Stop the Rail Plans!

[lockmat]

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.

Uncle Ricco, I think you've mistakenly missed something. It's not cost alone. BRT, as far as I know, does the same exact thing as LRT but at a cheaper price, but without the glitz. If we kept the same exact plan but just changed them to BRT, we'd save a ton of money and accomplish the same exact goal, as long as people don't need the coolness of LRT. But hey, maybe that's the deal breaker? If it is, maybe LRT is necessary. But I think if congestion gets bad enough, people will forget their pride and ride.

[ricco67]

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

yes, he said BRT, but didn't say much else. I can say "bananas" but that doesn't explain how I plan on eating them.

[cnote]

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.

Woah, woah, woah, not what I was implying at all...we just don't complain much about new freeways because we know we all will use them....

and i don't know if its under/over or at the original estimated cost off the top of my head.

I think it is anticipated to finish both early and under-budget...

[lockmat]

Woah, woah, woah, not what I was implying at all...we just don't complain much about new freeways because we know we all will use them....

oh

I can say "bananas" but that doesn't explain how I plan on eating them.

lol, nice

[cnote]

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.

Park and rides are fine...I use one everyday...the thing that bothers me about it are the other cars wrecking in the HOV lane and when wrecks on the freeway cause my bus driver to slow down...eliminate those two and we have no problems...

[ricco67]

Park and rides are fine...I use one everyday...the thing that bothers me about it are the other cars wrecking in the HOV lane and when wrecks on the freeway cause my bus driver to slow down...eliminate those two and we have no problems...

But it is SOOOOO much cheaper and we have it. The wrecks are ONLY a minor inconvenience that happens occasionally. We don't need no commuter rail, it would cost too much to build.

[King Owl]

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.

There's two things going on here:

1) I think we'd all agree that the park and rides are wildly successful. So yes, I would prefer them to a heavy rail, but I was pointing out that heavy rail would actually relieve congestion on the freeways if it went to the burbs.

2) BRT is a cheaper solution than light rail and goes to the same places that a rail could do. If Metro is insisting on serving the routes that they've designated for light rail, then BRT would be a MUCH more cost effective way to do so.

I'm not sure if you're just playing Devil's advocate or if you simply like to argue for the sake of arguing

[ricco67]

There's two things going on here:

1) I think we'd all agree that the park and rides are wildly successful. So yes, I would prefer them to a heavy rail, but I was pointing out that heavy rail would actually relieve congestion on the freeways if it went to the burbs.

You still haven't stated on how it would relieve congestion. Not everyone works in downtown. yes, P&R is very successful, so why bother with it?

2) BRT is a cheaper solution than light rail and goes to the same places that a rail could do. If Metro is insisting on serving the routes that they've designated for light rail, then BRT would be a MUCH more cost effective way to do so.

I'm not sure if you're just playing Devil's advocate or if you simply like to argue for the sake of arguing

BRT is a cheaper solution, I agree. but WHY is it more cost effective? If we're going to be on BRT, why bother with buses? Why not simply stay with our current system or the new "signature" bus lines that are just ramping up? It's even cheaper than BRT.

Ask around, I don't type just to read my own words in type or increase my post count. You have a position and you need to defend it. There have been plenty of people that have a tendency of "METRORail is useless" or whatever they are against, but few actually talk about an effective alternative. That leads me to think that they have no real thoughts into their arguments except "I'm against that.".

[cnote]

But it is SOOOOO much cheaper and we have it. The wrecks are ONLY a minor inconvenience that happens occasionally. We don't need no commuter rail, it would cost too much to build.

If you could get out of defense mode you could read my post and see that I agree...but the P&R could still be improved upon, so spend the money there if you have to, not building new commuter rail...acutally, I would take either one, just do something!!!

The problems I hear from a lot of people riding the new P&R lines on 290 and 10 are that the HOV lanes don't go all the way to the new P&R locations, so people still have to sit in traffic on the busses.

[Pumapayam]

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

Big Oil?

Bananas cost me 39 cents/pound a month ago, now it's 48 cents/pound!

[King Owl]

You still haven't stated on how it would relieve congestion. Not everyone works in downtown. yes, P&R is very successful, so why bother with it?

BRT is a cheaper solution, I agree. but WHY is it more cost effective? If we're going to be on BRT, why bother with buses? Why not simply stay with our current system or the new "signature" bus lines that are just ramping up? It's even cheaper than BRT.

Ask around, I don't type just to read my own words in type or increase my post count. You have a position and you need to defend it. There have been plenty of people that have a tendency of "METRORail is useless" or whatever they are against, but few actually talk about an effective alternative. That leads me to think that they have no real thoughts into their arguments except "I'm against that.".

ok, let me try this again for you.

my point is that light rail, with its new higher costs, is a complete waste of money. It's simply too expensive, and as stated in the original post's article, the cost would amount to giving each passenger a new Lexus. I have a problem with that cost. If Metro insists on serving the lines that it had previously planned on serving, then BRT would be a cheaper way to do it. Cheaper meaning more cost effective than light rail. Continuing with metro's current bus service would be another option, but perhaps it could be sped up with BRT or some kind of signature service that you talked about.

I don't think MetroRail is useless, just quite expensive, especially these new lines that are forecasted to get much lower ridership numbers than the original 7 mile stretch. I'm a frequent Metro bus rider, and feel that many folks need to open their eyes and understand that their does exist public transportation in Houston - the bus.

[RedScare]

I think it is anticipated to finish both early and under-budget...

Under which budget....the original $1.3 Billion one, or the subsequent $2.8 Billion one?

The question is well founded. When the Katy more than doubled in price, people barely batted an eye. When rail costs rise, people scream bloody murder (and make new threads, because it is "such a big deal"). Now, I am not saying we should not look at METRO's numbers closely, because we should. But, why is no one complaiming about $2.8 Billion for repaving 23 miles of highway....ESPECIALLY considering that the new Katy only has a 30,000 vehicle higher capacity than the old Katy?

[musicman]

The system we currently have, to be honest, won't relieve congestion until its built out

LOL....with these more accurate numbers do you think it will be?

the LAST expansion of I-10 was about 15 years ago

according to texas freeways....It is one of Houston's few remaining freeways in its as-constructed 1960's configuration.

[ricco67]

ok, let me try this again for you.

my point is that light rail, with its new higher costs, is a complete waste of money. It's simply too expensive, and as stated in the original post's article, the cost would amount to giving each passenger a new Lexus. I have a problem with that cost. If Metro insists on serving the lines that it had previously planned on serving, then BRT would be a cheaper way to do it. Cheaper meaning more cost effective than light rail. Continuing with metro's current bus service would be another option, but perhaps it could be sped up with BRT or some kind of signature service that you talked about.

I don't think MetroRail is useless, just quite expensive, especially these new lines that are forecasted to get much lower ridership numbers than the original 7 mile stretch. I'm a frequent Metro bus rider, and feel that many folks need to open their eyes and understand that their does exist public transportation in Houston - the bus.

Okay, considering this is an item that will be around for 20 years, what would you expect to be a reasonable cost? No one ever said infastructure is cheap. If we were to stop building items just because of the cost, there would be a number of things that simply wouldn't get built:

IAH (why do we need a new airport again?)

Ship channel (Widened and Dredged numerous times)

I-45(Gulf freeway) Do we really need to get the beach THAT badly?

610: who wants to go AROUND the city and why?

Hardy Toll road: Paying back the road 50 cents (when built) at a time.

You don't think Chicago's "EL" or New York's transit system was expensive when it was done initially? C'mon now.

So what you are proposing is that nothing new gets built that we should all just rely on our current fleet of buses. I see. Good suggestion.

[King Owl]

Under which budget....the original $1.3 Billion one, or the subsequent $2.8 Billion one?

The question is well founded. When the Katy more than doubled in price, people barely batted an eye. When rail costs rise, people scream bloody murder (and make new threads, because it is "such a big deal"). Now, I am not saying we should not look at METRO's numbers closely, because we should. But, why is no one complaiming about $2.8 Billion for repaving 23 miles of highway....ESPECIALLY considering that the new Katy only has a 30,000 vehicle higher capacity than the old Katy?

The Katy freeway will have a vehicle count of around 250,000 per day, many of those with multiple passengers in the car, meaning that much more than 250,000 people will use it on a daily basis. All the light rails lines might average what, 70-80k(?) people per day, given rosy estimates....and would cost ~50% of the cost of the Katy freeway? No thanks. This doesn't even take into account the goods and freight moved along the Katy Freeway.

I'm all for cost containment, but the Katy Freeway looks to be the better deal here.

[roadrunner]

It isn't going to get any cheaper. The city put itself in this situation.

[King Owl]

Okay, considering this is an item that will be around for 20 years, what would you expect to be a reasonable cost? No one ever said infastructure is cheap. If we were to stop building items just because of the cost, there would be a number of things that simply wouldn't get built:

IAH (why do we need a new airport again?)

Ship channel (Widened and Dredged numerous times)

I-45(Gulf freeway) Do we really need to get the beach THAT badly?

610: who wants to go AROUND the city and why?

Hardy Toll road: Paying back the road 50 cents (when built) at a time.

You don't think Chicago's "EL" or New York's transit system was expensive when it was done initially? C'mon now.

So what you are proposing is that nothing new gets built that we should all just rely on our current fleet of buses. I see. Good suggestion.

babble babble babble. Can you please defend the cost of the new light rail, and lay out why you think it is a cost-effective solution? Please quit bringing up exogenous examples that don't relate to the rail cost. Thanks. Please lay out how you think spending Metro's money on light rail accomplishes Metro's mission. Thanks.

[cnote]

Under which budget....the original $1.3 Billion one, or the subsequent $2.8 Billion one?

The question is well founded. When the Katy more than doubled in price, people barely batted an eye. When rail costs rise, people scream bloody murder (and make new threads, because it is "such a big deal"). Now, I am not saying we should not look at METRO's numbers closely, because we should. But, why is no one complaiming about $2.8 Billion for repaving 23 miles of highway....ESPECIALLY considering that the new Katy only has a 30,000 vehicle higher capacity than the old Katy?

I think we both know the answer is the $2.8 billion...

As we stated previously...people don't complain because they see the freeway is backed up at all hours of the day and so many people use it in their cars...not as many people see themselves using the rail.

We could also raise the issue that expanding freeways doesn't relieve congestion either...

[roadrunner]

The Katy freeway will have a vehicle count of around 250,000 per day, many of those with multiple passengers in the car, meaning that much more than 250,000 people will use it on a daily basis. All the light rails lines might average what, 70-80k(?) people per day, given rosy estimates....and would cost ~50% of the cost of the Katy freeway? No thanks. This doesn't even take into account the goods and freight moved along the Katy Freeway.

I'm all for cost containment, but the Katy Freeway looks to be the better deal here.

This is debatable, but I do think that having an inner city rail network will attract more businesses and residents to the core of the city. It will also attract more events (Super Bowl, Final Fours, Olympics...long shot but still), and likely make the city more accessible for tourists.

Overall, it helps the image. That's a part of this argument, too.

[GovernorAggie]

Under which budget....the original $1.3 Billion one, or the subsequent $2.8 Billion one?

The question is well founded. When the Katy more than doubled in price, people barely batted an eye. When rail costs rise, people scream bloody murder (and make new threads, because it is "such a big deal"). Now, I am not saying we should not look at METRO's numbers closely, because we should. But, why is no one complaiming about $2.8 Billion for repaving 23 miles of highway....ESPECIALLY considering that the new Katy only has a 30,000 vehicle higher capacity than the old Katy?

I'm in total agreement with you!

I don't understand why people have this double standard. Using your math, The Katy Freeway is costing $93,000 for each new vehicle that will be able fit in it for its horizon year. What are we thinking? LRT at $48,000 a person is being a cheapskate at only allowing people a Lexus each, but the Katy Freeway almost is paying for a new Maserati for each of it's newest customers (http://autos.yahoo.com/maserati/). At least the LRT comes with the vehicles. If the Katy Freeway came pre-loaded with vehicles that we could use for a nominal $1 fee to travel the entire 23 miles if we want to, then we have a different story.

My guess is that some of our better reseachers can identify how much the original heavy rail plan (that included a downtown subway) costed, and then how much that system would have costed in the year that it opened if construction started today--especially given how all 5,500,000 transit experts in Houston keep calling for this mode.

Bottom line, according to my math, for $2.8 billion the Katy Freeway is going to carry 30,000 extra vehicles (based on Red's number) that you and I have to pay for out of our own pockets. $93,000 per each new vehicle. Nearly $122 million a mile in one corridor.

[editor]

This is debatable, but I do think that having an inner city rail network will attract more businesses and residents to the core of the city. It will also attract more events (Super Bowl, Final Fours, Olympics...long shot but still), and likely make the city more accessible for tourists.

Overall, it helps the image. That's a part of this argument, too.

There are few people who will argue that Houston is tourist-friendly. But some people don't want Houston to be a tourist city. They'd rather the economy didn't diversify in that direction. They also tend to be the louder people in the arguments and feel that their vision of the city is the one that should prevail, even if Houston lags behind much of the third word in transit. They just don't care.

Geez. You start your comment with "babble babble babble" and have me hitting the Dictionary app a few sentences later. Talk about linguistic whiplash.

[CDeb]

Bottom line, according to my math, for $2.8 billion the Katy Freeway is going to carry 30,000 extra vehicles (based on Red's number) that you and I have to pay for out of our own pockets. $93,000 per each new vehicle. Nearly $122 million a mile in one corridor.

This is being disingenuous. The Katy Freeway project is not merely a widening, but a reconstruction. Much of the pavement on the old freeway was nearing the end of its useful life and needed replacement. So the project is not just adding capacity, but extending the life of the freeway as well.

It would be similarly disingenuous of me to minimize the benefits of replacing worn out LRVs and track on the Red Line by only counting new passengers as beneficiaries.

Also, considering the added carpool and transit capacity that the Katy Tollway will add, you cannot ignore the increased people-carrying capacity of the freeway, not just vehicle carrying capacity.

The reason for the double standard has been stated here before: people will complain about the cost of something that they believe has no benefit to them. And this thread isn't the first to bash the Katy Freeway on cost, so I don't think there is as much of a double standard as some of you suggest.

Edit: because I can't spell

[musicman]

We could also raise the issue that expanding freeways doesn't relieve congestion either...

why doesn't it?

[ricco67]

The Katy freeway will have a vehicle count of around 250,000 per day, many of those with multiple passengers in the car, meaning that much more than 250,000 people will use it on a daily basis. All the light rails lines might average what, 70-80k(?) people per day, given rosy estimates....and would cost ~50% of the cost of the Katy freeway? No thanks. This doesn't even take into account the goods and freight moved along the Katy Freeway.

I'm all for cost containment, but the Katy Freeway looks to be the better deal here.

I'm not going to argue the rail passenger numbers since I don't know what the true estimates are, maybe someone. But just remember that those that would take commuter rail is one less car on the freeway AND the city street.

Youre statement that is highlighted actually made me laugh. I've seen the average commuter that doesn't take the HOV and FEW vehicles are more than 2 people, and I would figure the majority are cars with only a single passenger.

Here is a study to back it up:

Here under "auto vehicle occupancy"

[GovernorAggie]

This is being disingenuous. The Katy Freeway project is not merely a widening, but a reconstruction. Much of the pavement on the old freeway was nearing the end of its useful life and needed replacement. So the project is not just adding capacity, but extending the life of the freeway as well.

It would be similarly disingenuous of me to minimize the benefits of replacing worn out LRVs and track on the Red Line by only counting new passengers as beneficiaries.

Also, considering the added carpool and transit capacity that the Katy Tollway will add, you cannot ignore the increased people-carrying capacity of the freeway, not just vehicle carrying capacity.

The reason for the double standard has been stated here before: people will complain about the cost of something that they believe has no benefit to them. And this thread isn't the first to bash the Katy Freeway on cost, so I don't think there is as much of a double standard as some of you suggest.

Edit: because I can't spell

If it's disingenuous, then it's just as disingenuous as the "buy everyone a Lexus" red herring that people like throwing around. That was my point. Public works projects are not going to get any cheaper in the U.S. We should just face this and figure out how to pay for them accordingly. I'm fully aware that we need regional and more complete solutions--that's why I don't argue against a reconstruction of 45 north or south especially to improve geometries and safe driving conditions, for example. I think its messed up for inner city folks who have seen the freeways longer have to see them in what may be 1960s condition with peeling paint, dirty water stains, and the like.

Also, I would like to think that putting LRT on these streets could involve reconstruction of streets that are not in good shape and frankly seem to have been ignored over the years (Scott, Alabama, Fulton, North Main, and especially Harrisburg for example). So there could be some other benefit beside just putting in tracks.

[RedScare]

This is being disingenuous. The Katy Freeway project is not merely a widening, but a reconstruction. Much of the pavement on the old freeway was nearing the end of its useful life and needed replacement. So the project is not just adding capacity, but extending the life of the freeway as well.

It would be similarly disingenuous of me to minimize the benefits of replacing worn out LRVs and track on the Red Line by only counting new passengers as beneficiaries.

Also, considering the added carpool and transit capacity that the Katy Tollway will add, you cannot ignore the increased people-carrying capacity of the freeway, not just vehicle carrying capacity.

The reason for the double standard has been stated here before: people will complain about the cost of something that they believe has no benefit to them. And this thread isn't the first to bash the Katy Freeway on cost, so I don't think there is as much of a double standard as some of you suggest.

Edit: because I can't spell

Who's being disingenuous? The LRT lines are NEW capacity. The 30,000 vehicles are new capacity. I am not ignoring increased capacity on the Katy, but you seem to be ignoring the tens of thousands in new rail transit capacity. And, the Katy did not need full replacement, complete with expansion to 440 feet of concrete. Replacement of bad concrete and an asphalt overlay would do. No, the movers and shakers wanted a shiny new replacement, with cute Texas outlines on the bridges, and new landscaping. That's fine, but some of us want a shiny new train instead of a bus, also.

These are not as disparate as you want to make it sound.

[King Owl]

Who's being disingenuous? The LRT lines are NEW capacity. The 30,000 vehicles are new capacity. I am not ignoring increased capacity on the Katy, but you seem to be ignoring the tens of thousands in new rail transit capacity. And, the Katy did not need full replacement, complete with expansion to 440 feet of concrete. Replacement of bad concrete and an asphalt overlay would do. No, the movers and shakers wanted a shiny new replacement, with cute Texas outlines on the bridges, and new landscaping. That's fine, but some of us want a shiny new train instead of a bus, also.

These are not as disparate as you want to make it sound.

It's not new capacity if buses are taken off the same routes, as was the case with the Main street line. How can you distinguish which riders are new versus those who used to take the bus? Honest question, I'm not trying to nitpick here.

[RedScare]

It's not new capacity if buses are taken off the same routes, as was the case with the Main street line. How can you distinguish which riders are new versus those who used to take the bus? Honest question, I'm not trying to nitpick here.

Back then, admittedly not very accurately. With the new Q Cards being put into service, transit usage should be able to be tracked and analyzed much more effectively.

[T 2 THA C]

I do not see all the hype I mean I do not have statistics but I'm sure if you look at other cities LRTs you'll probably see that it cost more than when it was initially estimated. IMO we need more options other than busses and cars. I do not see why we cant have P&R, Car, Commuter, LRT. Its true not everyone works DT, and thats exactly why we need options, because what might work for you might not work for me.

[musicman]

I do not see all the hype I mean I do not have statistics but I'm sure if you look at other cities LRTs you'll probably see that it cost more than when it was initially estimated.

so that makes it ok?