Stop the Rail Plans!

[lockmat]

This is such a big deal I figured this warranted its own thread.

Houston Strategies reports: http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2008...etro.html#links

The Federal Transit Administration, using data provided by Metro, said in its letters that the estimated cost of the North line, which would run 5.5 miles from north of downtown to Northline Mall, has risen to $677 million, from $276 million.

The Southeast Line, 6.8 miles from downtown to Palm Center, has risen to $664 million, from $158 million, the FTA said.By comparison, the 7.5-mile Main Street line cost $324 million and needs $104 million in new rail cars and improvements.

...that's a new Minute Maid Park every 2 miles.

I agree entirely with this quote:

Mobility is what matters, not mode.

I'm calling for dedicated lanes and BRT.

Edited April 1, 2008 by lockmat

[Mr. Chenevert]

We need transit... agreeing on the form is the hard part.

I for one, would still build as light rail.

[musicman]

I'm calling for dedicated lanes and BRT.

wait til you have to start paying your own bills.

[RedScare]

I'm calling for dedicated lanes and BRT.

I'm calling for citizens of outlying counties, who do not pay for our transit systems, to stop making calls for the type of transit Harris County citizens build. If your community can get federal money to put air conditioned boats in a canal and call it "transit", we can put in trains instead of busses.

[cnote]

These figures seem a little shocking, but prices for construction materials are through the roof right now...inflation will always make things more expensive that it was six years ago. Why does the red line need $104 million in new cars and improvements??? What is wrong with it?

[musicman]

I'm calling for citizens of outlying counties, who do not pay for our transit systems, to stop making calls for the type of transit Harris County citizens build. If your community can get federal money to put air conditioned boats in a canal and call it "transit", we can put in trains instead of busses.

:lol:

[cnote]

I'm calling for citizens of outlying counties, who do not pay for our transit systems, to stop making calls for the type of transit Harris County citizens build. If your community can get federal money to put air conditioned boats in a canal and call it "transit", we can put in trains instead of busses.

I still cannot believe they got federal money to build those things...I guess they really know how to grease some wheels in Washington...

[H-Town Man]

How the hell do prices triple in four years? What's going on here?

[lockmat]

I'm calling for citizens of outlying counties, who do not pay for our transit systems, to stop making calls for the type of transit Harris County citizens build. If your community can get federal money to put air conditioned boats in a canal and call it "transit", we can put in trains instead of busses.

Does where I live negate the facts? Or is comparing what the Woodlands did to what COH wants to do the meaningless argument you'd rather have?

Edited April 1, 2008 by lockmat

[KinkaidAlum]

Does where I live negate the facts? Or is comparing what the Woodlands did to what COH wants to do the argument you'd rather have?

It doesn't negate the facts but it makes your opinion about as valid as mine (I live in Boston) with regards to what is built in Houston.

[lockmat]

It doesn't negate the facts but it makes your opinion about as valid as mine (I live in Boston) with regards to what is built in Houston.

Which is what it is, an opinion, in an internet forum, not some city hall meeting. But I forgot, this is HOUSTONAIF. Sorry, I'll go bury myself in the Woodlands and Northern Pines forum. I guess if I'd move another ten miles south to 1960, then I'd be allowed to voice my opinion where rail has just as much relevance as it does in TW. But hey, I'd be living in the COH and then my opinion would be labeled as valid.

Edited April 1, 2008 by lockmat

[editor]

Which is what it is, an opinion, in an internet forum, not some city hall meeting. But I forgot, this is HOUSTONAIF. Sorry, I'll go bury myself in the Woodlands and Northern Pines forum. I guess if I'd move another ten miles south to 1960, then I'd be allowed to voice my opinion where rail has just as much relevance as it does in TW. But hey, I'd be living in the COH and then my opinion would be labeled as valid.

All opinions are valid on HAIF. Many of the visitors here are Houstonians living and working in other states and countries. Even one of our moderators is currently living in Europe. It doesn't make his opinions invalid.

Back to the topic at hand:

Since this jumped from 200+ million to 600+ million, at what point does it become cost-effective to go underground?

[jgriff]

Which is what it is, an opinion, in an internet forum, not some city hall meeting. But I forgot, this is HOUSTONAIF. Sorry, I'll go bury myself in the Woodlands and Northern Pines forum. I guess if I'd move another ten miles south to 1960, then I'd be allowed to voice my opinion where rail has just as much relevance as it does in TW. But hey, I'd be living in the COH and then my opinion would be labeled as valid.

Federal money is being used for these light rail projects, isn't it? That makes it just as much your business as anyone who lives inside the Houston city limits.

[ricco67]

How the hell do prices triple in four years? What's going on here?

Well, aside from the fact that materials (mainly metals) have gone through the roof over the past couple of years and inflation, that would basically account for a considerable chunk for it.

Everyone whines and moans about the costs of things, but rarely consider the fact if you delay it, it will simply cost more to build down the road (so to speak). If the initial costs were a major factor in building things, then a number of things in this city, as well across the country wouldn't be built to begin with.

I may be wrong, but I think its called "vision" and looking towards the future.

[RedScare]

Does where I live negate the facts? Or is comparing what the Woodlands did to what COH wants to do the meaningless argument you'd rather have?

The facts are what the facts are, and you are certainly entitled to have an opinion regarding whether the cost of building light rail instead of BRT is worth it. I was merely commenting on non-residents "calling for dedicated lanes and BRT". To put it in context, when woody hawkeye asked for opinions on the Woodlands vote to tax itself, I gave my opinion that it would be far more expensive than the proponents claimed. However, I did not "call" for a defeat of the referendum, as I am am not an affected resident.

As for the price tripling, LRT requires more construction (catenary and transformers) than BRT, and LRT vehicles are more expensive than BRT vehicles. Construction costs are jumping with the price of materials and fuel as well. Recall the thread regarding DART increases...nearly $1 Billion.

The Red Line needs $104 million for increased capacity.

[lockmat]

The facts are what the facts are, and you are certainly entitled to have an opinion regarding whether the cost of building light rail instead of BRT is worth it. I was merely commenting on non-residents "calling for dedicated lanes and BRT". To put it in context, when woody hawkeye asked for opinions on the Woodlands vote to tax itself, I gave my opinion that it would be far more expensive than the proponents claimed. However, I did not "call" for a defeat of the referendum, as I am am not an affected resident.

I understand. I just came across wrong, that's all. It was just an opinion in hyperstated expression form. Kind of like Paul Revere, kind of.

[King Owl]

Wow, at that cost, rail is completely not worth it. BRT is the answer, in my opinion. It is MUCH cheaper than rail, can go to the exact same places and might even be faster. Trains look cool, yes, but for that price, we need to find true mobility solutions rather than wasting absurd amounts of money on trains that would likely do nothing to reduce congestion. We could design a cutting edge BRT system like that of Curitiba, Brazil instead of trying to play catch-up on the train game with all the other light rail failures around the US. "Vision" is not more expensive light rail, it's designing effective mobility solutions. A bus can do that if done properly.

[ricco67]

I understand. I just came across wrong, that's all. It was just an opinion in hyperstated expression form. Kind of like Paul Revere, kind of.

"The British are coming! The British are coming! If you live in the 'burbs, you don't have to come, it's only a municipal problem!"

[desirous]

Just for reference -- and reference alone -- we spend $677 million in about 18 hours in war money. I don't see what the issue is with spending such an amount on LRT, given it's a constructive (pardon the pun) expenditure.

[King Owl]

Just for reference -- and reference alone -- we spend $677 million in about 18 hours in war money. I don't see what the issue is with spending such an amount on LRT, given it's a constructive (pardon the pun) expenditure.

Sorry, but this is the dumbest argument I have ever heard of. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[musicman]

How the hell do prices triple in four years? What's going on here?

bad estimates on the part of METRO so as not to antagonize vocal opponents

[King Owl]

bad estimates on the part of METRO so as not to antagonize vocal opponents

And then parroted back to the masses through metro's mouthpiece, the Houston Chronicle

[Jax]

Do people ever complain about the cost of highways?

[cnote]

Do people ever complain about the cost of highways?

Excellent point, those have gone up as well...concrete is becoming very expensive...

But peoples love them some cars....

Edited April 1, 2008 by cnote

[ricco67]

Wow, at that cost, rail is completely not worth it. BRT is the answer, in my opinion. It is MUCH cheaper than rail, can go to the exact same places and might even be faster. Trains look cool, yes, but for that price, we need to find true mobility solutions rather than wasting absurd amounts of money on trains that would likely do nothing to reduce congestion. We could design a cutting edge BRT system like that of Curitiba, Brazil instead of trying to play catch-up on the train game with all the other light rail failures around the US. "Vision" is not more expensive light rail, it's designing effective mobility solutions. A bus can do that if done properly.

Tell us about these "Other" light rail failures? Out of the 15 Light rail and street car systems that are out there, all with the exception of one (and I forgot which "TOWN") are planning on expanding their systems.

The system we currently have, to be honest, won't relieve congestion until its built out, and even then, congestion will increase because that is the nature of traffic (the LAST expansion of I-10 was about 15 years ago, and you already seen how it needed to be expanded again) but it will help getting into and around the cities as well as those that either don't want or can't have a car.

If you have a better idea then let us know about it.

[lockmat]

Do people ever complain about the cost of highways?

In a perfect world I'd be for LRT or better yet, a subway system. But pesonally, I'm only reacting to the numbers.

Either way, we are looking at two rail alignments whose capital costs approach 50 percent of the entire cost of the Katy Freeway refurbishment and expansion, but will probably only carry about the equivalent of two lanes of passengers and do nothing to expedite the movement of freight or goods. Transit ridership is up about 10 percent over 2007, but transit still carries only 4-5 percent of work trips and only 1-2 percent of overall trips.

- From Neal Myer

I found a series of articles on the website Light Rail Now that are about the 'myths' of how BRT is better than LRT. Of course it'll be slanted, but I'm gonna see what their argument is. Because on the surface, if BRT can do the same exact thing with the same effectivness at a cheaper price, why not do that instead?

Excellent point, those have gone up as well...concrete is becoming very expensive...

But peoples love them some cars....

The thing is, we don't live in a vacume. Cars are already here and we can't change that. It's not right to force everyone to move back into the city and use rail.

[King Owl]

Tell us about these "Other" light rail failures? Out of the 15 Light rail and street car systems that are out there, all with the exception of one (and I forgot which "TOWN") are planning on expanding their systems.

The system we currently have, to be honest, won't relieve congestion until its built out, and even then, congestion will increase because that is the nature of traffic (the LAST expansion of I-10 was about 15 years ago, and you already seen how it needed to be expanded again) but it will help getting into and around the cities as well as those that either don't want or can't have a car.

If you have a better idea then let us know about it.

The better, more cost effective solution is BRT. You're acting as if the only choices people have are trains and cars. Hello.....what about the bus? Light rail will do nothing to relieve congestion on the freeways. Nothing. Now heavy rail to the burbs would be an interesting idea

[lockmat]

If you have a better idea then let us know about it.

I thought his solution was BRT? It's LRT on wheels, without the cost.

[urban909]

Do people ever complain about the cost of highways?

good point. for example with the expansion of the Katy freeway there was some opposition in terms of not have a right of way for commuter/light rail if do believe but that seemed to get drowned out...and i don't know if its under/over or at the original estimated cost off the top of my head...for me, having a city of this size (everyday there are 438 more people on the road than the previous day) without efficient mass transit, albeit BRT and/or LRT is ridiculous and unacceptable...there can be a happy median between the two...

[ricco67]

The better, more cost effective solution is BRT. You're acting as if the only choices people have are trains and cars. Hello.....what about the bus? Light rail will do nothing to relieve congestion on the freeways. Nothing. Now heavy rail to the burbs would be an interesting idea

So for the sake of cost alone we should go to BRT. I see. That is a very effective argument, but you still haven't given a plan you would implment to help our congestion within the city.

Heavy Rail for the freeways? What's wrong with the Buses? Wouldn't THEY be cheaper? Heavy Rail would be incredibly expensive while the current P&R (buses) are doing an adequate job.

C'mon, King. Be honest, I'm not the brightest bulb in this bunch and even *I* can see that you're being rather inconsistent in your argument. Red would eat you alive.

In a perfect world I'd be for LRT or better yet, a subway system. But pesonally, I'm only reacting to the numbers.

- From Neal Myer

I found a series of articles on the website Light Rail Now that are about the 'myths' of how BRT is better than LRT. Of course it'll be slanted, but I'm gonna see what their argument is. Because on the surface, if BRT can do the same exact thing with the same effectivness at a cheaper price, why not do that instead?

I have read the same article when it came out several years ago, I agree that it IS a bit slanted, as well as the website, but you really can't argue against a number of articles they are linked to as far as references go. I have to admit that even some of THOSE articles are a bit too rabid for rail. But you're going to run into extremists on both sides of this argument.