't usually used for broad range distances.

[desirous]

I didn't know how much it was. I knew Dallas had plans for 90, so I used that. There's is also under construction, while ours are still on paper. Also, I know the difference between commuter and light rail. Commuter is like the TRE and for longer range trips. They are usually put on old tracks. Light rail goes down the middle, or sides of roadways, and aren't usually used for broad range distances.

Light rail functions well as commuter rail too, as in the case of DART. Houston Metrorail vehicles can top 60mph, if I remember correctly. It's funny, really - DART rail has excellent speed and functionality, as well as range, but doesn't reach many useful urban destinations. Houston's little short line connects an impressive set of destinations, but that's about it. The way it is, they might as well extend it down the 288 median into Pearland for commuters.

[musicman]

What kind of creative? I can't imagine any transit solutions that Houston would practically want, unless it involves teleportation.

they can be creative by designing a system that has minimal interference with vehicular traffic so they can decrease travels times which it term would increase ridership.

Houston Metrorail vehicles can top 60mph, if I remember correctly.

but because of its design the average speed is about 17mph.

[713 To 214]

This thread is hilarious.

[nmainguy]

This thread is hilarious.

...and I'm having a great laugh right beside you...

[GovernorAggie]

Again... when in doubt, blame METRO.

I second that Great Hizzy. Here. We. Go. Again. AGAIN.

Edited March 14, 2007 by GovernorAggie

[FoUTASportscaster]

From a Dallas perspective, this seems all too familiar. Before DART's system was set-up, the same thing the road people in Houston are saying was said in Dallas. "People in Dallas want roads, not rail" "No one will ride it" "This is poorly planned" etc.

17 years, 45 LRT miles and 34 CRT miles later, DART is in the process of expanding the LRT system to 90 miles, the T is progressing on a 40 mile CRT line and the DCTA is putting the finishing touches on a 20 mile CRT line. By 2013 DFW will have 93 miles of LRT and 94 miles of CRT. 187 miles of rail and through it all, there has been very little of the we need more roads or widened roads or whatever else the pro-road, anti-transit people have said. Now add the fact that DART has just approved the 2030 plan for an additional 40+ miles of rail and the area will have over 200 miles of railed transit.

How many in Houston can say they don't own a car? Few because bus service makes it tough. Rail service is to mass transit what the freeway is to the current road system, just more efficient with the land use. Without rail, no transit system on a large scale can truely be effective in getting cars off the road. The same can be said for one or two lines.

Houston has a decent start with their line, but to truely be effective, they need almost an infinite amount more.

[houstonfella]

U.S. Cities Traffic Problems

Houston ranks 5th worst in traffic congestion and we have only 7.5 miles of rail. DFW ranks 6th and boasts of 45 miles or so of rail. We all know SF, DC and Atlanta have great rail systems (especially SF with its MUNI, BART and Cable cars). But unless we build a sophisticated underground subway system like NY, we'll probably not move up in the ranks by building a few light rail lines. Not that I am against rail, I think it has its place. Interestingly enough, here are the worst cities for traffic congestion:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.

2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.

3. Washington, D.C.

4. Atlanta

5. Houston

6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.

7. Chicago.

[TheNiche]

From a Dallas perspective, this seems all too familiar. Before DART's system was set-up, the same thing the road people in Houston are saying was said in Dallas. "People in Dallas want roads, not rail" "No one will ride it" "This is poorly planned" etc.

The economic feasibility of DART was (and even remains) legitimately in question. However, DART has been implemented in a much more effective configuration than the Red Line or the planned expansions. The DCTA painstakingly acquired and preserved numerous rights of way for over 15 years before construction began.

Ours, as implemented, is (and most likely will continue to be) possibly even counterproductive--it hurts mobility, yet we paid about $368 million for it without matching federal dollars. Ours is a joke. [Niche hangs head in shame]

[desirous]

SF, DC, and Atlanta are too sprawled out to capitalize on their rail systems. It's not the fault of the rail itself. For that matter, Chicago has an excellent commuter rail network by American standards, yet still ranks 7 on the list, due to the sheer size of the metro area. Rail coverage becomes exponentially less dense as one gets further from the city center.

[musicman]

Ours, as implemented, is (and most likely will continue to be) possibly even counterproductive--it hurts mobility, yet we paid about $368 million for it without matching federal dollars. Ours is a joke. [Niche hangs head in shame]

concur. i'll bet just finishing the katy freeway will drop us a notch.