Stop the Rail Plans!

[ricco67]

I am not talking for me.

My commute is exactly 15 minutes or less. I live very close to work and thankfully avoid the freeways on my daily 'commute'. But I am not typical and not everyone lives 5 miles to their jobs on back roads and less traveled thoroughfares.

ah so you don't have a problem with traffic?

Yep. that's what he said.

[musicman]

Yep. that's what he said.

earlier he said

I never thought I'd see bad traffic north of Greenspoint, but the stretch between West Road to Spring is a parking lot in the afternoons.

which is contradictory IMO.

[ricco67]

Not if you put it in the context he was referring to (i.e. He only has a 15 minute commute).

Therefore, traffic isn't a problem for HIM.

[westguy]

I see...well soon the new Katy will be gridlocked as well...they are already building planned communities in Fulshear, next stop Sealy!!!

And all those builders advertising their communities "adjacent to the WPT" are selling people houses to a small road that's overcapacity. They're going to drive a lot further to get on the Katy Freeway, but they will come.

[cnote]

LOL obtaining it is the problem.

To obtain land to build a freeway do they not employ eminent domain?

Whether or not I agree with it, they obtain land to widen freeways, they can do it to build some rail...

[ricco67]

They would have easily been able to do that, but with Tom Delay's (spits) actions, we must put up a vote for EVERY new phase of construction and you can bet this will be heavily contested if it was put up for a vote. Yes, you can take the land, but what use would it be if you can't build rail on it?

[cnote]

if i know i'm leaving at a peak time, i do my grocery shopping and other errands prior to getting on the freeway so that i don't have to get in traffic. there are many things each of us can do to assuage the commute even if our employers don't allow a variation in schedule.

yeah, and I use the park and ride...

[musicman]

Not if you put it in the context he was referring to (i.e. He only has a 15 minute commute).

his initial statement was I never thought I'd see bad traffic north of Greenspoint, but the stretch between West Road to Spring is a parking lot in the afternoons. from that context i can't tell he doesn't use the freeway nor that he has a 15 min commute. i guess don't have my psychic skills honed as much as your advisor ms cleo does

[ricco67]

I never thought I'd see bad traffic north of Greenspoint, but the stretch between West Road to Spring is a parking lot in the afternoons. Freeways are not the answer to our long term transportation issues.

I am not talking for me.

My commute is exactly 15 minutes or less. I live very close to work and thankfully avoid the freeways on my daily 'commute'. But I am not typical and not everyone lives 5 miles to their jobs on back roads and less traveled thoroughfares.

his initial statement was I never thought I'd see bad traffic north of Greenspoint, but the stretch between West Road to Spring is a parking lot in the afternoons. from that context i can't tell he doesn't use the freeway nor that he has a 15 min commute. i guess don't have my psychic skills honed as much as your advisor ms cleo does

I don't need Ms. Cleo (Jailed?) to tell me that his initial post of which you're referring to was #77 that was an hour after the one you responded to #88 a couple of hours later. Perhaps reading a single post and responding to that PARTICULAR post as opposed to simply replying without giving proper context will enable people to actually understand what you're talking about.

Edit: forgot how to count hours.

[musicman]

To obtain land to build a freeway do they not employ eminent domain?

Whether or not I agree with it, they obtain land to widen freeways, they can do it to build some rail...

building some rail is different than a long swath across town which would affect more people and hence more opposition. using eminent domain shouldn't be done unless it can be proven to benefit the city as whole.

[cnote]

building some rail is different than a long swath across town which would affect more people and hence more opposition. using eminent domain shouldn't be done unless it can be proven to benefit the city as whole.

Is that your caveat on eminent domain??? Because I believe it can be employed as long as it helps a far greater number of people than it hurts...If the city seized tracts of land to build a network of rail transit, how would it not benefit the city as a whole?

[musicman]

I don't need Ms. Cleo (Jailed?) to tell me that his initial post of which you're referring to was #77 that was an hour after the one you responded to #88 a couple of hours later. Perhaps reading a single post and responding to that PARTICULAR post as opposed to simply replying without giving proper context will enable people to actually understand what you're talking about.

Edit: forgot how to count hours.

yep. thanks for confirming my point.

[ricco67]

yep. thanks for confirming my point.

but you were QUOTING post #88. If you are to respond to a post, reply appropriately. It's not that difficult.

[musicman]

Because I believe it can be employed as long as it helps a far greater number of people than it hurts...If the city seized tracts of land to build a network of rail transit, how would it not benefit the city as a whole?

what is more cost efficient for METRO? 1) try to follow existing roads/corridors to minimize disturbances and land acquisition costs or 2) acquire a 25 mile strip of land from katy to downtown via eminent domain? costs would be astronomical particularly when compared to overall benefit.

but you were QUOTING post #88.

i think your finger slipped off the 77

[cnote]

what is more cost efficient for METRO? 1) try to follow existing roads/corridors to minimize disturbances and land acquisition costs or 2) acquire a 25 mile strip of land from katy to downtown via eminent domain? costs would be astronomical particularly when compared to overall benefit.

When did I say not to follow existing roads/corridors? I don't care if you put the thing down the middle of the katy or next to it, take a chunck out of some businesses parking lots...take a lane off the feeder...

[ricco67]

what is more cost efficient for METRO? 1) try to follow existing roads/corridors to minimize disturbances and land acquisition costs or 2) acquire a 25 mile strip of land from katy to downtown via eminent domain? costs would be astronomical particularly when compared to overall benefit.

i think your finger slipped off the 77

Okay, I'll try to write this as slowly as I can so you can understand.

In Post #90, you responded to Post #88 (in which you quoted), when in actuallity you should have hit the reply button on #77. Because you were (from what I can see) were responing to #88, in which he stated that it wasn't about him, because his commute was only 15 minutes long. You seem to questioned if he didn't have an issue about the traffic in #88, not #77.

In other words, hit the reply button where appropriate and don't expect everyone to know what happens in a vacuum.

[cnote]

what is more cost efficient for METRO? 1) try to follow existing roads/corridors to minimize disturbances and land acquisition costs or 2) acquire a 25 mile strip of land from katy to downtown via eminent domain? costs would be astronomical particularly when compared to overall benefit.

i think your finger slipped off the 77

Also, regarding costs...I have already stated the cheapest thing for metro to do is to improve the park and ride system to the suburbs...

[houstonmacbro]

ah so you don't have a problem with traffic?

We are all affected by traffic whether or not we use the freeways to and from work. If I need to get 3 miles up the street to Spring at 4:30 p.m., I need to sit in bumper to bumper traffic or take the feeders and the lights.

[musicman]

Also, regarding costs...I have already stated the cheapest thing for metro to do is to improve the park and ride system to the suburbs...

concur and the new controlled lanes will ensure the traffic is moving.

[musicman]

We are all affected by traffic whether or not we use the freeways to and from work.

If I need to get 3 miles up the street to Spring at 4:30 p.m., I need to sit in bumper to bumper traffic or take the feeders and the lights.

agree but how is building a system that doesn't go up to spring resolve your situation?

[GovernorAggie]

I think it's more about alternatives than solutions at this point. Not everyone wants to drive everywhere, especially in traffic. Giving people an alternative to driving everywhere will make Houston a more desirable place to live in the long run.

For some reason, this response hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. We're fooling ourselves and wasting our time trying to find a "solution" to Houston's congestion. Face this--it's not going to be fixed as long as Houston keeps growing. The only cities with improving traffic congestion are those with shrinking economies. In fact, I think it was Niche who stated something like traffic congestion is an indicator of growth.

Implementing Alternatives is the only real way to address Houston's traffic woes--and these have to be wholesale improvements that are likely expensive instead of stop-gap measures that will nickel-and-dime the region to a final bill that would be higher than if a correct approach were selected in the first place. Rail is the most efficient alternative to move the most people (yes, better than BRT). 180 people can fit into a 100' long LRV vs. 60 people in a 60' BRT.

[musicman]

Okay, I'll try to write this as slowly as I can so you can understand.

In Post #90, you responded to Post #88 (in which you quoted), when in actuallity you should have hit the reply button on #77. Because you were (from what I can see) were responing to #88, in which he stated that it wasn't about him, because his commute was only 15 minutes long. You seem to questioned if he didn't have an issue about the traffic in #88, not #77.

In other words, hit the reply button where appropriate and don't expect everyone to know what happens in a vacuum.

Okay, I'll try to write this as slowly as I can so you can understand. Go back and check out post #86 where post #77 is quoted.

[musicman]

Rail is the most efficient alternative to move the most people (yes, better than BRT). 180 people can fit into a 100' long LRV vs. 60 people in a 60' BRT.

it can be an efficient alternative but when it must interact with vehicular/pedestrian traffic, efficiency is lost.

[Trae]

with multiple employment centers in houston, how cost effective will this be for everyone in the burbs? METRO's updated data offered an estimate of 133 million per mile for their light rail system.

It would be beneficial if there were stops at major employment centers, or connection to them (say a stop at I-10@610, but have the light rail carry riders into Uptown).

agree but how is building a system that doesn't go up to spring resolve your situation?

Yet...

People like you don't see into the future. It takes time and Spring will have its chance for light rail/commuter rail (one of the two). Just admit that you do not like rail and do not want Houston to have any. This is evident by your posts.

[GovernorAggie]

it can be an efficient alternative but when it must interact with vehicular/pedestrian traffic, efficiency is lost.

I would say that some efficiency is lost, but not all. At the extremes, 180 people in 1 vehicle moving the same speed (or maybe even somewhat slower) in the same amount of space as 12-15 vehicles filled with 6 people each still provides at least some benefit.

That being said, I still say that Houstonians have to take a good look at accepting all aspects of our growth and accomodate it in a more drastic fashion. If we can get a $2 billion heavy rail line to be cost-effective by FTA, we can't gawk at having to pay a billion dollars for an aggressive application of a travel option.

FWIW, the HOV lanes cost over $1 billion to build and carry more than 20% less than the Main Street LRT (according to a CTC presentation I saw some time ago) -- and this includes some local buses whose routes are "forced" onto the HOV system.

[infinite_jim]

If the feds can sponsor sprawl for the last 60 years, they can invest in some inner city transportation options. It would be fair and smart thing to do.

[woolie]

A fancy rail system will under the christmas tree as long as we don't end up with President McSame.

[N Judah]

That was done back in 1984 when the HOV lane was added. You can only patchwork concrete roadbeds and overlay with asphalt so much before deep rehab is needed. They also needed to raise some overpasses which were quite low and not to current TxDOT specs, the lowest at Campbell Rd. being built back in the early 50s. The full replacement was needed, six lanes and no interior shoulders just won't handle the traffic out there. Could you imagine what the Eastex Freeway would be like if it was still 4 lanes north of 610 instead of the 10-14 lanes it is now?

Probably true. However, this seems like something that should have been included in cost estimates. The surprise announcement that the I-10 corridor was 100% over budget happened (if I recall correctly) when the whole thing was more than halfway done. I wish that were the case with this LRT "revelation."

I am thinking this is a decent chance to make a case for real rail. Why not spend a few extra bil (get the feds to pay for it) and put in something longer-lasting that could be a showcase of engineering?

[musicman]

I would say that some efficiency is lost, but not all. At the extremes, 180 people in 1 vehicle moving the same speed (or maybe even somewhat slower) in the same amount of space as 12-15 vehicles filled with 6 people each still provides at least some benefit.

concur it isn't the most efficient alternative to move the most people as you stated. efficiency is more than how many people a vehicle can carry.

FWIW, the HOV lanes cost over $1 billion to build and carry more than 20% less than the Main Street LRT (according to a CTC presentation I saw some time ago) -- and this includes some local buses whose routes are "forced" onto the HOV system.

According to the dept of transportation in 2003, 212,079 passengers used the HOV lanes on a daily basis. Buses carried 43,225 passengers, vanpools accounted for 2,500 riders, carpools had 74,867 occupants, and 407 motorcycles used the lanes daily. The HOV lanes account for 40 percent of the morning peak hour total person movement on three of the freeways. The 3 or 4 times i've heard presentations from CTC, inaccuracies were presented and perpetuated.

[roadrunner]

Probably true. However, this seems like something that should have been included in cost estimates. The surprise announcement that the I-10 corridor was 100% over budget happened (if I recall correctly) when the whole thing was more than halfway done. I wish that were the case with this LRT "revelation."

I am thinking this is a decent chance to make a case for real rail. Why not spend a few extra bil (get the feds to pay for it) and put in something longer-lasting that could be a showcase of engineering?

What could possibly be "real rail" besides a subway system? I don't see that happening.