When Will The Light Rail & Commuter Rails Start Construction?

[ricco67]

You know me. It has worsened my quality of life. Therefore, the above is false.

And when I say "our", I mean "society" and "on the whole." In no way do I mean to imply that every single person is hurt by METRO rail...only most people.

Okay, Niche, How do you figure it has worsened MOST people's lives? Remember about our conversation between the difference of "Ignorance" and "Stupidity."

Well, they're both gone now, right? May we please proceed?

Unfortunately, Delay left a legacy as far as our having to VOTE for every expansion planned by Metro. That alone ties METRO's hands when it comes to putting in additional lines. Culberson is only carrying on what Delay wants and is basically throwing obstacle after obstacle into METRO's path.

[TheNiche]

Okay, Niche, How do you figure it has worsened MOST people's lives? Remember about our conversation between the difference of "Ignorance" and "Stupidity."

1) It cost a hell of a lot of money to build, maintain, and operate, which everybody in the METRO service area has to pony up for; 2) its average rate of speed is currently only 19mph under optimal conditions, and it is sure to be lower once the signal timing is implemented; 3) rerouting of busses has increased the number of transfers, and for many of its own users, total trip time, 4) most of its ridership was previously already using transit in one form or another, and its location is a little akward for P&R use such as that it doesn't actually displace too many cars from the road; 5) up until now, signal priority has caused severe traffic congestion in a few spots, and in the downtown area causes people to have to sit through an extra cycle about one in every four attempts at crossing Main Street; 6) the opportunity cost in lane miles which can be used by auto traffic has displaced vehicles onto parallel streets--not so much a problem for the Red Line, but it'll be really bad for the University line in the Montrose area; 7) its implementation resulted in the closure of many businesses along Main Street, and its effect on traffic patterns has even resulted in the closure of businesses several years after completion; 8) it has not spurred the development as was advertised, and that it failed to do so was the impetus for METRO to start distoring land markets by offering subsidies which removed property from the tax rolls of the County, City, and HISD, and; 9) capacity limitations make it probable that some amount of reconstruction will be necessary within the forseeable future.

[citykid09]

I have truley given up on METRO Rail, its useless and stupid. A rail system with its own right of way is the only solution and until a rail system like that is built this thing is a waste of time and mney. All Houston has to hope for is commuter rail, if thats still going to happen.

Why not make use of the HOV lanes and put rail down the freeways?

[musicman]

Why not make use of the HOV lanes and put rail down the freeways?

less flexibility

[desirous]

Can someone please explain to me how Charlotte was able to build their rail the way it is and Houston a larger city can't? Does the Government not like Houston?

Correct. The State of North Carolina did a lot of the heavy lifting for Charlotte. I still haven't figured out what the Texas state government is good for.

[RedScare]

Can someone please explain to me how Charlotte was able to build their rail the way it is and Houston a larger city can't? Does the Government not like Houston?

Charlotte light rail

Houston light rail

Charlotte light rail

9.5 miles

Houston light rail

7.5 miles

I don't know. You got me. You could start by telling how different theirs is.

[Trae]

Another stupid move to make this stupid on street rail even stupider: http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/kho...0cc4e7.html?npc

I'm with the anti rail people now, whats the use of having rail like this when you can just ride a bus. Give the people a real mass transit system or don't give them one at all, its a waste of money.

What exactly are you mad about?

[citykid09]

What exactly are you mad about?

The fact that the rail will be on the street with cars, and hav to stop a lights.

And RedScare, the Charlotte rail unlike the Houston rail, does not fully run on the street. Charlotte's rail works more like heavy rail in other cities.

You people that do not see a problem with Houston's rail, tell me how is a rail that stops at traffic lights any more affective than a bus?

[Trae]

The fact that the rail will be on the street with cars, and hav to stop a lights.

And RedScare, the Charlotte rail unlike the Houston rail, does not fully run on the street. Charlotte's rail works more like heavy rail in other cities.

You people that do not see a problem with Houston's rail, tell me how is a rail that stops at traffic lights any more affective than a bus?

Let's think of some other light rail systems that run in streets: San Francisco, Boston, Portland, etc. Not all of the expansion will be in the streets. There are some sections with dedicated ROW, and a underground section on the Uptown Line.

Nothing wrong with having it in the streets. Look at the ridership numbers for the Red Line.

[citykid09]

Let's think of some other light rail systems that run in streets: San Francisco, Boston, Portland, etc. Not all of the expansion will be in the streets. There are some sections with dedicated ROW, and a underground section on the Uptown Line.

Nothing wrong with having it in the streets. Look at the ridership numbers for the Red Line.

SF and Boston both have heavy rail in addition to what they have on the streets, so until Houston gets on par with them they don't compare.

I have rode the rails in SF, Boston and Houston, and Houston's is laughable compared to theres. The light rail and maybe some commuter rail is it for Houston, Boston and SF have many rail choices in addition to their light rail. And I don't think Boston's rail goes on the streets, I have ridden the green line from Newton to Downtown and I don't remember it ever going on the streets. I do remember it going into subways though.

[Trae]

SF and Boston both have heavy rail in addition to what they have on the streets, so until Houston gets on par with them they don't compare.

It Houston will get there. It may not get heavy rail (no one really is outside of Los Angeles), but it will get commuter rail. BART acts as the Bay Area's commuter system anyway. Yeah, there is another commuter rail agency, but BART's layout is that off a commuter system.

I have rode the rails in SF, Boston and Houston, and Houston's is laughable compared to theres. The light rail and maybe some commuter rail is it for Houston, Boston and SF have many rail choices in addition to their light rail. And I don't think Boston's rail goes on the streets, I have ridden the green line from Newton to Downtown and I don't remember it ever going on the streets. I do remember it going into subways though.

Open your eyes maybe? The Green Line in Boston is mostly run in the streets. And the only other rail choice Boston and SF would have over Houston is heavy rail. So really, who cares? They don't have Park and Ride systems like Houston does.

[Spades]

From the looks of that picture of Charlotte, it looks like their rail is like St. Louis light rail. Meaning, they have their own ROW and run like a heavy-rail system. I honestly do not see a problem running down the street in non-congested neighborhoods or areas that have no chance to become very dense. But in areas like downtown, a subway is the best option. I do know that's expensive though and I don't think Charlotte's light rail system reaches downtown yet. Let's see what decision they make when it actually does run downtown.

About the lights. I have to admit. That's stupid. Just another bus IMO. So it affects traffic. Boohoo. Hope that helps you out the car sometimes. I say let metro continue to control the lights. Trains do not take long to cross anyway. They can wait a minute.

[Jax]

SF and Boston both have heavy rail in addition to what they have on the streets, so until Houston gets on par with them they don't compare.

I have rode the rails in SF, Boston and Houston, and Houston's is laughable compared to theres. The light rail and maybe some commuter rail is it for Houston, Boston and SF have many rail choices in addition to their light rail. And I don't think Boston's rail goes on the streets, I have ridden the green line from Newton to Downtown and I don't remember it ever going on the streets. I do remember it going into subways though.

It's not about whether Houston's is laughable compared to other cities or whether other cities have underground options or whatever. My original question is how do these cities deal with traffic signals? Maybe Houston could learn from them in that regard. SF has tones of light rail that is on the streets, and it seems to work. The only underground part in SF is a straight line on market street.

Toronto also has lots of light rail in the streets that works. Let's try to figure out what these other cities are doing right that Houston isn't. Toronto also has a subway but that is irrelevant in the discussion of how they make their light rail work and share streets with cars...

The good thing about dealing with traffic signals is that it's not something that is permanent and can't be changed. Didn't they say something about renegotiating the traffic signal thing if the City of Houston delays the trains more than a certain amount?

Edited May 23, 2008 by Jax

[Trae]

From the looks of that picture of Charlotte, it looks like their rail is like St. Louis light rail. Meaning, they have their own ROW and run like a heavy-rail system. I honestly do not see a problem running down the street in non-congested neighborhoods or areas that have no chance to become very dense. But in areas like downtown, a subway is the best option. I do know that's expensive though and I don't think Charlotte's light rail system reaches downtown yet. Let's see what decision they make when it actually does run downtown.

About the lights. I have to admit. That's stupid. Just another bus IMO. So it affects traffic. Boohoo. Hope that helps you out the car sometimes. I say let metro continue to control the lights. Trains do not take long to cross anyway. They can wait a minute.

Charlotte's goes to Downtown (they call it Uptown). Charlotte has overpasses and things over major roads though. Ridership has not been what was expected, but the line isn't doing bad. Charlotte is also getting BRT for every other line.

[Jax]

its average rate of speed is currently only 19mph under optimal conditions

That includes stops right? What do you think the average rate of speed of your car is when you factor in all of the time you're stopped or stuck in traffic? I don't think it would be very different.

most of its ridership was previously already using transit in one form or another

Can you prove that? I've heard the exact opposite, that a majority of the ridership was people who had never used public transit before, but I can't prove that either.

capacity limitations make it probable that some amount of reconstruction will be necessary within the forseeable future

It's amazing how crowded the trains are getting. Since I moved to Houston 2 years ago I've noticed a significant increase in the number of people on the trains. I'm not sure reconstruction of the lines is going to do anything when the length of the blocks is the limiting factor to the train size. Maybe we can talk about higher capacity train cars, or double decker cars like in Toronto has!

P.S. I'm REALLY glad The Niche isn't in charge of anything to do with public transportation or downtown development.

Edited May 23, 2008 by Jax

[GovernorAggie]

The fact that the rail will be on the street with cars, and hav to stop a lights.

And RedScare, the Charlotte rail unlike the Houston rail, does not fully run on the street. Charlotte's rail works more like heavy rail in other cities.

You people that do not see a problem with Houston's rail, tell me how is a rail that stops at traffic lights any more affective than a bus?

I guess I can chime in on this one so let me give it a shot.

1. Charlotte's LRT is where it is and operates the way it does because they were able to buy ROW from Norfolk Southern freight rail company. You will almost never see UP give up space in Houston. Also, the City of Charlotte purchased the ROW, not CATS (Charlotte Area Transit System, the 10-year old transit agency there). You will almost never see COH buy railroad ROW for METRO or anything else other than a street or a bike.

2. Charlotte's LRT has at least three park and ride lots on its line, including a large garage at the end of the line. It is correct that there are overpasses at several large streets. In downtown (Uptown) it has its own ROW just like it does the bulk of the line.

3. CATS only paid about 25% of the project. North Carolina DOT paid the other 25%. This was their 50% local share for FTA funds.

4. The Lynx Blue Line (originally called the South Corridor) is basically parallel to I-77, which is North Carolina's worst, busiest, and most congested freeway. The road is not scheduled for any widening until at least 2030 (when I last checked), and probably carries over 200,000 cars a day in only 6 main lanes (three in each direction) in the peak hour.

5. The atmosphere is just different there for some reason. It's a heavily bank-centered town (Bank of America and Wachovia headquarters), so you would think they'd be as "market-oriented" as Houston, but Charlotte had loads of development along the South Corridor even back when it was just a concept. The South End became an "in" place to be before the line was even started and a lot of other development has occured in advance of and along with the LRT construction. This includes the new NBA arena, a new Children's museum, a wide variety of stores and restaurants, a 50+ story condo tower, bowling alley, movie theater (IIRC), a Westing Hotel and many others. The Charlotte Convention Center was built with the intention of having the LRT pass through the building itself, which is does through a glass tube.

Overall, Charlotte is just a different animal than Houston. Yes its smaller, but the average wealth per person in that town is probably higher, and the mindset is different, despite it being a Sun Belt city. It's downtown is about the same size, but has over 10,000 people, while only about 65,000 work there. Did I mention that this has all been under a Republican 5-term mayor who is now running for governor? They've done other things like outlaw cul-de-sacs (for traffic management reasons) and invested heavily in street, ped, and bike infrastructure around each LRT station and worked to draw more intensive development to the LRT and other others that have street, ped, and bike infrastructure to handle new large developments.

This doesn't mean that all is well there, and there was some controversy surrounding the LRT. They even had a referendum this past November after thousands petitioned to recall the 1/2 cent transit sales tax (the voters kept the tax by a wider margin than it was first approved in '98). This was in the face of many construction delays (I think the Blue line was delayed at least a year) and cost increases in the $200 million range. It also probably played a role in their transit CEO's retirement.

[tierwestah]

Is it written in stone that part of the Uptown Line segment will go into a subway? I sure hope so.

And i think running rail at street level going out towards uptown is asking for disaster. Even after it turns on to Westpark, it's still bad. Westpark gets alot of traffic across from Greenway Plaza. I know this has been talked about but even if subway is too expensive, why couldn't they consider it in the air ?(monorail)

[citykid09]

I guess I can chime in on this one so let me give it a shot.

1. Charlotte's LRT is where it is and operates the way it does because they were able to buy ROW from Norfolk Southern freight rail company. You will almost never see UP give up space in Houston. Also, the City of Charlotte purchased the ROW, not CATS (Charlotte Area Transit System, the 10-year old transit agency there). You will almost never see COH buy railroad ROW for METRO or anything else other than a street or a bike.

2. Charlotte's LRT has at least three park and ride lots on its line, including a large garage at the end of the line. It is correct that there are overpasses at several large streets. In downtown (Uptown) it has its own ROW just like it does the bulk of the line.

3. CATS only paid about 25% of the project. North Carolina DOT paid the other 25%. This was their 50% local share for FTA funds.

4. The Lynx Blue Line (originally called the South Corridor) is basically parallel to I-77, which is North Carolina's worst, busiest, and most congested freeway. The road is not scheduled for any widening until at least 2030 (when I last checked), and probably carries over 200,000 cars a day in only 6 main lanes (three in each direction) in the peak hour.

5. The atmosphere is just different there for some reason. It's a heavily bank-centered town (Bank of America and Wachovia headquarters), so you would think they'd be as "market-oriented" as Houston, but Charlotte had loads of development along the South Corridor even back when it was just a concept. The South End became an "in" place to be before the line was even started and a lot of other development has occured in advance of and along with the LRT construction. This includes the new NBA arena, a new Children's museum, a wide variety of stores and restaurants, a 50+ story condo tower, bowling alley, movie theater (IIRC), a Westing Hotel and many others. The Charlotte Convention Center was built with the intention of having the LRT pass through the building itself, which is does through a glass tube.

Overall, Charlotte is just a different animal than Houston. Yes its smaller, but the average wealth per person in that town is probably higher, and the mindset is different, despite it being a Sun Belt city. It's downtown is about the same size, but has over 10,000 people, while only about 65,000 work there. Did I mention that this has all been under a Republican 5-term mayor who is now running for governor? They've done other things like outlaw cul-de-sacs (for traffic management reasons) and invested heavily in street, ped, and bike infrastructure around each LRT station and worked to draw more intensive development to the LRT and other others that have street, ped, and bike infrastructure to handle new large developments.

This doesn't mean that all is well there, and there was some controversy surrounding the LRT. They even had a referendum this past November after thousands petitioned to recall the 1/2 cent transit sales tax (the voters kept the tax by a wider margin than it was first approved in '98). This was in the face of many construction delays (I think the Blue line was delayed at least a year) and cost increases in the $200 million range. It also probably played a role in their transit CEO's retirement.

Wow! Good explination!

Its funny how some cities stand up and take charge of what they want and other cities sit back and complain about what they want and do nothing about it. Houston is just not that progressive city that it once was. Its been over 4 years since the first line and they are just now talking about maybe starting this summer on new lines. If only Houston was more like Dallas, PROGRESSIVE! LOL!

[Trae]

Progressive like Dallas? Explain.

[TheNiche]

That includes stops right? What do you think the average rate of speed of your car is when you factor in all of the time you're stopped or stuck in traffic? I don't think it would be very different.

When the Red Line first opened, I'll have to admit that I was somewhat infatuated with the concept. It wore off pretty quickly when I figured out that driving cut the trip time in half, and even witnessed busses along Main Street (before they killed the parallel service) outrun it a couple of times.

And like I said before, this was under optimal conditions. Once the accident rate became a publicity nightmare, I noticed that LRT operators seemed to get pretty paranoid about crossing intersections and began slowing or stopping at some intersections. I only rode the LRT once along the complete 7.5-mile path, but in that time, I distinctly recall that it had to stop once near Dryden behind someone trying to make a left turn, again at N. MacGregor Loop for "congestion" and then again at N. MacGregor Loop for more "congestion" (this was at 7:30-ish in the evening, btw), and again at Richmond (I think...possibly Alabama) for "congestion".

Another thing: the average speed of the Red Line is 19mph, but I'd suspect that the portion south of the TMC raises that quite a bit, since there are greater distances between stops and less interactivity with traffic. I don't know what the average speed is north of the TMC Transit Center, but I'd suspect that it is just dismal--oh, but I know you don't care--your time is worthless.

Can you prove that? I've heard the exact opposite, that a majority of the ridership was people who had never used public transit before, but I can't prove that either.

There may have been some route alterations since I looked into it in depth (for instance, I know that they added Smithlands shuttles back into the mix because the Red Line has inadequate capacity), but if you plot out the regional network of bus routes, a ridiculous number of them interact with the Red Line (which is one reason why the Red Line was considered the "low-hanging fruit" of LRT). In particular, you'll notice the extent to which south and southwest Houston funnels into the TMC Transit Center, while pretty much everywhere else funnels to the Downtown Transit Center.

Some of them used to be continuous, paralleling the Red Line for a jaunt, but were broken up so as not to provide duplicative service (that's METRO's public justification, anyway). Unfortunately for riders, that adds at least one other transfer to the total trip.

Another big trip generator is Smithlands. There, the LRT took as many as it could handle off of shuttles. It adds to ridership pretty well, but it doesn't translate very well to added regional mobility.

It's amazing how crowded the trains are getting. Since I moved to Houston 2 years ago I've noticed a significant increase in the number of people on the trains. I'm not sure reconstruction of the lines is going to do anything when the length of the blocks is the limiting factor to the train size. Maybe we can talk about higher capacity train cars, or double decker cars like in Toronto has!

Or maybe we can talk about subways or elevated sections downtown and grade seperations at major intersections, which is what I've been pushing all along. Yes, they're expensive, but having them would allow METRO the option of either using longer trains, or just increasing the frequency of service without impacting vehicle congestion, all the while attaining higher speeds and reducing tranfer times for their riders...which in turn, lures more riders.

P.S. I'm REALLY glad The Niche isn't in charge of anything to do with public transportation or downtown development.

[N Judah]

Dunno...it's just suspicious that somehow everyone's somehow suddenly looking out to save time for transit riders. All while openly advocating for the complete elimination of METRO in other threads.

As I've said before, a few trillion in start-up transportation subsidies ought to quiet the naysayers. But until then, what we've got going is fine with me (and quite a few other people in this town).

Edited May 24, 2008 by N Judah

[RedScare]

Dunno...it's just suspicious that somehow everyone's somehow suddenly looking out to save time for transit riders. All while openly advocating for the complete elimination of METRO in other threads.

As I've said before, a few trillion in start-up transportation subsidies ought to quiet the naysayers. But until then, what we've got going is fine with me (and quite a few other people in this town).

Not only that, but they throw out the same arguments every time, yet not once has anyone ever backed it up with any empirical proof whatsoever. Just vague accusations.

Once you learn the mindset of the poster, you tend to adjust their post to your own standards and ignore them. For instance, Niche and musicman will always throw in a dire congestion warning. I worked on Main Street for its entire existence and never saw this congestion. I finally concluded that their definition of congestion is so strict as to be impossible to achieve in a large city. So, I ignore them. Likewise, the cries about 19 mph being so slow. This would be in comparison to the 22 or 23 mph that one can achieve if driving. I know Niche is a terribly important man, so the 4.1 minutes that he may save driving the entire length of the Red Line over riding it is probably worth thousands of dollars to him. Never mind the fact that anyone who's schedule requires saving 4.1 minutes is living a miserable existence anyway. We'll just remind Niche that because most of us do not even approach his level of importance we have little need to save the 4.1 minutes. Therefore 19 mph suits us just fine. By the way, that is roughly the same average speed as the inner portion of DART's subway, in case citykid is reading.

[dbigtex56]

Not only that, but they throw out the same arguments every time, yet not once has anyone ever backed it up with any empirical proof whatsoever. Just vague accusations.

Once you learn the mindset of the poster, you tend to adjust their post to your own standards and ignore them. For instance, Niche and musicman will always throw in a dire congestion warning. I worked on Main Street for its entire existence and never saw this congestion. I finally concluded that their definition of congestion is so strict as to be impossible to achieve in a large city. So, I ignore them. Likewise, the cries about 19 mph being so slow. This would be in comparison to the 22 or 23 mph that one can achieve if driving. I know Niche is a terribly important man, so the 4.1 minutes that he may save driving the entire length of the Red Line over riding it is probably worth thousands of dollars to him. Never mind the fact that anyone who's schedule requires saving 4.1 minutes is living a miserable existence anyway. We'll just remind Niche that because most of us do not even approach his level of importance we have little need to save the 4.1 minutes. Therefore 19 mph suits us just fine. By the way, that is roughly the same average speed as the inner portion of DART's subway, in case citykid is reading.

LOL

Literally.

[TheNiche]

Dunno...it's just suspicious that somehow everyone's somehow suddenly looking out to save time for transit riders. All while openly advocating for the complete elimination of METRO in other threads.

You've got to understand that I'm talking about infrastructure, and I'm also talking about those charged with implementing it. They are not the same thing.

[TheNiche]

Niche and musicman will always throw in a dire congestion warning. I worked on Main Street for its entire existence and never saw this congestion. I finally concluded that their definition of congestion is so strict as to be impossible to achieve in a large city. So, I ignore them. Likewise, the cries about 19 mph being so slow. This would be in comparison to the 22 or 23 mph that one can achieve if driving. I know Niche is a terribly important man, so the 4.1 minutes that he may save driving the entire length of the Red Line over riding it is probably worth thousands of dollars to him. Never mind the fact that anyone who's schedule requires saving 4.1 minutes is living a miserable existence anyway. We'll just remind Niche that because most of us do not even approach his level of importance we have little need to save the 4.1 minutes. Therefore 19 mph suits us just fine. By the way, that is roughly the same average speed as the inner portion of DART's subway, in case citykid is reading.

I can't speak for musicman, but my congestion warning is usually prefaced by saying that the Red Line experience wasn't so bad because there are parallel high-capacity one-way streets (Main/Fannin/San Jacinto) seperated by only a block or two, and in a tight grid. The problem that I forsee is when a street like Richmond has its capacity reduced and traffic is not so easily displaced.

19 mph is too slow...and that is the Red Line average, which includes the higher-speed lower-ridership segment south of the TMC. And yes, if I were commuting between where I live and downtown on a daily basis, 4.1 minutes (plus walking time, plus transfer time) would be worth thousands of dollars to me. A lifetime is so fleeting; if you don't recognize the worth of even a daily minute of your life...well that's just a pity.

LOL

Literally.

From HAIF Guidelines:

What is Discouraged:

Posting messages just to raise one's total post count. Messages that are little more than "Me, too!" Unsubstantiated claims. Trolling. Flaming. Blatant commercial or promotional postings.

[RedScare]

19 mph is too slow...and that is the Red Line average, which includes the higher-speed lower-ridership segment south of the TMC. And yes, if I were commuting between where I live and downtown on a daily basis, 4.1 minutes (plus walking time, plus transfer time) would be worth thousands of dollars to me. A lifetime is so fleeting; if you don't recognize the worth of even a daily minute of your life...well that's just a pity.

You are far too predictable, my friend. Ever since I posted that, I have been waiting for your response, knowing that you would equate that 4.1 minutes to money. It IS indeed a pity. Not that I do not recognize the value of a minute of life, but that it might be wasted in an automobile careening down a boulevard, dodging METROrail to save 4.1 minutes, when one might have merely set their alarm 10 minutes earlier, relieving the stress of driving in congested traffic at all, and possibly adding years to one's life through better health...all in the pursuit of a buck...as if that is what life is about.

But, fear not. I was in my 40s before I started to figure it out. There is plenty of time for you to amass a fortune AND to wonder why you wasted so much time doing so.

[TheNiche]

You are far too predictable, my friend. Ever since I posted that, I have been waiting for your response, knowing that you would equate that 4.1 minutes to money. It IS indeed a pity. Not that I do not recognize the value of a minute of life, but that it might be wasted in an automobile careening down a boulevard, dodging METROrail to save 4.1 minutes, when one might have merely set their alarm 10 minutes earlier, relieving the stress of driving in congested traffic at all, and possibly adding years to one's life through better health...all in the pursuit of a buck...as if that is what life is about.

But, fear not. I was in my 40s before I started to figure it out. There is plenty of time for you to amass a fortune AND to wonder why you wasted so much time doing so.

Yeah, you kind of led me into equating it for money. That was how you posed your comment.

I know Niche is a terribly important man, so the 4.1 minutes that he may save driving the entire length of the Red Line over riding it is probably worth thousands of dollars to him.

Were you expecting me to disavow the notion that my free time might have some equivalent monetary value? People will pay a lot of money for convenience; I am by no means unique.

I would turn the tables on you...but I'm really just not that interesting in making this a personal off-topic kind of thread. My time is more valuable than that, too.

[RedScare]

Actually, it needn't be personal or off-topic. The real point here is that the attacks on mass transit invariably revolve around a minute or two of inconvenience to auto travellers, as if only their time is important, not the 45,000 daily commuters on the train. I reject that elevation in the automobile driver's status in the transportation heirarchy, especially when one considers that the single occupant automobile contributes more to congestion and cost of transportation than any other mode of transit. While we should strive to improve all forms of transit, the notion that mass transit should be of secondary importance to sole occupant transit is entirely backward.

Another flaw I see in the argument that the rail increases congestion is the intentional ignorance of the 1,400 busses that have been removed from Main Street with the startup of rail service. I find it hard to believe that a single 90 foot rail vehicle causes more congestion than several dozen 45 foot vehicles starting and stopping on the very same street. This is never addressed in the congestion arguments, perhaps because you were not around when we had to deal with them, but it is nonetheless an important part of the equation.

[N Judah]

You've got to understand that I'm talking about infrastructure, and I'm also talking about those charged with implementing it. They are not the same thing.

You're talking about completely eliminating those charged with implementing it. How this will help bus riders is unclear. The phrase "designed to fail" comes to mind, especially in the context of the absolute and utter disingenuity of anti-transit advocates, particularly on this forum.

Edited May 25, 2008 by N Judah

[editor]

This thread is getting off topic. Start a new thread if you want to debate the pros and cons of mass transit. This thread is about construction schedules and progress.